the $835 portion of the security deposit which defendants had retained. Under General
Obligations Law § 7-108 (1-a) (g), any person who is "found to have willfully violated" the
statutory requirements pertaining to security deposits "shall be liable for punitive damages of up
to twice the amount of the deposit or advance." Willfulness is a factual determination with
credibility being one of the factors (see e.g. Matter of Jarvis v Lashley, 169 AD3d 1043,
1044 [2019]; Mortimer v Lynch, 119 AD2d 558, 559 [1986]). Credibility findings are, in
the first instance, the province of the trial court and given substantial deference (see Vizzari v
State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511
[1991]), and apply with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court
(see Williams v [*3]Roper, 269 AD2d at 126). In the
circumstances presented here, we find no reason to disturb the Justice Court's finding that
defendants' failure to return the amount of plaintiff's security deposit to which plaintiff was
entitled within 14 days after he vacated the premises was "innocent," not willful, and, thus, that
punitive damages were not warranted.
Since the Justice Court awarded plaintiff the balance of his security deposit based on
defendants' violation of General Obligations Law § 7-108 (1-a) (e) and without regard to
defendants' claim of entitlement to retain a portion thereof based on various expenses they had
allegedly incurred, plaintiff was not aggrieved by the Justice Court's finding, which constituted
dicta, to the effect that defendants had presented competent evidence of the damage plaintiff
allegedly caused to the premises (see Naula v Utokilen, LLC, 180 AD3d 1058, 1060