225 East 64th Street, LLC v. Prystowsky, 96 A.D.3d 536 (2012)
- Citation
- 225 East 64th Street, LLC v. Prystowsky, 96 A.D.3d 536 (2012)
- Parent Document
- 225 East 64th Street, LLC v. Prystowsky, 96 A.D.3d 536 (2012)
- Jurisdiction
- New York (state)
- Effective Date
- 2012-06-14
Other Sections in This Document (10)
- 225 East 64th Street, LLC v. Prystowsky, 96 A.D.3d 536 (2012)
- 225 East 64th Street, LLC v. Prystowsky, 96 A.D.3d 536 (2012)
- 225 East 64th Street, LLC v. Prystowsky, 96 A.D.3d 536 (2012)
- 225 East 64th Street, LLC v. Prystowsky, 96 A.D.3d 536 (2012)
- 225 East 64th Street, LLC v. Prystowsky, 96 A.D.3d 536 (2012)
- 225 East 64th Street, LLC v. Prystowsky, 96 A.D.3d 536 (2012)
- 225 East 64th Street, LLC v. Prystowsky, 96 A.D.3d 536 (2012)
- 225 East 64th Street, LLC v. Prystowsky, 96 A.D.3d 536 (2012)
- 225 East 64th Street, LLC v. Prystowsky, 96 A.D.3d 536 (2012)
- 225 East 64th Street, LLC v. Prystowsky, 96 A.D.3d 536 (2012)
Full Text
304 charsDefendant is entitled to the return of its security deposit, with interest from the date of the inception of the lease, because plaintiff failed to prove that it did not commingle the security *538deposit with its own funds (see Tappan Golf Dr. Range, Inc. v Tappan Prop., Inc., 68 AD3d 440, 441 [2009]).