The plaintiffs clearly did a walk-through, leaving the premises in, at the very least, broom [*6]clean condition, and had already been making inquiries about their security deposit. In response, they were put on hold by the defendants for just shy of three months. Ironically, the letter from the defendants concerning the security deposit and requesting payment for damage to the premises was sent four days and delivered two days prior to the original court date, the plaintiffs having originally filed their claim on August 30. While I did not come across any specific precedent requiring a security deposit be returned within a specified period of time (despite exhaustive research on the issue), I do find that here, where there is no agreement to the contrary, an explanation for retaining the security deposit should have been provided within a reasonable time of the plaintiffs' moving out of the premises, or the end of the lease agreement, whichever is later. As the lease agreement was mutually terminated by the parties on July 31, which was the same date that the plaintiffs vacated the premises, the defendants should have provided some written notice to the plaintiffs by the date of their filing the present claim (i.e., 30 days), unless exceptional circumstances warranted otherwise. As the defendants failed to itemize their retention of the plaintiffs' security deposit within a reasonable time, I also find that the plaintiffs were entitled to the full amount on these grounds.{**63 Misc 3d at 914}