"[the plaintiffs'] showing that [the defendants] failed to give them written notice of the banking institution that held the deposit, in violation of General Obligations Law § 7-103, permitted an inference that [the defendants] violated General Obligations Law § 7-103 by commingling security deposit moneys with [their] own personal funds, and [defendants] failed to rebut this inference." (Paterno v Carroll, 75 AD3d 625, 628 [2d Dept 2010] [citations omitted]; see also Solomon v Ness, 118 AD3d 773, 774 [2d Dept 2014].){**63 Misc 3d at 913}
"As a result of such commingling, [the defendants] forfeited [their] right to avail [themselves] of the deposit for any purpose, and the [plaintiffs] have an immediate right to return of the funds notwithstanding that they may have breached the lease." (75 AD3d at 628 [citations omitted]; see also Milkie v Guzzone, 143 AD3d 863, 864 [2d Dept 2016].)
Even if the defendants provided some proof that the security deposit was not commingled, aside from Brian's self-serving testimony, I would also find for the plaintiffs based upon the unreasonable time it took the defendants to respond to the plaintiffs' requests and inquiries concerning their security deposit. The plaintiffs moved out of the premises on July 31, at the behest of the defendants' alleged concerns with insuring the premises in light of the plaintiffs' two dogs, despite their prior knowledge of this. (Plaintiffs' exhibit 5.) The plaintiffs did not leave on their own volition, nor were they evicted or told to move due to any allegations that they were violating the terms of the lease agreement.