In this case, the defendant, as noted above, claimed there was grease on, under and in the stove; the rugs had different hues due to stains caused by the claimants; there was a lift in the vinyl covering on the porch; window blinds were broken; the pantry area, refrigerator, shower, and bathtub were not cleaned; some of the doors were damaged; the removal of wallpaper installed by the claimants caused damage to some of the walls; and locks were missing on some windows. Based on the cases set forth above, the court finds that all the items listed above were examples of ordinary wear and tear, or if some of the items could constitute more than ordinary wear and tear (in other words, "extraordinary damage" caused to the property), the court finds the defendant did not satisfy his{**60 Misc 3d at 847} statutorily-imposed burden to prove the extent of the damages and the cost to repair them because the defendant did not submit paid receipts or two itemized estimates as required by UCCA 1804. Thus, the defendant did not satisfy the two-part Hamilton test and is not entitled to deduct any damages or cost of repairs from the security deposit.
The defendant also cannot withhold from the security deposit the amount of
$600 he claims as lost rent because the property wasn't ready for occupancy by
his new tenant until March 15, 2018. As noted above, the lease term with the
claimants ended on February 28, 2018. The claimants vacated the property by that