Karole v 340 W. End Ave., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 50317(U) [74 Misc 3d 1233(A)] (2022)

Citation: Karole v 340 W. End Ave., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 50317(U) [74 Misc 3d 1233(A)] (2022)
Parent Document: Karole v 340 W. End Ave., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 50317(U) [74 Misc 3d 1233(A)] (2022)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2022-04-06
Original Source: https://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2022/2022_50317.htm ↗

Full Text

1,455 chars

"On the issue of intent, it is well settled that intent may be proved by circumstantial
evidence. [I]ntent is a mental operation that ordinarily must be inferred by an examination of all
the facts and circumstances" ( Staples v Sisson , 274 AD2d 779, 781 [3d Dept 2000]
[internal citations and quotation marks omitted]). As discussed above, as a management
company, Kaye Equities knew or should have known of General Obligations Law § 7-108,
the law governing the return of security deposits. "[T]he acts of agents, and the knowledge they
acquire while acting within the scope of their authority are presumptively imputed to their
principals" ( Kirschner v KPMG
LLP , 15 NY3d 446 , 465 [2010]). Defendant's failure to send any itemized statement to
claimant within 14 days after claimant vacated the apartment, coupled with the pretextual
explanation offered by Kirschner for not returning the security deposit, clearly demonstrates that
defendant intentionally disregarded General Obligations Law § 7-108. 
The fact that claimant was mistaken about the amount actually held on deposit would not
have prevented defendant from timely tendering to claimant the full amount of the security
deposit actually held by defendant. The fact that claimant indicated that she would sue defendant
in small claims court for return of the security deposit did not entitle defendant to retain the
security deposit until the dispute was resolved in court.

Other Sections in This Document (50)

Full Text