With respect to the claimants' burden to prove the four elements, the credible evidence showed the following: (1) there is no dispute the claimants paid the defendant a security deposit of $1,800 (lease, claimants' exhibit 1; testimony of claimants and defendant); (2) based on the testimony of the claimants and a review of the claimants' pictures (claimants' exhibit 2), it is apparent the claimants (particularly Mrs. Camacho) cleaned the property prior to vacating it and took care in doing so (while the property was not spotless, it is apparent from the pictures that the claimants left it in good condition, subject to some items discussed below); (3) although it is not clear the claimants would have to demand the return of the security deposit, the testimony of the parties showed the claimants and the defendant on a number of occasions discussed the return of the security deposit in whole or in part (and defendant's exhibits A and B would not have been generated if there were no demand for a return of the security deposit and no agreement by the defendant to consider the return of the security{**60 Misc 3d at 844} deposit); and (4) the evidence showed the defendant returned $500 of the security deposit but is now demanding the return of that amount, plus more (defendant's exhibit B; defendant's testimony).
The claimants satisfied the four Hamilton elements and established a prima facie right to the full security deposit. The analysis now turns to whether the defendant met his two-fold Hamilton burden.