time (in fact, they vacated on Feb. 26, 2018), but it is unrealistic to expect to be able to have a new tenant move in the day after a previous tenant moves out. As the Hamilton court noted (54 Misc 3d at 389), "[t]horough 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." Furthermore, as one Court noted in upholding a trial court's dismissal of a landlord's counterclaim for rent delay damages, "[i]t is well settled that lost rent is not recoverable as damages for breach of a lease covenant requiring a tenant to keep the premises in good repair." (Building Serv. Local 32B-J Pension Fund v 101 L.P., 115 AD3d 469, 470 [1st Dept 2014].)
Certain remaining items need to be addressed. The defendant pointed out several paragraphs of the lease (claimants' exhibit 1) addressing the return of the security deposit. For example, the lease stated the claimants' security deposit would only be returned upon a written 30-day notice to the defendant and if the property was left in "move-in" condition (para 1); any damage not repaired would be taken from the deposit (para 5); the claimants would be responsible for any non-reported "mechanical or physical disorders" (para 6); the property "must be kept in move-in condition, free from garbage, litter etc." (para 7); and if the claimants left before the end of the term, the claimants would "forfiet [sic] your security deposit" (para 11). The court has already addressed whether the defendant could withhold from the security deposit amounts claimed for damages and determined the defendant could not. The issues remaining after the cla