acknowledges that in August he did not tell the landlord he would in fact be leaving and had
arranged with a friend to house him after Halloween. The court also credits the testimony that
there was no further communication regarding the tenancy until October 9th when the parties
discussed whether the tenant had at that time signed a contract to purchase a home. It is also
clear to the court that on that date the landlord contacted realtors in an effort to re-rent the
apartment.
Most residential landlords require a tenant to pay a security deposit at the time they rent an
apartment. As in this written agreement, such a clause constitutes "security for the full and
faithful compliance of the terms of [the] lease." Since the 1930's, it has been recognized that such
security "shall continue to be the money of the person making such deposit,"[FN1] and the landlord [*2]holds the security deposit in trust for the tenant.[FN2] Thus, if the landlord commingles
the money with his or her assets, the tenant is entitled to immediate return of the money
regardless of the validity of any claim the landlord might have had to use a portion of the
security deposit to off-set a loss occasioned by the tenant's breach of a lease condition.[FN3] Moreover, the obligation to
account for and return any unneeded security deposit rests on the landlord and the tenant does
not have to sue to get it back. In an egregious case, "[a]s a trustee, a landlord who unlawfully
retains security deposits can be prosecuted for larceny." [FN4] In this case, however, the court finds neither
criminal conduct nor deceptive practices. [FN5] Here, the landlord simply relies on a lease
clause commonly used to continue the tenancy for at least an additional month unless proper