Under these circumstances, where no commingling occurred, where Urban did not suffer any damages, and where the subject contract provides that Royal is entitled to the security deposit, the court holds that Urban is not entitled to relief. As{**53 Misc 3d at 464} persuasive authority, the court relies on Purfield v Kathrane (73 Misc 2d 194 [Civ Ct, NY County 1973]), where the court addressed the consequences of violating section 7-103's notice requirements:
"The question presented is whether violations of such provisions [of section 7-103] entitle the person making the deposit to a return of the deposit. Actually, the statutes themselves do not state that a violation of any of their provisions entitles such person to a return of his deposit. Where there has been commingling, such person may be entitled to the return of his deposit only because the statute declares that a trust has been created, and, under the law of trusts, a commingling constitutes a conversion entitling the cestui que trust to recover the trust funds. Presumably, if it were intended that any violation of the statute, should, of itself, require a return of the deposit, the statute would have said so. In the absence of such a statement, the court concludes that the loss of the deposit was not the intended penalty. The court observes that when it was intended to fix a specific [*10]penalty for a violation, specific provision was made. [See General Obligations Law § 7-105 (3) (declaring that any failure to comply with that section is a misdemeanor).] Accordingly, the court finds that violations of the notice provisions do not entitle plaintiffs to a return of a deposit." (Id. at 203 [emphasis added and citations omitted].)