Gregory Brazis-Eberle, Plaintiff, v. The Windsor Companies, Defendant. (2026)

Plaintiff having commenced this small claims proceeding by filing of a claim on March 27, 2026 alleging as follows: "Security Deposit was withheld without sufficient reason. Defendant says both bedroom carpets were ruined without providing evidence or reasoning," and defendant having thereafter been served on April 1, 2026, and

The parties having appeared on the return date of May 5, 2026, with plaintiff appearing on his own behalf and David M. Sussman, President of Windsor Companies and Asset Manager to The Hamlet at Slingerlands, appearing on behalf of defendant, and

The Court having heard testimony from plaintiff and from Sussman on behalf of defendant, and having had an opportunity to observe their demeanor and finding both to be credible, and

The Court having thoroughly reviewed the following exhibits submitted by plaintiff during the hearing:

• 11 photographs of the subject apartment, all dated December 31, 2025;

• Text message chain between plaintiff and Lynne Hansen, a Leasing Agent for the Hamlet at Slingerlands,¹ ranging in date from December 2025 to February 2026;

• February 23, 2026 email from Hansen, with attached February 16, 2026 correspondence to plaintiff and Hannah Ennello from The Hamlet at Slingerlands;

• February 23, 2026 email from plaintiff to Hansen;

• March 4, 2026 email from plaintiff to Hansen;

• March 5, 2026 email from Hansen to plaintiff, with itemized breakdown of carpet replacement cost attached

• March 6, 2026 email exchange between plaintiff and Hansen; and

The Court having thoroughly reviewed the following exhibits submitted by defendant

during the hearing:

• Written submission of Sussman in opposition to plaintiff's claim;

• Document labeled "Carpet Hamlet Unit 5208 Square Yards (sy)" with cost breakdown of Tenant Credits and Landlord Credits;

• Proposals from Landmark Flooring Concepts, Inc. dated December 12, 2025 and January 13, 2026, respectively, together with "About Us" document;

• Apartment Lease Contract dated May 29, 2023,² together with a First Amendment dated June 3, 2024 and a Second Amendment dated June 17, 2025;

• Addendum "C" (Move In Form), signed by plaintiff on July 24, 2023;

• Email from Hansen dated May 1, 2026 with attached Addendum "C" (Move Out Form), initialed by plaintiff and Enello on December 31, 2025;

• February 16, 2026 correspondence to plaintiff and Ennello from The Hamlet at Slingerlands;³ and

The Court applying the relevant standard for small claims proceedings as set forth in Uniform Justice Court Act § 1804, namely "to do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law,"

NOW, upon due deliberation the Court hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

Plaintiff and Ennello are former tenants of defendant,⁴ having signed a one-year lease in May 2023 for an apartment located at 5208 Dunhill Court in The Hamlet at Slingerlands. They subsequently renewed the lease for two additional one-year terms, with the lease set to expire on July 31, 2026. Upon signing the lease, plaintiff and Ennello gave a deposit of $2,250.00, which included a $300.00 nonrefundable pet fee for their cat, a $500.00 nonrefundable redecorating fee, and a $1,400.00 refundable security deposit.

In or around December 2025 plaintiff and Ennello requested permission to terminate their lease effective December 31, 2025, which request was granted. Recognizing that their cat had scratched the carpet in the entry ways of both the master and second bedrooms, plaintiff reached out to Hansen via text message on December 9, 2025 inquiring whether he could assist in repair. Specifically, plaintiff texted as follows:

"Hey, Lynne. I know it's not you, it's your company so I'm sorry to make a fuss but im [sic] hoping you could mention this to your boss. I just did a little bit of math. We paid $500 for the nonrefundable security deposit. We also paid $350 for the pet security deposit. Then we paid $25 per month for the first year that we lived here for the cat. That's $1,150.00. That money should be going towards the carpet. I don't see how your company could charge us for more than what we already are not getting back for the whole rug when there is only a 4x4" patch that needs to be replaced. I worked in construction and there is no way that a carpet would cost more than $1,150.00 especially if it was just patching it which is definitely possible, I'd love to talk to the carpet people if you'd let me to try and sort some things out and figure out why they say the can't patch it. It none of that works, I'd be happy to fix it myself but I don't know what brand the carpet is."

It does not appear that plaintiff received a response from Hansen or any other representative of defendant. In this regard, Hansen conducted a walk-through of the apartment with plaintiff and Ennello on December 31, 2025, with the Move Out Form noting the damage to the carpets from the cat and stating that plaintiff "would like to talk to maintenance about [his] options."

Again not having heard anything from defendant, plaintiff reached out to Hansen via text on February 14, 2026 to follow up. He then reached out again via text on February 22, 2026 and, on February 23, 2026, he received an email from Hansen with attached correspondence stating as follows:

"As you are aware, during your tenancy at The Hamlet Apartments, your cat caused significant damage to the carpets in your apartment unit. This damage required that the carpets be thrown out. Upon your move-out the Landlord removed and fully replaced all the carpets and pads in your unit. The cost of the above-mentioned damage was $2,358.00. This amount exceeds the amount of your security, pet, and redecorating deposits which total $2,250.00. The Landlord will forgo the collection of the balance owed in the amount of $108.00."

Plaintiff responded on February 23, 2026 requesting a breakdown of the cost of the carpet replacement, which breakdown was provided on March 5, 2026. Plaintiff then commenced this proceeding shortly after, seeking to recoup his security deposit of $1,400.00.

General Obligations Law § 7-108 (1-a) provides, in pertinent part:

"(b) The entire amount of [a security] deposit . . . shall be refundable to the tenant upon the tenant's vacating of the premises except for an amount lawfully retained for . . . damage caused by the tenant beyond normal wear and tear . . . .

"(d) Within a reasonable time after notification of either party's intention to terminate the tenancy, . . . the landlord shall notify the tenant in writing of the tenant's right to request an inspection before vacating the premises and of the tenant's right to be present at the inspection. If the tenant requests such an inspection, the inspection shall be made no earlier than two weeks and no later than one week before the end of the tenancy. The landlord shall provide at least forty-eight hours written notice of the date and time of the inspection. After the inspection, the landlord shall provide the tenant with an itemized statement specifying repairs or cleaning that are proposed to be the basis of any deductions from the tenant's deposit. The tenant shall have the opportunity to cure any such condition before the end of the tenancy. Any statement produced pursuant to this paragraph shall only be admissible in proceedings related to the return or amount of the security deposit.

(e) Within fourteen days after the tenant has vacated the premises, the landlord shall provide the tenant with an itemized statement indicating the basis for the amount of the deposit retained, if any, and shall return any remaining portion of the deposit to the tenant. If a landlord fails to provide the tenant with the statement and deposit within fourteen days, the landlord shall forfeit any right to retain any portion of the deposit."

Here, plaintiff and Ennello moved out on December 31, 2025 and defendant did not advise them until February 16, 2026 — 47 days later — that their security deposit was being retained. Defendant then failed to provide an itemized statement with respect to the carpet replacement until March 5, 2026 — 64 days later. Given defendant's failure to provide plaintiff with an itemized statement and the amount of the deposit retained within the requisite 14 days, General Obligations Law § 7-108 (1-a) (e) mandates that defendant "shall forfeit any right to retain any portion of the deposit." The Court must also note that defendant failed to provide plaintiff with an opportunity to repair the damage to the carpet prior to the end of his tenancy, as required under General Obligations Law § 7-108 (1-a) (d).

Based upon the foregoing, the Court grants the relief requested and hereby directs defendant to return the $1,400.00 security deposit to plaintiff and Ennello within thirty (30) days of the date of this Decision and Order.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the relief requested is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that defendant shall return the $1,400.00 security deposit to plaintiff and Ennello within thirty (30) days of the date of this Decision and Order.

DATED: May 26, 2026

Clifton Park, New York

ENTER:

HON. JENNIFER P. JERAM

TOWN JUSTICE

FOOTNOTES

1.   Although identified only as "Lynne" in plaintiff's exhibits, Hansen's full name appears in defendant's exhibits.

2.   This includes the additional highlighted copies of pages 9 and 10 of the Apartment Lease Contract and Addendum "H" to the Contract.

3.   The Court notes that defendant also submitted a statement apparently from Alex Hernandez who states, inter alia, that he performs maintenance services for defendant. To the extent that the statement is unsigned and set forth in an email sent both to and from Sussman at dsussman@thewindsorco.com, the Court declines to consider it.

4.   Although not entirely clear from the record, it appears that plaintiff and Ennello are married.

Jennifer P. Jeram, J.