This doesn't mean, however, that the tenant is always entitled to the return of the entire amount of the security deposit. The entire security deposit must be returned to the tenant at the end of the tenant's occupancy[FN5] unless it can be proved that the tenant's occupancy caused damage beyond what would be considered normal or ordinary wear and tear. (James Bohl, CPA, P.C. v Poffenbarger, 59 Misc 3d 128[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50405[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2018]; Wicklund v Mukhtyar, 55 Misc 3d 152[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50789[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2017]; Mazzarelli v Moniaci, 21 Misc 3d 129[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51967[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]; Hamilton v Bosko, 54 Misc 3d 386, 388 [Cohoes [*4]City Ct 2016].) If the landlord can prove by competent evidence the cost of repairing or replacing the "extraordinary damage caused by the tenant" (Hamilton at 388), then the landlord can retain that amount from the security deposit. (Id.; see also Bohl, 2018 NY Slip Op 50405[U], *2; Mazzarelli, 2008 NY Slip Op 51967[U], *1.)
The above rules can be restated this way: if the tenant leaves the premises without any damage more than normal or ordinary wear and tear, the tenant is entitled to receive back the entire security deposit. If the tenant causes more than normal or ordinary wear and tear damage to the property (as the Hamilton court labeled it, "extraordinary damage"), then the landlord may retain the security deposit to the extent the cost to repair the damage is proved by competent evidence.
The court in Hamilton (54 Misc 3d at 388) laid out a framework to analyze "the elements and burdens imposed upon the tenant and the landlord under General Obligations Law § 7-103 (1)." First,