Most deposit disputes are about a landlord who missed the fourteen-day deadline entirely. Yours might not be. Maybe the statement showed up on time, itemized, with a dollar figure next to each line, and it still feels wrong: a $400 charge for a carpet that was already worn when you moved in, a $150 'cleaning fee' with no receipt behind it, a repair bill for something that looks a lot like ordinary use. A landlord who beats the clock has not automatically won. GOL § 7-108(1-a) does not just impose a deadline; it limits what a landlord is allowed to deduct in the first place, and a technically timely statement full of unlawful deductions is still a violation.
Start with the statute's own line: normal wear and tear can never be charged against a security deposit, full stop, no matter how promptly the landlord itemizes it. Faded paint, worn carpet in high-traffic areas, minor scuffs, and the ordinary marks of someone having lived in a home are the landlord's cost of doing business, not yours. Separately, every deduction the statute allows still needs a specific stated basis: a round number labeled "cleaning" or "damage" with nothing behind it does not meet that bar. And critically, the burden is not on you to disprove the charges. The landlord bears the burden of proving the retention was lawful, which in practice means proving the damage exceeded normal wear and tear and that the amount charged reflects the actual cost of repair, not an inflated guess.
So the question to ask about each line item is narrow and useful: is this damage beyond ordinary wear and tear, and is there anything behind the number besides the landlord's say-so? A repair invoice or receipt supports a charge. An unsupported flat fee, or a charge for something that looks like normal aging of the unit, does not. Photograph what you can, especially if you photographed the unit on move-out (or even move-in), and pull together your lease, the itemized statement itself, and any messages where the landlord described the damage differently before the paperwork arrived.
The other piece worth knowing: RPL § 234 makes attorney-fee clauses reciprocal. If your lease lets the landlord recover legal fees from you, it lets you recover them from the landlord too when you prevail. That single provision changes the arithmetic for a landlord deciding whether to defend a padded cleaning bill or just refund the disputed portion.
None of this means every disputed deduction is winnable, and an honest guide says so. A landlord who genuinely repaired real damage beyond ordinary wear, with a receipt to show for it, is inside the statute even on a contested claim. The cases worth pursuing are the ones where the charge is vague, unsupported, or plainly describes normal wear dressed up as damage. A written demand that walks through the statement line by line, cites § 7-108(1-a)'s substantive limits rather than just the deadline, and asks the landlord to substantiate or refund each disputed item puts the burden back where the statute already placed it.
Possibly. The fourteen-day deadline is one requirement, but GOL § 7-108(1-a) separately bars charging for normal wear and tear and requires a specific basis for every deduction. A timely statement full of unsupported or wear-and-tear charges can still be unlawful.
Wear and tear is the ordinary result of living somewhere: faded paint, worn carpet in high-traffic spots, minor scuffs. Damage is something beyond that, a hole in the wall, a broken fixture, stains that go past normal use. The line isn't always obvious, which is exactly why unsupported charges are worth challenging.
No. The statute requires a specific stated basis for each deduction, not a round number. An unsupported flat fee is the kind of charge worth disputing directly.
The landlord. GOL § 7-108(1-a) puts the burden of proving lawful retention on the landlord, not on the tenant to disprove it.
No, that's a separate, usually stronger claim covered elsewhere on this site. This guide is for the case where the landlord met the deadline but the charges themselves don't hold up.