(Frazier v Priest, 141 Misc 2d 775 and Meyerson v Prime Realty Services, LLC, 7 Misc 3d 911). GBL
349(a) states that "deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business...in this state are
declared unlawful."
This Court concluded in Castor that "[T]his decision shall serve as a warning to
landlords who refuse to refund a security deposit, many of whom see these deposits as a lease
improvement fund to do maintenance on their building and who have no intention to return it at
the end of a lease on a pretext the tenant owes the money to the landlord under the lease contract
when in fact none is due," having found a violation of GBL 349(a).
The Court went on to rule there was "clear and convincing evidence" the landlord in
Castor never intended to return the security deposit before assessing damages under
GBL 349(h) [*10]along with a judgment for the security deposit.
There is credible "clear and convincing" evidence in this case as well the defendant had no
intention of returning the $850 security deposit.
The Court finds that the following conduct of the defendant amounted to "deceptive acts and
practices prohibited under GLB 349(a)."
As heretofore ruled in this decision the parties entered into a written lease agreement on
5/8/09 that by its written terms at paragraph 1. "Commenced" on 5/10/08. These terms were on
page 1 of the six page lease prepared by the landlord. At trial the landlord offered a copy of the
lease, missing page 1, and advised the Court page 1 had been accidentally left in his car. He
offered pages 2 to 6 as part of his defense that he was able to keep the $850 because the manner
the tenant terminated the lease as provided for at paragraph 34 on page 5. However, in order to