LANDLORD AND TENANT - AN EXCEPTION TO 14 DAY RULE ON SECURITY DEPOSIT RETURNS?

Here the "return" was in 17 days.

Elena v. Milo Mgmt. LLC, NYLJ April 22, 2021, Date filed: 2021-03-18, Court: City Court, Westchester,   Judge: Judge Karen Best, Case Number: SC-0002-21:

"On March 10, 2021, this court conducted a full trial on all issues pertaining to the complaint in this action. The Court listened to testimony, and considered other evidence presented by both parties hereto. The plaintiff testified that the defendant failed to return the full amount of her security deposit after she moved out of 70 Parkway North Apt. 4C Yonkers, NY 10704. In November 2020, the plaintiff’s one-year lease ended. Adhering to the lease agreement, at the end of November, 2020, the plaintiff moved out. However, the defendant failed to return $1,090.00 from her security deposit.

The defendant testified that on November 9, 2020, the plaintiff left the apartment unattended with the stove on. Hours later, smoke was emanating from her apartment into the hallway of her portion of the building. The plaintiff testified she forgot a pot on the stove, and she left her apartment to go to work. The defendant then testified that the plaintiff was contacted in order to gain access to the apartment because she did not provide the building superintendent with a spare key. The plaintiff was unable to immediately return to the building, thus the Yonkers Fire Department was called, and upon their arrival firemen broke the plaintiff’s door to gain access into the apartment.

The defendant testified that after the fire the plaintiff was provided with a temporary door until a custom door could be measured and installed. The plaintiff then vacated the apartment at the end of the month. On December 1, 2020, the plaintiff surrendered the keys to the apartment. Once the defendant vacated the premises, they proceeded with the process of obtaining the customized door. Additionally, the defendant testified that on December 18, 2020, management sent the plaintiff a letter stating they were withholding a portion of her security deposit for the cost of the customized door for her apartment.

Decision

After hearing all the credible evidence, this Court finds that even though the defendant failed to satisfy the sufficient notice requirement under General Obligations Law §7-108(1-a) (e), the plaintiff is not entitled to a judgment against the defendant due to extraordinary circumstances caused by her own negligence.

Normally, the court would strictly interpret General Obligations Law §7-108(1-a) (e) , which requires a landlord to provide the tenant with an itemized statement indicating the basis for retaining their security deposit within fourteen days after a tenant has vacated the premises. If a landlord fails to provide the tenant with the statement within fourteen days, the landlord forfeits the right to retain any portion of the deposit. However, this court must conduct hearings upon small claims in such a manner as to do substantial justice between the parties according to substantive law. NY CLS UCCA §1804

The Court has previously found that the Legislature’s intent in adopting New York General Obligations Law §7-108 (1-a) (d) and (e), specifically wanted tenants to know if the landlord believed the rented property was damaged, whether the cost of those damages would be deducted from the security deposit, and for the landlord to give the tenant an opportunity to fix or repair the alleged damages. Diaz v. Cunningham, 68 Misc. 3d 319, 123 N.Y.S.3d 807, 327 (Middletown City Ct. 2020). In the absence of such opportunity to cure, and in the absence of a written, itemized statement from the landlord to the tenant showing what amount, if any, would be deducted from the security deposit and why, that section of the General Obligations Law generally would require a landlord to return the security deposit to the tenant. Id.

In this case, the issue of property damage is undisputed. Both parties agree the plaintiff’s mistake caused an emergency which required the Yonkers Fire Department to break the apartment door, and the emergency occurred less than a month before she vacated the premises. Although the defendant took seventeen days after the plaintiff surrendered the key to management to send the plaintiff a statement with an explanation of why a portion of her security deposit was being retained, the replacement of the apartment door, the Court finds that the defendant did provide creditable testimony and evidence explaining the reason for the delay. The defendant submitted an itemized receipt showing the building purchased a custom door from a fire door company, and a receipt for expenses related to temporarily reattaching the old door and the installation of the new door. (Exhibit D).

Under the circumstances presented to the Court, the testimony and the evidence, the Court finds there is sufficient evidence to find in favor of the defendant."