New York Real Estate Lawyer Secures Full Security Deposit

The tenancy initially began under a fixed term residential lease, followed by an informal continuation of occupancy beyond the original term. 

During the extended occupancy period, the tenant remained in full compliance with rent payments and property maintenance obligations. 

Despite the absence of written renewal documentation, the deposit remained contractually tied to the tenancy and subject to return upon lawful termination.

When the tenant provided notice of intent to vacate, the landlord failed to engage in meaningful communication and avoided confirming termination logistics. 

This lack of cooperation created a risk that the landlord would continue delaying or improperly retaining the security deposit. 

At this stage, informal resolution was no longer a reliable option, making legal intervention necessary.

The legal analysis focused on whether the tenancy had been lawfully terminated and whether any legitimate grounds existed for deposit retention. 

Because the tenant had provided clear notice and had not breached any material lease obligations, the landlord’s continued possession of the deposit lacked justification. 

The legal team positioned the case around clear entitlement rather than discretionary negotiation.

Given the landlord’s continued silence, the new york real estate lawyer recommended initiating a formal recovery action rather than allowing indefinite delay. 

This approach ensured that the termination notice would be legally recognized and that the landlord would be compelled to respond within defined procedural timelines. 

The strategy emphasized efficiency, documentation, and enforceability.

The first argument focused on demonstrating that the landlord had intentionally avoided communication despite repeated contact attempts. 

This pattern supported the position that litigation became necessary solely due to the landlord’s conduct. 

The new york real estate lawyer framed the filing itself as both notice of termination and a formal demand for repayment.

The second argument emphasized that once the termination period had elapsed, the landlord’s obligation to return the deposit became fixed and enforceable. 

No claims of damage, unpaid rent, or lease violations were substantiated. 

As a result, continued retention of the funds had no legal or equitable basis.