It is uncontroverted that plaintiffs had provided defendant with a $2,900 security deposit, and it is well settled that a tenant's security deposit is the property of the person making the deposit (see General Obligation Law § 7-103) and must be returned at the conclusion of the tenancy unless there is proof that the tenant caused damage beyond what is attributable to ordinary wear and tear (see Mazzarelli v Moniaci, 21 Misc 3d 129[A], 2008 NY Slip Op [*2]51967[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]).[FN1]
Here, we need not determine whether plaintiffs had damaged the house beyond what is attributable to ordinary wear and tear, as, in any event, defendant failed to provide the court with proof of her damages. Moreover, a review of the record supports the court's implicit determination that defendant was not entitled to recover damages for lost wages or for late fees and early termination fees. Consequently, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).