Housing Lawyers in Brooklyn: a Security Deposit Dispute Case

In August 2020, Ms. Evelyn Reed notified her landlord’s management company of her intent to vacate her apartment. |

Management confirmed in writing that her security deposit would be returned after she surrendered possession, provided the apartment was left in broom-clean condition.

Ms. Reed vacated in mid-December 2020 and paid all outstanding rent. 

She documented the condition of the apartment with photographs. 

However, after vacating, she did not receive her $1,450.50 security deposit, nor did she receive an itemized statement explaining any deductions.

After repeated attempts to obtain a response, she sent a certified demand letter. 

Creating a documented record of communication is often a recommended step by housing lawyers in Brooklyn before initiating litigation.
 

When contacted, the landlord asserted that the tenant had requested an incorrect amount and questioned whether she had fully vacated the premises. 

At trial, however, the landlord acknowledged that the apartment was left in broom-clean condition and that no rent remained unpaid.

The absence of documented damages or arrears became a central issue in the case.
 

New York General Obligations Law § 7-108 requires that a landlord:

1. Return the security deposit within 14 days of the tenant vacating the premises; or

2. Provide a written, itemized statement specifying the basis for any deductions within the same 14-day period.

If the landlord fails to comply with this requirement, the statute provides that the landlord forfeits the right to retain any portion of the deposit.

In this case, the landlord did not return the deposit within 14 days and did not provide a written itemized statement. The court determined that this failure triggered forfeiture under the statute.
 

Under General Obligations Law § 7-108(1-a)(g), if a landlord is found to have willfully violated the statute, the court may award damages equal to twice the amount of the deposit.

The court evaluated whether the landlord’s conduct met the statutory willfulness standard. 

In assessing willfulness, courts consider whether the failure to return the deposit reflects a knowing or intentional disregard of the statutory requirements.

Based on the evidence presented—including the absence of any documented deductions and the failure to provide timely notice—the court concluded that the landlord’s conduct satisfied the statutory criteria for enhanced damages.
 

The final judgment included:

-Compensatory damages: $1,450.50 (the full security deposit)
-Prejudgment interest at 9% per annum pursuant to CPLR § 5004

-Statutory damages equal to twice the deposit amount under GOL § 7-108(1-a)(g)

-Court filing fees

Rather than traditional punitive damages, the additional award represented statutory double damages specifically authorized by the General Obligations Law.

This decision illustrates how courts apply the forfeiture and enhanced-damages provisions of GOL § 7-108 when landlords fail to comply with the 14-day return requirement.