Second, the majority points to the fact that defendant made a settlement offer to pay $1,700 of the $2,200 deposit, which is clearly more than half. Offers of settlement by the defendant have no legal effect and therefore should play no part in this court's determination. Even so, it is just as reasonable to find that the offer was for both defendant and her cotenant equally, that they shared the security deposit for the tenancy and likewise should share in the cost of the alleged damages occasioned by that tenancy, equally dividing the balance.
Finally, the majority notes that the cotenant previously demanded the return of his portion of the security deposit, which request was denied by defendant landlord with the suggestion that he speak to his cotenant. My colleagues either overlook the legal significance of this piece of evidence, or implicitly determine that the issue may have been resolved. Either determination, to me, is not based on the law or the facts herein.
Here, the cotenant has already made a failed effort to obtain the return of his portion of the security deposit by unequivocally stating that he desires the return of those funds to him. I can think of no countervailing argument that would support the majority in their decision to award plaintiff the money that rightfully belongs to plaintiff's cotenant.
Pesce, P.J., and Rios, J., concur; Golia, J., concurs in part and dissents in part in a separate memorandum.