Best Tenant Lawyers in NYC | Full Deposit Judgment

The tenant entered into a written residential lease for an apartment in Manhattan and paid a security deposit of 25,000 dollars at lease inception. 

As the lease expiration approached, the tenant clearly communicated in writing that there was no intention to renew the agreement. 

The landlord acknowledged this communication and did not object to the termination.

Clear, documented notice of non renewal is critical in New York. Courts evaluate whether the tenant’s intent to vacate was unequivocal and timely under the lease terms. 

Where written notice exists and the landlord accepts the end of the tenancy, the contractual relationship concludes upon expiration, and the deposit becomes subject to prompt return.

After the tenant vacated and surrendered possession, the landlord failed to return the deposit. No timely itemized statement of deductions was provided, and no lawful justification for withholding funds was communicated. 

The tenant faced financial strain due to relocation expenses and the loss of access to substantial funds.

Under New York practice, once a tenant vacates, the landlord must either return the deposit or provide a written itemization of lawful deductions within the required statutory timeframe. 

When a landlord retains the deposit without compliance, courts may determine that the right to retain any portion has been forfeited. In such circumstances, litigation becomes an appropriate enforcement mechanism.

In this matter, the legal strategy centered on objective evidence, including the written lease, proof of deposit payment, non renewal correspondence, and evidence confirming the date of vacatur. 

Photographs and communications demonstrated that the apartment was returned in good condition, subject only to ordinary wear and tear.

New York courts distinguish between normal wear and damage beyond ordinary use. 

Landlords bear the burden of substantiating deductions with credible documentation. 

Absent proper documentation and timely notice, the court may reject asserted offsets. 

A structured evidentiary presentation significantly strengthens the tenant’s claim for full recovery.

In addition to seeking return of the principal deposit, the claim included statutory interest where applicable and any additional relief permitted by law. 

When a landlord wrongfully withholds a deposit in violation of statutory duties, courts may award the full amount together with interest.

The litigation also addressed the landlord’s fiduciary style obligations regarding the handling of tenant funds. 

Security deposits must be maintained separately and not commingled with personal assets. 

Failure to comply may further support the tenant’s position and increase the likelihood of a favorable judgment.

The court concluded that the tenant had properly terminated the lease and surrendered possession. 

It further found that the landlord did not provide a timely or legally sufficient itemized deduction statement. As a result, the landlord was ordered to return the entire deposit.

New York courts consistently reinforce that security deposits are not discretionary funds. 

They are held for limited, lawful purposes, and strict compliance with post tenancy procedures is required. Where a landlord fails to meet these standards, judicial enforcement ensures accountability.

This case study demonstrates that deposit recovery is not merely a matter of informal demand, but often requires disciplined legal action. With clear notice, documented surrender, and precise litigation strategy, tenants can secure full repayment of substantial sums. 

Similar results may be achievable in appropriate cases through careful legal evaluation and strategic representation.