that time the plaintiff agreed save for some minor clean-up by the plaintiff that was requested by
the defendant as there were not other problems, the $850 security deposit would be immediately
refunded.
The plaintiff testified that she completed the final clean-up and surrendered the premises to
the landlord by 5/1/2009. She said that he re-rented the premises immediately on or about the
first of May 2009 to new tenants. She said she subsequently made several contacts with the
defendant concerning the return of her security deposit. On 5/12/09 she mailed a letter to the
defendant outlining these efforts to have her $850 refunded and the various responses given her
by the defendant (Ex-B).
The defendant supplied the Court with a copy of the lease agreement he drafted missing the
front page (Ex-A). He argued that the actual termination date was 5/30/09 and not 5/10/09 as
claimed by the plaintiff. He did not have the first page of the lease on which the term was listed,
so he agreed to supply a copy of it immediately after Court as he had left it in his car. He did
provide this first page to the court clerk and gave a copy to the plaintiff at that time—she
wrote note indicating it was obvious "the date of termination has been clearly
changed—he has written over the original date with 5/30/09..." (Ex-D).
The defendant argued he had a right to claim the $850 as being forfeited under paragraph 34
because the lease was terminated prior to the end of its term on 5/30/09 when the plaintiff gave
him notice she would be leaving by 5/1/09.
Ambiguity Issue
LAW
In W.W.W. Associates, Inc. v Giancontier, 77 NY2d 157, 565 NYS2d 440, 566
NE2d 639, the Court stated,
a familiar and eminently sensible proposition of law is that,