Alexander L Wong, Plaintiff, v. Nathalie Pierre, Defendant. (2026)

A trial on this small claims matter was held on April 13, 2026. Plaintiff Alexander Wong ("plaintiff" or "Wong"), as sublessee, and defendant Nathalie Pierre ("defendant" or "Pierre"), as subleassor , entered into a written sublease agreement on December 4, 2024. The agreement was for a six-month term beginning on December 5, 2024, and ending on June 5, 2025, for the apartment located at Clarkson Avenue in Brooklyn. The agreement provided for a monthly rent of $2,000 plus a $2,000 security deposit at the outset of the agreement. The agreement further provided: "The sublessor shall return the sublessee's security deposit within 30 days after the sublessee moves out. If any deductions are made from the deposit (for damages beyond wear and tear or for money due and owing under the terms of the sublease agreement), these must be completely itemized and given to the sublessee within the same 30-day period after move-out are found." Plaintiff seeks the return of his security deposit in the amount of $2,000, on the ground that he was told to leave a month before the term ended. The agreement was silent about early termination and oral modifications.

On April 6, 2025, plaintiff informed defendant by text that he had secured a new apartment that had a move-in date of May 1, 2025. He indicated that he would still be paying for defendant's apartment through June 5, 2025, as the agreement provided for, unless the two of them could work out an arrangement for an early termination of the sublease. Defendant replied "I need the apartment in June. So you're fine for May." By text dated April 15, 2025, defendant agreed to use plaintiff's security deposit to cover May's rent and mentioned that she wanted to show the apartment to prospective new sublessees.

On May 2, 2025, when defendant inquired as to how plaintiff's move was progressing, defendant informed her that he was not planning to complete his move out from her apartment for several more weeks. Plaintiff reminded defendant that the parties never reached an agreement regarding an early termination or move-out date, despite plaintiff having offered to accommodate such an arrangement. Due to the lack of a formal agreement, plaintiff claimed he was led to believe that the sublease remained in effect through June 5, 2025. Nevertheless, defendant instructed plaintiff to leave the apartment, stating: "Alex, get out of my apartment as soon as possible... Leave Alex. That's all that needs to be done ... Young man, I've made the same request — simply leave." Plaintiff vacated the apartment on May 5, 2025, left the keys where plaintiff instructed, and sent a picture of the keys to plaintiff to which she responded with a thumbs up emoji.

"The best evidence of what parties to a written agreement intend is what they say in their writing." Yeled V'Yalda Early Childhood Ctr., Inc. v. Attentive Behavior Mental Health Counseling, P.C., 208 AD3d 1209, 1210 (2d Dept. 2022); Matter of AJG Parkview Corp. v Calabrese, 187 AD3d 1175, 1178 (2d Dept. 2020). "Thus, a written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms." Greenfield v. Philles Records, 98 NY2d 562, 569 (2002). This court finds that the text communications between plaintiff and the defendant did not constitute a modification of the lease agreement. To establish the modification of a contract, a party must prove "each element requisite to the formulation of a contract, including mutual assent to its terms." JER Realty, LLC v. Pick & Pack Hub, LLC, 236 AD3d 1004, 1005-1006 (2d Dept. 2025); Matter of Battat v. Rejwan, 232 AD3d 889, 891 (2d Dept. 2024); Lawrence M. Kamhi, M.D., P.C. v East Coast Pain Mgt., P.C., 177 AD3d 726, 726 (2d Dept. 2019). Here, the texts between the parties did not establish assent. While plaintiff told defendant that he had secured a new apartment with a move-in date fo May 1, 2025 but was still willing to pay through June 5, 2025, he expressed a preference for an arrangement terminating the sublease early. Defendant's response that she needed the apartment for June "so you're find for May" was similarly ambiguous.

"A tenant's security deposit is the property of the person making the deposit" pursuant to General Obligation Law ("GOL") § 7-103(1) and "must be returned at the conclusion of the tenancy unless there is proof that the tenant caused damage beyond what is attributable to ordinary wear and tear." Felder v. Fleet Mills, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 50713(U); 2021 NY Misc. LEXIS 4209, *2-3 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2021); Moriarty v. Dubey, 2022 NY Misc. LEXIS 47035, *7 (Sup. Ct. West. Co.. 2022). This court finds that the lease terminated by operation of law on May 5, 2025, the day claimant surrendered the apartment in accordance with defendant's demands. "A surrender by operation of law occurs when the parties to a lease both do some act so inconsistent with the landlord-tenant relationship that it indicates their intent to deem the lease terminated." Riverside Research Inst. v. KMGA, Inc., 68 NY2d 689, 691-692 (1986). Defendant's demand and plaintiff's surrender of the premises constitutes behavior that is so inconsistent with the landlord-tenant relationship that it indicates their intent to terminate the lease. See, Fragomeni v AIM Services, Inc., 135 AD3d 1272, 1273 (3d Dept 2016) ("A surrender by operation of law is inferred from the conduct of the parties, namely, the tenant's abandonment of the demised premises and the landlord's acceptance thereof").

No evidence was presented at trial that plaintiff caused damages to the subject premises. Since the lease is deemed to have terminated on May 5, 2025, plaintiff is entitled to the return the his security deposit in the amount of $2,000 pursuant to GOL 7-103(1).

The Civil Court Act ("CCA") § 1804 provides that the court must conduct hearings in small claims matters in such a manner as to do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law. O'Hara v. Bates, 2025 NY Slip Op 51146(U), 2025 NY Misc. LEXIS 6289, *1-2 (App. Term 2d Dept 2025). In accordance with this duty, this court awards judgment in favor of plaintiff Alexander Wong in the amount of $2,000. This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated: May 21, 2026

Hon. Tehilah H. Berman

Judge of the Civil Court,

Kings County

Tehilah H. Berman, J.