tile, and $17.90 for re-keying the locks, for a total of $553.54. After a nonjury trial, the District
Court found that plaintiff was entitled to the return of his security deposit and that defendant had
established his counterclaim. Defendant appeals from so much of the judgment as awarded [*2]plaintiff the principal sum of $4,300, and plaintiff cross-appeals
from so much of the judgment as awarded defendant the principal sum of $553.54 on his
counterclaim.
As to plaintiff's cause of action seeking the return of the security deposit, defendant appears
to argue that a rider to the lease required plaintiff to provide defendant 60 days' notice if plaintiff
did not intend to renew the lease, and that, if plaintiff failed to do so, defendant was
entitled to retain plaintiff's security deposit. However, that reading does not appear to reflect the
parties' intention, as the lease was for a defined one-year term. A more logical reading of the
provision in question was that it required plaintiff to give written notice if he intended to stay in
the premises after the lease term expired, and that it provided that if plaintiff did not give notice
of his intent to renew and nonetheless failed to vacate the premises, his security deposit would be
subject to forfeiture. Any ambiguity in the lease must be construed against the drafter (see e.g.
Matter of Cowen & Co. v Anderson, 76 NY2d 318 [1990]), which in this case was
defendant.
The District Court found, in essence, that plaintiff had timely vacated upon the expiration of
the one-year lease, that plaintiff had not orally renewed the lease, that the lease did not require
plaintiff to give written notice of his intention not to renew the lease, and that, in any event,