Amina Mahmood, Plaintiff, v. Hollandale Apartments, Defendant. (2026)

Plaintiff having commenced this small claims proceeding by filing of a claim on January 20, 2026 alleging that defendant "fail[ed] to provide [an] opportunity to remedy concerns re: 31-H upon move out and within 14 days of vacating, and fail[ed] to return security deposit within the same time period per Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019, NYS General Obligation Law § 7-108," and defendant  ¹ having thereafter been served on January 27, 2026, and

The parties having appeared on the return date of March 3, 2026, with plaintiff appearing on her own behalf and David H. Pentkowski, Esq. appearing on behalf of defendant, and

The Court having heard testimony from both plaintiff and Donna Daley 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 submitted by plaintiff during the hearing, marked collectively as Plaintiff's Exhibit A:

• Summary of Small Claims Court Case #26010284;

• September 4-5, 2025 email exchange, with copy of August 19, 2025 correspondence to plaintiff from Hollandale Management attached;

• July 9-12, 2025 email exchange;

• July 17, 2025 email, and

The Court having thoroughly reviewed the following submitted by defendant

during the hearing, marked collectively as Defendant's Exhibit A:

• Move-in Inspection Report dated November 9, 2019;

• Photographs of apartment upon exit inspection;

• December 11, 2025 correspondence to plaintiff from defendant;

• December 30, 2025 correspondence to plaintiff from defendant, with copy of December 20, 2025 correspondence from plaintiff to defendant attached;

• January 13, 2026 invoice from Atlantic States Kitchen & Baths to defendant;

• February 20, 2026 invoice from David-Louis Associates, LLC to Hollandale Apartments;

• February 24, 2026 invoice from Paul Hicock & Son, Inc. to Hollandale Apartments;

• February 28, 2026 correspondence to plaintiff from defendant, and

The Court having invited and considered certain supplemental submissions, including an email dated March 9, 2026 from Attorney Pentkowksi with attachment thereto and an email dated March 12, 2026 from plaintiff, 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 is a former tenant of defendant, having entered into a lease in or around November 2019. Daley is defendant's Chief Operating Officer. It appears that plaintiff and Michael Robinson — who did not testify and is not a party to this proceeding — made certain complaints to Daley and her staff in July 2025 following issues with respect to the windows and refrigerator in their apartment. Daley testified that Robinson was particularly hostile toward her and the staff, which hostility is evident in a July 11, 2025 email sent to Daley by Robinson. Plaintiff's refrigerator was replaced on July 18, 2025, and Daley advised that plaintiff's windows had been placed "on a list for [a] subcontractor to inspect . . . when [defendant did its] next round of [window] replacements." Defendant subsequently chose not to renew plaintiff's lease in view of Robinson's ongoing "animosity" and "volatility." Plaintiff and Robinson vacated the apartment on November 30, 2025 upon expiration of the lease term.

Defendant conducted an inspection after plaintiff and Robinson vacated and, on December 11, 2025, Daley sent correspondence to plaintiff advising that the inspection revealed "damage to the kitchen countertop and pass thru top which will require replacement," as well as "extensive damage to the bath vanity which removed the finish and calcification on the tops from water . . . not being removed in a timely manner." The correspondence indicated that "the damages were not due to normal wear and tear and were not present prior to [plaintiff's] occupancy," and estimated that the cost to repair the damages would "exceed [plaintiff's] security deposit of $1,155." As a result, plaintiff's security deposit was not returned. Daley concluded the correspondence by advising that plaintiff would be notified once the final bills for the repairs were received.

It appears that plaintiff did not receive this correspondence for some reason and, on December 20, 2025, sent correspondence to Daley requesting the return of her security deposit. Daley responded on December 30, 2025, enclosing a copy of her December 11 correspondence. Plaintiff then commenced this proceeding.

Briefly, since commencement of the proceeding, Daley sent plaintiff additional correspondence on February 28, 2026 indicating that the total cost of the repairs was $1,671.00, and that — after accounting for the security deposit of $1155.00 plus $1.78 in interest — the amount due to defendant was $514.22. Defendant, however, indicated during the hearing that it is not making any counterclaim in this proceeding. As such, it appears that this amount due is being waived.

General Obligations Law § 7-108 (1-a) — one of the statutory provisions enacted by the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 — 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 . . . . The landlord may not retain any amount of the deposit for costs relating to ordinary wear and tear of occupancy or damage caused by a prior tenant. . . .

"(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.

(f) In any action or proceeding disputing the amount of any deposit retained, the landlord shall bear the burden of proof as to the reasonableness of the amount retained.

(g) Any person who violates the provisions of this subdivision shall be liable for actual damages, provided a person found to have willfully violated this subdivision shall be liable for punitive damages of up to twice the amount of the deposit or advance."

Here, the Court finds that defendant provided plaintiff with an itemized statement indicating the basis for the amount of the deposit retained on December 11, 2025 — within the requisite 14 days — then providing additional detail on February 28, 2026, once the repairs were completed. The Court further finds that defendant satisfied its burden of demonstrating the reasonableness of the amount retained. In this regard, defendant submitted invoices relative to the repairs, as well as photographs of the damage.

The Court appreciates plaintiff's argument that she and Robinson lived in the apartment for six years and the damage was the result of normal wear and tear caused by, among other things, the hard water in the Town of Clifton Park. The Court, however, is not convinced. There is no question that hard water causes damage — but such damage can be remedied by regularly removing standing water. Plaintiff testified that she had a drying rack next to the sink, where the damage was most evident. The damage on the front of the bathroom vanity likewise does not appear to have resulted from normal wear and tear, as such staining does not result from normal usage. It once again appears that the vanity was not wiped down and water or other cleaning agents remained on the surface for a prolonged period.

The record reveals that defendant did not provide plaintiff with notice of her right to request an inspection and her right to be present at that inspection. That being said, however, plaintiff has failed to establish any actual damages as a result of such failure. In this regard, it highly unlikely that plaintiff would have been able to remedy the defects noted in the inspection for an amount less than $1,155.00. The Court further finds that plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages, as there is nothing in the record to suggest that defendant's failure to comply with General Obligations Law § 7-108 (1-a) (d) was willful.

Finally, the Court recognizes that RPL § 223-b (1) (a) prohibits a landlord from serving a termination notice in retaliation for good faith complaints by a tenant to enforce rights under a lease. Here, however, the Court finds insufficient proof of any retaliation for good faith complaints. Defendant addressed the complaints made by plaintiff in July 2025 — it does not appear that the complaints were the issue. Rather, it appears that Robinson's conduct toward Daley and her staff were the issue. While the Court was not provided with a copy of the parties' lease agreement, presumably both parties had the right not to renew — and Hollandale chose to exercise that right.

To the extent not addressed herein, plaintiff's remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court denies the relief requested by plaintiff and dismisses the claim.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiff's request is denied and the claim dismissed.

DATED: March 19, 2026

Clifton Park, New York

ENTER:

HON. JENNIFER P. JERAM

TOWN JUSTICE

FOOTNOTES

1.   Upon consent of the parties, the Court has amended the caption to reflect the appropriate defendant — namely, Hollandale Apartments. Plaintiff previously named "Donna Daley, Office/Property Manager" as defendant.

Jennifer P. Jeram, J.