Real Estate Attorney in Brooklyn NY Return Security Deposit

The client had entered into a two year residential lease for a Brooklyn apartment and paid a security deposit equivalent to approximately $150,000.

Well before the lease expiration date, the client secured a new residence and formally notified the landlord of the intent to vacate at the end of the lease term.

All rent payments were current, no property damage was alleged, and the apartment was prepared for turnover in accordance with the lease terms.

Despite receiving clear notice of lease termination, the landlord claimed an inability to secure a new tenant and insisted that the lease be extended.

The landlord repeatedly delayed the return of the security deposit and asserted that repayment would occur only after a new tenant was found.

At one point, the landlord attempted to pressure the client into signing a new lease extension by offering vague assurances of future repayment, placing the client in significant financial difficulty.

The primary issue was whether a landlord may refuse to return a security deposit after lease expiration by unilaterally asserting a lease extension.

Under New York law, once a fixed term lease ends and the tenant vacates in compliance with the agreement, the landlord’s obligation to return the security deposit is triggered.

The landlord has no legal authority to condition repayment on re leasing success or to impose an extension without the tenant’s consent.

A real estate attorney in Brooklyn NY explained that security deposits are not discretionary funds and must be returned within a reasonable statutory timeframe absent lawful deductions.

Financial inconvenience or difficulty securing a new tenant does not create a legal basis for withholding funds.

Where voluntary resolution fails, tenants may pursue recovery through formal legal proceedings to enforce their rights.

Formal written demand was issued, clearly documenting the lease expiration, vacancy date, and amount owed.

The attorney preserved all written communications demonstrating the landlord’s improper attempt to force a lease extension.

This record established bad faith delay and undermined any future defense by the landlord.

The matter proceeded to formal legal action after the landlord refused voluntary repayment.

Court facilitated settlement discussions were attempted, but the landlord continued to insist on conditions unsupported by law.

The refusal to engage in good faith settlement further strengthened the tenant’s litigation position.

The court held that the lease had lawfully terminated and that the tenant had no obligation to extend occupancy.

The landlord’s claim that repayment could be delayed until re leasing was explicitly rejected.

A judgment was entered requiring the immediate return of the full $150,000 security deposit.