GIARDINI v KESHTGAR [60 Misc 3d 38] 39
FIND SIMILAR CASES ON THOMSON REUTERS WESTLAW®
Path: Home > Cases > New York State & Federal Cases
> New York Official Reports
Query: return /5 ‘‘security deposit’’ /p convey!
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Jeffrey Herzberg, P.C. (Jeffrey Herzberg of counsel) for appel-
lants.
Polin, Prisco & Villafane, Esqs. (Armand J. Prisco of counsel)
for respondent.
OPINION OF THE COURT
MEMORANDUM.
Ordered that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed,
without costs.
In this action, plaintiffs, who subleased a property from a
corporation of which defendant was the president, seek to re-
cover from defendant a $9,600 security deposit which plaintiffs
tendered to their corporate sublessor upon signing the com-
mercial sublease in April 2010. As limited by the brief,
plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the District Court
as denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted
the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking to dismiss the
complaint.
The rule is well established that if the time stipulated for
the return of a security deposit has not yet arrived, a convey-
ance of the property or the assignment of the lease by the
landlord will not, in and of itself, entitle the tenant to its im-
mediate return. This rule is unaffected by whether the landlord
retains the security deposit or turns it over to the grantee (see
Mauro v Alvino, 90 Misc 328 [App Term, 1st Dept 1915]). The
security deposit may be retained until the right to hold it as
security has terminated (see Rosenfeld v Aaron, 248 NY 437
[1928]; see also 5 Robert F. Dolan, Rasch’s Landlord and Ten-
ant—Summary Proceedings § 13:17 [5th ed 2017]). Here, the
sublease agreement between plaintiffs and their corporate