The Hamilton court's holding—even if damages beyond ordinary wear and tear may be shown, a landlord cannot recover the cost to repair or replace damaged items in the absence of proof that satisfies statutory requirements—is supported by decisions in other cases. (See e.g. Mazzarelli, 2008 NY Slip Op 51967[U], *1 [the landlord "failed to provide any evidence establishing the extent of the costs incurred to repair the alleged damage"; as a result, the court reversed the trial court's decision to dismiss the tenant's claim to the security deposit and awarded the total security deposit to the tenant]; Holmes v Worthen, 19 Misc 3d 33, 34 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008] ["To the extent the damages complained of were not attributable to normal wear and tear, (the landlord) submitted no estimates or paid receipts at trial to prove the cost of his expenditures . . . and, therefore, he failed to prove the extent of his damages, if any." As a result, the court reversed the trial court's award of the security deposit to the landlord and directed it be returned to the tenant].)