
So remember how my old landlord withheld one month of my security deposit last year? In case you don’t, to recap: A few months after signing a two-year lease with my then-girlfriend C., we split up. We gave them plenty of notice, but they didn’t find a new tenant. So we continued paying rent on the now-vacant apartment for like two weeks until C. found them a new tenant. But the landlord, Midwood Management Corp., declined to sign a lease with the new tenant unless we agreed to sacrifice one month’s security deposit — $2300. To me this seemed like blackmail. We were certainly willing to cover all of their legitimate expenses in re-renting the place, but those were minimal: the cost of a credit check and drawing up a new lease. (As mentioned, they hadn’t lost any rent on the deal because we paid for the vacant apartment).
So I wasn’t going to agree to this, but C. wanted to and asked me to as well. It seemed like if we fought them or refused to agree to giving up one month’s security deposit, they would leave the apartment vacant and maximize their damages. We were paying $76/day for this vacant apartment at this point. So, more out of courtesy to my ex- than anything else, I ended up signing a very vague agreement that said they would terminate the lease in return for “for valuable consideration, the receipt of which Owner hereby acknowleges.”
However after talking to my lawyer friend Tallman I decided there was a case to be that this agreement was totally coerced and should not be valid. The security deposit only exists to cover their legitimate expenses and should not be used as a bribe to get them to re-rent the apartment.
So I filed an action in small claims court. It was very simple and easy to file, costing me just $20. There was a preliminary hearing in March and then it went to trial last Thursday, May 8. In the interest of having it heard quickly we agreed to have it heard by an arbitrator, rather than a judge, which meant there is no appeal possible. So on Thursday I went up to room 775 of 111 Centre St. and had my case heard. I sat in a conference room across from Midwood’s in-house counsel and chief executive, and we both explained our sides to the arbitrator. I wouldn’t say we were friendly, exactly, but we were certainly very polite and civil and cordial to each other. The arbitrator listened carefully and asked some good questions.
Midwood’s president, Steven Brown, acknowledged under oath that he had rented the place to the new tenants for “a few dollars more” than what C. and I were paying(!). (He said he would have just left the apartment vacant otherwise). So not only did Midwood not suffer a loss in rental income by us leaving, the company actually profited!
At one point Midwood’s lawyer claimed their expenses in re-renting the place were in excess of $2300, such as their costs in getting the apartment ready for us. I was kicking myself afterward for not challenging that more. It was vacant when we saw it; all they did was put our name on the buzzer. And had it professionally cleaned after we moved out; I think we actually returned it to them in a cleaner condition than we got it.
Basically their position, though, was that we had consented to give them $2300, so it shouldn’t matter if they had damages or not. My position was that that “consent” was coerced by their outrageous conduct.
In the end I left thinking I had had a fair hearing and was satisfied I had gotten to tell my story to someone. And … guess what??? I guess the headline and the photo blow the ending, huh? I got the decision in the mail today — and I won!!!! I even was awarded $20 in court fees, which I hadn’t asked for.
All in I spent about an hour to file the claim, mostly waiting in line; maybe 60-90 minutes at the preliminary hearing back in March; a half-hour waiting for the trial on Thursday, and the trial itself was half an hour. I still have to collect the judgment, but hopefully that should not be a problem. Let’s hear it for the little guy!
Tags: rent, nyc, apartments, landlords, small claims court, hell’s kitchen, midwood management corp.