New York courts refuse to enforce deposit forfeitures that operate as penalties. When a venue, photographer, or caterer keeps thousands while suffering little or no actual loss, or re-books your date and gets paid twice, the law can entitle you to your money back. And where the vendor breached or misled you, the case gets stronger still.
Flat fee $499, signed by a licensed New York attorney, mailed within 48 hours.
This is settled New York common law: a contract clause fixing damages in advance is enforceable only if it's a reasonable estimate of actual loss. A forfeiture grossly disproportionate to the vendor's real damages is a penalty, and courts will not enforce it, whatever the contract calls it. A vendor who re-books your date has mitigated its loss, and keeping your full deposit on top is exactly the double recovery the doctrine forbids.
Where the vendor's refund terms, availability promises, or cancellation practices were materially misleading to consumers, GBL § 349 provides actual damages or $50, whichever is greater, treble damages up to $1,000 for willful violations, plus attorney fees in the court's discretion.
GBL § 349(h)
A vendor who backs out, closes, or fails to perform has breached. Restitution of your deposit is the baseline remedy, and consequential damages for a scramble replacement can be demanded on top.
Not necessarily. New York courts look past the label to the substance: a forfeiture that far exceeds the vendor's actual loss can be an unenforceable penalty. Whether the vendor re-booked the date, and how far out you canceled, are the key facts the intake captures.
It matters a great deal. Re-booking means the vendor's actual loss may be little or nothing, which is the strongest fact pattern for penalty analysis, and the letter says so.
Possibly. Even a canceling customer can recover the portion of a deposit that exceeds the vendor's actual damages under the penalty doctrine. It depends on timing and whether the date was resold; intake screening is honest about weak cases.
5.0 ★★★★★ · 15 Google reviews · Read all reviews on Google →
Daniel Hochman provided exceptional legal assistance with a difficult security deposit dispute. Thanks to his clear strategy, well-crafted demand letters, and prompt attention, the issue was successfully resolved quickly. He was communicative, thorough, and an absolute pleasure to work with... Read on Google
I highly recommend Daniel G. Hochman, Esq. for handling defamation and libel issues. From the start, he was incredibly responsive and understood the threat to my professional reputation as a Registered Nurse... Read on Google
I used Demand Letter NY for a cease and desist letter after two years of harassment from a neighbor. The attorney called me the same day, explained everything in plain language, and had a full draft to me within hours. It covered every incident, every police report, and every point I asked for... Read on Google
Daniel Hochman is an exceptional attorney and wonderful human being; I highly reccomend him. The wise say that a Man of Integrity needs "3 A's" to have a smooth and successful life: a great accountant, a masterful agent, and an expert advocate. I'm honored to have Daniel as one of my advocates... Read on Google
Had a serious problem with someone who would not leave me alone. DemandLetterNY had a cease and desist letter ready the same day, for a flat, fair rate with no retainer. Daniel is sharp, professional, and took the time to explain my options after... Read on Google
Say less and get a Demand letter written and sent by Mr. Hochman, Esq. He is responsive and professional!!!
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.