Stout v Syracusa (2010 NY Slip Op 51102(U))
[*1]
Stout v Syracusa
2010 NY Slip Op 51102(U) [27 Misc 3d 1238(A)]
Decided on June 24, 2010
Rochester City Ct
Morse, J.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau
pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be
published in the printed Official Reports.
Decided on June 24, 2010
Rochester City Ct
Michael Stout,
Plaintiff,
against
Mark Syracusa, Defendant.
2009 - SC - 24514
Anthony Daniele, Esq. (Counsel for the Defendant)
Thomas Rainbow Morse, J.
The court has conducted a de novo small claims proceeding in the
above matter and has taken sworn testimony regarding the plaintiffs' request for return of his six
hundred dollar security deposit on an apartment he rented from the defendant. There is no
allegation that any portion of the security deposit has been needed to compensate the landlord for
damage to the property over and above "normal wear and tear," nor is there an assertion that the
tenant remained in the premises after the written lease expired, Rather, the landlord claims he is
entitled to retain the security deposit for November rent because the tenant failed to give the
landlord adequate notice that he was leaving at the end of October.
The landlord does not allege he had "no idea" the tenant might be leaving. Rather, he asserts
he had no concrete information upon which he could act. While the written twelve month lease
between the parties expired on October 31, 2009, it is undisputed that as early as August of that
year, the parties had some discussion about whether the tenant would be leaving the premises at
the end of the lease term because he would be buying a home. However, the tenant also