The defendants offered evidence at trial that they incurred the expenses of $980.00 to paint two(2) large bedrooms at the premises after the plaintiffs vacated; they had to repair the kitchen and dining rooms' light fixtures at $75.00 each; and they had to replace kitchen cabinet knobs @ $75, and to remove abandoned property of the plaintiffs' at a cost of $175.00. Further, the defendants alleged that the plaintiffs were responsible for damage to the premises caused by bursting of frozen pipes. The Court finds the bursting of pipes and the water damage occurred after the plaintiffs had vacated the premises after having given notice to the defendant Versia Scott of the date of their vacatur. The Court also finds [*3]that the defendants admittedly used the plaintiffs' security deposit, and that said deposit had not been segregated and numbered in a separate designed account or place as required by the General Obligation Law (GOL).
ISSUE
The legal issue(s) for the Court to determine here are, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the return of their security deposit in whole or in part, or whether the defendants were entitled to use the security deposit as a set-off for alleged damages to the premises, and retain of the security deposit tendered by and on behalf of the plaintiffs.
THE LAW
It is well settled that a surrender of a leasehold must be accepted by the landlord or its authorized agent to be effective and thereby release the tenant from liability for further rent obligations (see, Barkley v. McClue, 25 Misc 738 [1899]); (see, Hubell v. Van Coenan, 190 Misc 194,74 N.Y.S. 2d 704, [1947]).
Pursuant to the General Obligation Law §7-103(1):