Real Estate Lawyers in the Bronx Full Security Deposit

The client had entered into a two year residential lease for a studio apartment, providing a security deposit equivalent to a significant portion of the property’s market value.

Upon lease expiration, the tenant notified the landlord of the intent to vacate and requested prompt return of the deposit, as no rent arrears or property damage existed.

Despite these facts, the landlord repeatedly delayed repayment, citing personal financial strain and unrelated encumbrances affecting the property.

These explanations, while factually asserted, created immediate concern regarding compliance with New York landlord tenant standards.

The central issue was whether a landlord may lawfully delay or refuse security deposit repayment based on personal liquidity issues or third party claims against the property.

Under New York practice, once a lease ends and the tenant has surrendered possession without breach, the deposit becomes immediately recoverable.

The landlord’s asserted reasons were analyzed and determined to have no lawful connection to the tenant’s right of recovery.

This analysis allowed counsel to frame the dispute narrowly and persuasively before the court.

A security deposit recovery action is a civil claim used when a tenant is deprived of funds after lawful lease termination.

Such actions focus on contract performance, possession surrender, and absence of offsetting damages.

By structuring the claim around these objective factors, real estate lawyers in the bronx positioned the case for efficient judicial resolution.

Counsel argued that the landlord’s obligation to return the deposit arose automatically upon lease expiration and vacancy confirmation.

The court was presented with payment records, inspection documentation, and written correspondence confirming the absence of tenant fault.

By eliminating any factual ambiguity, the argument centered solely on the landlord’s nonperformance rather than disputed conduct.

To prevent further delay or dissipation of funds, legal measures were taken to preserve the tenant’s recovery position.

These steps reinforced the seriousness of the claim and demonstrated that continued noncompliance would expose the landlord to enforceable judgment.

The landlord’s refusal to engage in meaningful settlement further strengthened the tenant’s litigation posture.

The court ordered the landlord to return the full security deposit amount without reduction.

The ruling reaffirmed that tenants are entitled to timely repayment once contractual conditions are satisfied.

As a result, the client recovered the entire deposit and was able to proceed with relocation plans without further disruption.

This outcome highlights the importance of early legal intervention and demonstrates how real estate lawyers in the bronx can effectively protect tenant rights through structured litigation and disciplined advocacy.