At the outset, the court notes that Hamilton contacted her landlord Bosko for a walk-through. Bosko, although he resided in the apartment above his tenant, declined to conduct a walk-through because his property manager (his mother) was unavailable. This is significant. A walk-through allows the landlord to place the tenant on notice of defects and conditions that may affect the return of the tenant's security deposit. Preferably a list is made of the defects and countersigned by the parties. The tenant, after the walk-through, then can make decisions on whether to remedy the conditions pointed out by the landlord. When a walk-through does not happen because the landlord unreasonably refuses to participate, which the court finds happened here, the court believes that the following evidentiary rule is the appropriate remedy—all inferences from the evidence concerning the condition of the apartment must be construed against the landlord.{**54 Misc 3d at 389}
In light of all the circumstances, the testimony and particularly the photographs, the court finds all the cleanliness issues were nothing more than normal wear and tear. Thorough cleaning is required when a tenant moves and that cleaning is the responsibility of the landlord. Here, the tenant paid the landlord $27,000 in rent over three years. The landlord must anticipate that when the tenancy ends some of that money he collected will have to be used to make the apartment ready for the next tenant. Candy wrappers under the stove, dog hair on the floor, stains in the sink and dust on ceiling fans is nothing abnormal and, even according to the landlord's witness, it was nothing that was not remedied with a day's worth of cleaning.