Sherilyn Cruz, appellant pro se. Julius A. Hiralal, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Joseph Nocella, Jr., J.), entered October 6, 2022. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,000.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the District Court for a new trial.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover for damage to an apartment that plaintiff had leased to defendant and other members of defendant's family. At a nonjury trial, defendant testified that she had moved out of the apartment in 2017 and was not responsible for the damage allegedly done to the apartment during the continued tenancy by the other members of her family, which tenancy ended in 2022. Plaintiff acknowledged that defendant had moved out but did not indicate when this had occurred. Plaintiff further stated that defendant was the primary point of contact in the family and that she was liable pursuant to the terms of the parties' lease. After trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,000 without making any findings of fact.

CPLR 4213 (b) directs that the decision of a trial court must set forth "the facts it deems essential" (see e.g. Kolchin v Bay Ridge Nissan, Inc., 72 Misc 3d 135[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50723[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2021]; Kirschner v Viala, 38 Misc 3d 131[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 52413[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2012]). This provision applies to decisions rendered after trial in the Small Claims Part of the court (see UDCA 1804, 1805 [a]; Kolchin v Bay Ridge Nissan, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 50723[U]; Kirschner [*2]v Viala, 2012 NY Slip Op 52413[U]). Here, since the District Court did not make any findings of fact or state its rationale for finding defendant liable, we cannot ascertain the basis for the court's determination. Moreover, the record is insufficient to permit informed appellate review of the issues presented (see Tropea v Bestway Contr., 66 Misc 3d 144[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50181[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]; Landis v Fusion, 22 Misc 3d 127[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50033[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]), including when defendant moved out and whether defendant gave the notice required under the lease. Under the circumstances, we do not pass upon the validity or applicability of the lease clause relied upon by plaintiff.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the District Court for a new trial.

GARGUILO, P.J., WALSH and GOLDBERG-VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.