the security deposit, a court may award to the ten-
ant up to triple the amount of that portion of the
security deposit wrongfully withheld from the ten-
ant, together with the reasonable attorney’s fees
and court costs. In determining whether to award
such treble damages and/or attorney’s fees, the
court may consider the past practices of the land-
lord regarding return of other security deposits.
Treble damage and/or attorney’s fees shall not be
awarded pursuant to this section where a landlord
has made a good-faith effort to estimate the
amounts which properly should be withheld from
the security deposit and has returned to the tenant
the balance of the security deposit in a timely man-
ner. Should the landlord, within the aforesaid
thirty-day period, fail to return the entire security
deposit or fail to provide the aforesaid written
statement specifying the reasons for the retention
of all or a portion of the security deposit, ac-
companied by full payment of the difference be-
tween the security deposit and the amount re-
tained, it shall be presumed that the landlord is
392 51 MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS, 3d SERIES
willfully and without good cause retaining the
security deposit.’’
It is simply uncontested that defendant relied upon an un-
lawful void lease provision in willfully refusing to return
plaintiff’s $840 security deposit. A lease provision that directly
contradicts New York law and which is contrary to New York’s
strong public policy of protecting tenants cannot be good cause
for retention of a security deposit, and must be deemed a will-
ful failure to return a security deposit under Ithaca City Code
§ 258-7. (Real Property Law § 226-b [6]; L 1983, ch 403, § 1,
reprinted following McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 49,