Not only do plaintiffs have standing to sue defendants on behalf of the tenants to recover the security deposits but they have a fiduciary duty to do so (see Matter of Hunter, 194 Misc 2d 364, 368 [2002], mod on other grounds 6 AD3d 117 [2004]). In turning back the three properties involved, defendants unlawfully retained a substantial portion of the tenants' security funds, thereby converting trust funds. As trustees, plaintiffs have {**12 AD3d at 95}the obligation to act for the tenant beneficiaries and seek the return of these funds.[FN3]
We have considered defendants' other arguments and find that they are without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered October 24, 2003, which, upon the grant of plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the second cause of action, awarded judgment in the amount of $222,983.01, plus interest, to plaintiff Gerel Corp., awarded judgment in the amount of $83,313.68, plus interest, to [*8]plaintiff Ruradan Corp. and awarded $171,688.03, plus interest, to plaintiff Timston Corp., should be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.
Saxe, J.P., Williams, Friedman and Marlow, JJ., concur.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered October 24, 2003, affirmed, with costs and disbursements.
Footnotes
Footnote 1: General Obligations Law § 7-105 expressly applies to "officers or agents" of owners or lessees who receive security deposits from tenants.
Footnote 2: In 1965 the Penal Law was revised and the provisions related to the retention of tenant security deposits were placed in General Obligations Law § 7-105 (L 1965, ch 1031, § 102).