"General Obligations Law § 7-103 (1) provides that a security deposit with respect to the use or rental of real property shall continue to be the money of the person making such deposit and shall be held in trust by the person with whom such deposit or advance shall be made and shall not be mingled with the personal moneys or become an asset of the person receiving the same." (Solomon v Ness, 118 AD3d 773, 773 [2d Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted], citing General Obligations Law § 7-103 [3].)
"When a landlord commingles the security [*5]deposit with his or her personal funds in violation of General Obligations Law § 7-103 (1), the tenant has an immediate right to [the] return of the funds, even if the tenant had breached the lease." (Id. at 773-774 [internal quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted].)
"Where . . . a plaintiff alleges that a landlord failed to provide written notice of the banking institution that holds the security deposit, an inference that the security deposit funds were commingled in violation of section 7-103 (1) is permitted" {**63 Misc 3d at 912}(Rubman v Osuchowski, 163 AD3d 1471, 1473-1474 [4th Dept 2018] [citations, internal quotation marks and brackets omitted]). "It is [then] the landlord's burden to prove that it did not commingle the security deposit with other funds." (Harlem Capital Ctr., LLC v Rosen & Gordon, LLC, 145 AD3d 579, 580 [1st Dept 2016] [citation omitted].) "Ultimately, . . . if [a] landlord cannot prove that the security deposit was segregated prior to the termination of the lease, it will be required to repay those monies to tenant, with interest." (Id. [citation omitted].)