The evidence adduced at trial further revealed, the defendants failed to give the plaintiffs written notice of the banking institute that held plaintiffs' security deposit, in violation of G.O.L. §7-103(2), permitting an inference of commingling at the time of the expiration of the lease in violation of G.O.L. §7-103(1), that defendants failed to rebut. Dan Klores Associates, Inc. v. Abramoff, 288 AD2d 121, 733 N.Y.S. 2d 388, 389 [2001]. The evidence adduced at trial revealed that not only did the defendants fail to account for the location of the deposit of the plaintiffs' security deposit but they retrained it and utilized it for their own obligations thereby, entitling the plaintiff to an immediate right to same as a result of the defendants' breach of its trust of the security deposit, and giving rise to an inference of commingling same (Leroy v. Sayers, supra).
CONCLUSION
The Court finds the plaintiffs were and are entitled to recover the full sum of their security deposit as a result of the defendants failure to account for the security deposit and commingling the plaintiffs' deposit with their own fund ( Matter of Perfection Technical Services Press, supra). The Court finds further, the defendants have no claim to the security deposit. As to the alleged damages to the premises, the Court finds the expenses incurred by the defendants for painting, repair of light fixtures, and to repair or replace cabinet knobs, absent evidence of the condition of the areas painted, and the items repaired or replaced prior to the plaintiffs' tenancy, these items are to be treated as normal wear and tear after the plaintiffs' vacatur.
The Court awards the plaintiffs a money judgment against the defendants in the sum of $3,000.00 with interest from January 5, 2005.