from the security deposit for cleaning if the premises were not left clean. If the cleaning cost
exceeded the sum of $100,
defendant was required to provide itemized receipts for such cleaning to be entitled to a
sum greater than $100. The District Court implicitly found that plaintiff did not leave the
premises clean. We find no basis to disturb such finding. However, in the absence of any
itemized receipt, defendant's recovery for cleaning costs was limited to the $100 amount set forth
in the lease. Consequently, as defendant did not submit any itemized receipts, the District Court's
award of $280 for the cost of carpet cleaning and "bathroom/kitchen tile" did not provide the
[*3]parties with substantial justice according to the rules and
principles of substantive law (UDCA 1807;
Ross, 269 AD2d 584; Williams, 269 AD2d at 126), and its award for
these items should only have been $100. Accordingly, the judgment, insofar as cross-appealed
from by plaintiff, is modified by reducing the amount awarded to defendant on his
counterclaim to the principal sum of $373.54.
Molia, J.P., LaCava and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 20, 2010