In O. v. B., the Appellate Term, Second Department, reviewed a small claims dispute between S.O., a former tenant, and N.B., her former landlord. The case centered on the return of a $2,500 security deposit that S.O. claimed was wrongfully withheld after she vacated the apartment. She filed a small claims action seeking $5,000—half for the deposit and half in punitive damages.
Following a nonjury trial, the Kings County Civil Court dismissed S.O.’s claim entirely. On appeal, however, the AT2 reversed that decision in part. While the court upheld the finding that N.B. had sufficiently demonstrated damage to the apartment beyond ordinary wear and tear, it found that N.B. had only paid $2,100 for repairs. Since the law requires landlords not only to prove damage but also to justify the amount withheld from a deposit, the court concluded that retaining the full $2,500 was wrongful.
Under General Obligations Law § 7-103, a security deposit remains the property of the tenant and must be returned unless the landlord can prove damage and the reasonable cost of repairs. While N.B. did provide an itemized statement within the required 14-day window, listing the repairs, that invoice showed only $2,100 in actual expenses. The court determined that substantial justice required S.O. to be reimbursed the $400 difference.
The judgment was reversed to that extent, and the case was remitted for entry of a judgment in favor of S.O. for $400. The decision reflects the principle that landlords must not only document damage but also account for every dollar withheld from a tenant’s deposit. Even in small claims court, where credibility and fairness are paramount, the numbers still have to add up.
"The law giveth, the invoice taketh away.”
# # #
DECISION