In the summer of 2020, RM rented a house in Southampton, New York, from NP. The property came with a swimming pool—a key feature for a June rental in the Hamptons. Interestingly, the lease included a rider with a clause which provided that if the pool wasn’t “swimmable” by industry standards at the time of occupancy, the landlord would owe the tenant $500 per day until it was.
On June 1st, the first day of the rental, the pool’s heating system was reportedly malfunctioning. RM claimed the pool remained “frigid” and unusable for six days, and he sued NP in small claims court for $3,000—$500 for each of those six days.
During a hearing conducted by the Justice Court of the Town of Southampton, RM did not testify, nor did he present any witnesses or evidence about what constituted a “swimmable” temperature by industry standards. His counsel, unsworn and without direct knowledge, asserted that the heating system was repaired on June 4th and that the pool remained cold until June 6th.
The only supporting documentation came in the form of emails—one from NP and one from RM’s wife—suggesting it may have taken more than four days for the pool to warm up. However, other emails from RM and his wife contradicted this, stating the pool was unusable for only four days.
NP, representing herself, testified under oath and admitted the pool was too cold for the first three days. She said the heating system was fixed on June 3rd, and by June 4th, the water temperature had reached 80°F—above the 78°F threshold she claimed was the minimum for “swimmable” conditions.
Despite the lack of direct evidence from RM, the Justice Court awarded him the full $3,000, concluding the pool was “unswimmable” for six days.
On appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, reviewed the case under the standard of “substantial justice,” which governs small claims disputes. It found that RM had failed to meet his burden of proof, as he hadn’t testified, hadn’t defined the governing industry standard, and hadn’t rebutted NP’s sworn testimony.
The appellate court concluded that the trial court’s finding of six unswimmable days was unsupported by the record. However, given NP’s admission that the pool was too cold for three days, that was enough to warrant partial liability.
Instead of $3,000, RM was awarded $1,500 by the AT2—$500 for each of the three days the pool was admittedly unusable.
Think RM found that chilling?
# # #
DECISION