Footnotes
Footnote 1: Plaintiff argues that
because defendant's cross-motion/opposition papers were submitted four days after the
stipulated return date of the motion, this court should reject those papers "and render its
decision based solely on the submissions made by plaintiff." (NYSCEF No. 70 at 3.)
Taking into account the brief and non-prejudicial nature of defendant's delay in filing the
cross-motion/opposition papers, the court has chosen to consider those papers and
resolve both the motion and cross-motion on their merits.
Footnote 2: Defendant suggests in
passing that as a result of plaintiff's early departure from the premises, defendant incurred
costs comprising, at a minimum, "a $10,500 rent differential, $6,000 in broker fees, and
$2,000 for cleaning and repair." (NYSCEF No. 63 at ¶ 14.) But defendant does not
challenge (or even address) the jury's express finding that defendant was not entitled to
any damages for those claimed costs—only to $4,800. (See NYSCEF No.
59 at Tr. 3-4.)
Footnote 3: Plaintiff has not
requested an award of prejudgment interest, whether in its complaint or its papers on this
motion. (See NYSCEF No. 1 at 8-9 [complaint]; NYSCEF No. 55 at
¶¶ 14-15 [opening affirmation]; NYSCEF No. 70 at ¶¶ 2 [a], 16
[reply affirmation].) Additionally, plaintiff has not attempted to establish the accrual date
of its claim against defendant for failure to return the security deposit. Nor is that accrual
date clear on the face of the evidence introduced at trial—particularly given that
plaintiff's claims in this action preceded the enactment of the security-deposit provisions
of the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019. In these circumstances, the
record does not support an award of interest.
Footnote 4: Plaintiff suggests that