The first element the defendant would have to prove is that the claimants caused "extraordinary damage" to the property; put another way, the defendant would have to prove the condition of the property after the claimants' occupancy and vacancy exhibited more than just [*5]ordinary wear and tear.
Prior cases in New York offer some guidance as to what constitutes ordinary wear and tear, and what does not. Repairing damage to bathroom tiles was considered ordinary wear and tear. (Strafaci v Meadowbrook Pointe Dev. Corp., 33 Misc 3d 142[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52208[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2011].) Cleanup that included paying $249.50 for carpet cleaning, $100 for window washing and $2,500 for painting also constituted ordinary wear and tear. (Bohl, 2018 NY Slip Op 50405[U], *1 ["Although (the landlord) submitted a bill from the contractor marked paid (for $2,849.50), the bill merely states window cleaning, painting and spackling, and carpet cleaning, which, without more, is insufficient to establish a condition going beyond ordinary wear and tear"].) Garbage left under an oven, stains in the tub and sink, leftover food in the refrigerator, dog hair throughout the apartment, garbage on the back porch and dirty windows and ceiling fans also isn't more than ordinary wear and tear. (Hamilton at 387, 389 ["Thorough cleaning is required when a tenant moves and that cleaning is the responsibility of the landlord. . . . The landlord must anticipate that when the tenancy ends some of that money he collected will have to be used to make the apartment ready for the next tenant. Candy wrappers under the stove, dog hair on the floor, stains in the sink and dust on ceiling fans is nothing abnormal and, even according to the landlord's witness, it was nothing that wa