Real Estate Law Firm New York City Lease Deposit Recovery

The client had entered into a residential lease for an apartment unit, paying the full security deposit at the outset of the tenancy and complying with all contractual obligations throughout the lease term.

Several years later, due to a job relocation to another state, the client provided advance notice to the landlord of the intent to terminate the lease and vacate the premises, which the landlord initially acknowledged without objection.

Believing the termination process to be amicable, the client vacated the apartment, returned possession, and completed all move out requirements.

However, after vacating, the landlord reversed their position and stated that the deposit would only be returned once a new tenant was secured, a condition not supported by the lease agreement or standard New York leasing practice.

Despite repeated attempts to resolve the matter amicably through phone calls and written messages, the landlord began avoiding communication altogether, leaving the client without clarity or payment.

The lease expiration date passed, the property remained surrendered, and the deposit remained unpaid for an extended period.

This prolonged nonpayment placed financial strain on the client, who had already relocated and incurred new housing costs.

With no resolution in sight, the client determined that litigation was the only viable option and consulted a real estate law firm New York City residents often turn to for deposit recovery actions.

During the initial consultation, the legal team conducted a comprehensive review of the lease agreement, termination notices, communication records, and proof of property surrender.

Particular attention was paid to clauses governing lease expiration, security deposit obligations, and any conditions precedent to refund.

The attorneys confirmed that the client had provided reasonable advance notice, vacated the premises on time, and returned possession without outstanding rent or documented damages.

Based on this review, the firm determined that the landlord’s refusal to return the deposit lacked contractual justification under New York leasing standards.

After confirming the legal merits of the claim, the firm developed a litigation strategy focused on demonstrating clear lease termination, completed surrender of possession, and the landlord’s unjustified retention of funds.

The strategy emphasized factual clarity, documentary evidence, and the landlord’s pattern of nonresponse following termination.

By framing the dispute around straightforward contractual performance and nonpayment, the real estate law firm New York City based positioned the case for efficient adjudication without unnecessary procedural complications.

The firm argued that once the lease term ended and the tenant surrendered possession, the landlord’s obligation to return the security deposit became immediately enforceable, subject only to lawful deductions that were neither documented nor claimed.

It was emphasized that the existence or absence of a new tenant is irrelevant to the former tenant’s deposit rights.

The legal team demonstrated that the landlord had full control and possession of the property after move out, thereby eliminating any basis for withholding funds.

This argument aligned with widely accepted New York real estate dispute principles applied by courts in similar cases.

To further strengthen the case, the attorneys highlighted the client’s consistent good faith efforts, including early notice of termination, cooperation during move out, and repeated attempts to communicate after the lease ended.

Evidence of unanswered calls and messages was presented to show that the landlord’s conduct was intentional rather than accidental.

By contrasting the tenant’s compliance with the landlord’s silence, the real estate law firm New York City litigation team reinforced the narrative of wrongful retention.

The court accepted the legal arguments presented and ruled entirely in favor of the client, ordering the landlord to return the full amount of the security deposit.

In addition, the court required the landlord to bear the litigation costs, recognizing that the dispute arose solely from the landlord’s unjustified refusal to pay.

This decision reaffirmed that landlords cannot impose unilateral conditions after lease termination to delay or avoid repayment.

The ruling provided swift financial relief to the client and formally concluded the dispute.