Real Estate Law Firm New York Deposit Recovery Case

The tenant had entered into a two year residential lease for a multi unit property and paid a substantial security deposit at the outset of the tenancy. 

Prior to signing the lease, the tenant was informed that the property carried an existing mortgage lien, which raised initial concerns about repayment security. 

However, the tenant relied on representations made during the transaction that safeguards were in place to ensure deposit protection.

When the lease term ended, the tenant provided advance written notice of intent to vacate and fully surrendered possession of the apartment, yet the deposit was not returned within a reasonable period.

New York courts have consistently held that once a tenant vacates the premises and fulfills lease conditions, the landlord must return the security deposit within the required timeframe or provide an itemized statement of lawful deductions. 

Financial hardship of the landlord does not excuse nonpayment, nor does the existence of third party debt secured against the property.

In this case, the landlord neither returned the deposit nor provided legally sufficient documentation to justify withholding any portion of the funds.

New York law recognizes several mechanisms that can protect tenants when deposit recovery is at risk, including documented proof of possession surrender, written demand notices, and civil claims seeking joint liability where intermediaries or affiliated entities played a material role in the transaction. 

These principles became central to the litigation strategy pursued by the real estate law firm New York.

The firm emphasized that the tenant had provided advance notice of vacating the apartment and had surrendered possession well before the lease end date. 

Despite having ample time to prepare for repayment, the landlord took no meaningful steps to return the deposit, demonstrating an absence of good faith.

This factual timeline was supported by written communications, move out documentation, and witness statements confirming the condition of the premises.

The litigation further highlighted that the landlord ignored repeated repayment demands and avoided communication, resulting in additional financial and logistical harm to the tenant, including delayed relocation plans and legal expenses. 

The firm argued that these consequences flowed directly from the unlawful withholding of the deposit.

By framing the matter as a clear breach of repayment obligations rather than a discretionary dispute, the real estate law firm New York positioned the case for decisive judicial resolution.

As a result of the court’s decision, the tenant received full reimbursement of the security deposit and obtained legal confirmation that the withholding had been improper. 

The client expressed relief at being able to resolve the matter conclusively and avoid prolonged uncertainty.