Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Citation
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Parent Document
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Jurisdiction
- New York (state)
- Effective Date
- 2020-01-30
Other Sections in This Document (18)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
- Sikora v. Shurtluff (2020)
Full Text
697 charsPlaintiff argues in her reply brief, for the first time, that defendant was required under the lease to provide plaintiff with an "itemized written statement of the reasons for, and the dollar amount of, any of the security deposit retained by" defendant in order for defendant to be entitled to deduct those amounts from the security deposit. Plaintiff failed to make this argument at trial, or in her main appellant's brief, and there is no indication in the record that the lease was admitted into evidence at trial. Consequently, this argument is not properly before this court (see Matter of Erdey v City of New York, 129 AD3d 546 [2015]; U.S. Bank N.A. v Dellarmo, 128 AD3d 680, 681 [2015]).