Niles v Izurieta ( 2025 NY Slip Op 50067(U) )
[*1] <table align="center"> <tbody><tr> <td align="center"><b>Niles v Izurieta</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center"> 2025 NY Slip Op 50067(U) [ 85 Misc 3d 126(A) ]</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">Decided on January 24, 2025</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">Appellate Term, First Department</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.</td></tr> </tbody></table> <br><br>
Decided on January 24, 2025 <br><div></div>SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST
DEPARTMENT
<br>PRESENT: Hagler, P.J., Brigantti, Tisch, JJ.
<br>570530/24
<br><br><div><b>Christina M. Niles, Plaintiff-Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>Luis Izurieta and Yajaira Izurieta, Defendants-Respondents.</b></div><br><br>
<p>Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Brenda Rivera, J.), entered May 4, 2023, after trial, in favor of defendants dismissing the action.</p>
<p><strong>Per Curiam.</strong></p> <p>Judgment (Brenda Rivera, J.), entered May 4, 2023, reversed, without costs, and a new trial ordered.</p> <p>The sua sponte dismissal of this small claims action on res judicata grounds did not render substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see CCA 1807). Plaintiff-tenant's property damage claim against defendants-landlords was not (and could not properly be) litigated in the prior summary proceedings between the parties (<i>see O'Brien v City of Syracuse</i>, 54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]), since plaintiff seeks damages traditionally within the scope of tort liability, which are more appropriately tried outside the limited sphere of the landlord-tenant proceeding (<i>see Ndiaye v 2123 FDB MPPH LP</i>, 63 Misc 3d 153[A] , 2019 NY Slip Op 50770[U] [App Tem, 1st Dept 2019]; <i>610 W. 142nd St. Owners Corp. v Braxton</i>, 140 Misc 2d 826 [App Term, 1st Dept 1988]).</p> <p>As a result of the sua sponte dismissal, the trial court did not reach the substantive merits of plaintiff's claim. Given that the "contentions of the parties differ very sharply" (<i>Power v Falk</i>, 15 AD2d 216, 217 [1961]) and the case presents questions of fact and credibility which, on this record, are more appropriately resolved in the first instance by the trial court, we remand for a new trial.</p> <p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p> I concur I concur I concur <br>Decision Date: January 24, 2025
<br><br><div>
</div>
Loading…