You're two weeks past move-out, and your landlord finally responds to your deposit inquiry with a text that makes your stomach drop: "The apartment had significant damage and required extensive cleaning. We're keeping the entire deposit and you may still owe more."
Your first reaction isn't to question this claim—it's to accept it as reality, even though you know you cleaned thoroughly and left the place in good condition. Because deep down, you believe something that feels true but is actually completely wrong: that your landlord can say whatever they want about damages, and it'll be your word against theirs, and they'll win because landlords always win.
This limiting belief—"they'll just make up damages and I can't prove otherwise"—keeps thousands of New York tenants from fighting for deposits they'd win back if they understood how the law actually works. Here's what most tenants miss: New York doesn't let landlords make unsupported damage claims and keep your deposit. The law requires specific, documented, provable deductions, and landlords who can't meet that burden lose—regardless of what they claim you did.
"They'll just make up damages" translates to a deeper, more paralyzing assumption: your landlord's accusations hold more authority than your truth, and you're powerless to fight back.
This belief plays out in a familiar internal script:
"They'll say I left the carpet stained. I know it was clean, but how do I prove it? It's my word against theirs, and they own the property. A judge will believe them over me. Fighting back is pointless because they can claim whatever they want and I can't disprove it."
Everything about this script feels logical. Landlords control the property after you leave. They have time to photograph anything they want and claim you caused it. They sound authoritative when making accusations. You're just one tenant with no power.
But this entire script is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how security deposit law actually works in New York.
You think deposit disputes work like this:
Your landlord claims: "Tenant left carpet badly stained and kitchen filthy. We had to replace carpet and hire professional cleaning. We're keeping the $2,400 deposit."
You respond: "No, that's not true. The carpet was clean and the kitchen was spotless."
Judge decides: Who's more credible? Landlord owns property and sounds authoritative. Tenant has motivation to lie to get money back. Judge believes landlord. Tenant loses.
Under this framework, your landlord's ability to lie successfully determines the outcome, and you're powerless because you can't prove a negative (that damage didn't exist).
But here's how security deposit disputes actually work under New York law:
State law requires: Landlord must provide itemized written statement of specific deductions with supporting documentation within 14 days of tenant vacating.
If landlord fails to provide proper itemization within 14 days: Landlord automatically forfeits the right to keep any portion of the deposit, regardless of what damage existed.
If landlord provides timely itemization: Landlord must prove each claimed deduction with evidence—photos showing damage, invoices showing repair costs, proof damage didn't exist before tenant's occupancy.
Tenant's burden: Prove landlord missed the 14-day deadline OR challenge landlord's evidence as insufficient, inflated, or showing pre-existing damage.
Judge decides: Not "who's more credible?" but "Did landlord comply with statutory requirements?" and "Did landlord meet their burden of proof for each claimed deduction?"
See the difference? Under actual New York law, your landlord can't just "make up damages" and win. They have to prove damages according to strict legal requirements, and if they can't, they lose.
The single most powerful protection against landlords inventing damage is New York General Obligations Law § 7-108(1-e): the 14-day itemization requirement.
Your landlord has exactly 14 days from the date you vacate and return keys to provide you with a written, itemized statement of every deduction they're claiming, along with the remaining deposit balance.
This deadline serves multiple purposes, but one of the most important is preventing landlords from manufacturing claims:
It forces immediate action. Landlords can't spend weeks or months concocting damage stories or arranging fake evidence. They have 14 days to state their claims or forfeit them.
It requires specificity upfront. Vague claims like "general damages" or "cleaning needed" don't satisfy the itemization requirement. Landlords must specify exactly what damage they're claiming immediately, before they've had time to build elaborate false narratives.
It creates a fixed record. Once your landlord sends itemization (or doesn't), that document becomes the record of their claims. They can't add new damage claims later or change their story about what was damaged.
It triggers automatic forfeiture for non-compliance. If your landlord misses the 14-day deadline—even by one day—they legally forfeit the right to keep any portion of your deposit, regardless of whether damage existed.
This last point is critical. Even if your landlord is willing to lie about damages, if they don't lie within 14 days in a properly itemized format, their lies become legally irrelevant. They already lost the right to your deposit through procedural violation.
Most landlords miss the 14-day deadline. Some don't know it exists. Others know but are disorganized. Some deliberately delay hoping you'll forget or give up.
Regardless of why they miss it, the consequence is the same: complete forfeiture of deduction rights.
Scenario: Your landlord waits 30 days, then sends you a detailed list claiming $2,000 in damages with photos and receipts. The evidence is fabricated, but it looks convincing.
Your response: "You sent this itemization on day 30. The law required it within 14 days. You missed the deadline by 16 days. Under GOL § 7-108, you forfeited the right to make any deductions. Return my full deposit immediately."
Outcome: Your landlord's fabricated evidence is irrelevant. They could have video footage of you sledgehammering the walls (which didn't happen, but hypothetically), and they'd still have to return your full deposit because they missed the 14-day deadline.
The timeline violation defeats made-up claims before you ever have to argue about whether the claims are true.
Proving your landlord missed the 14-day deadline is straightforward and doesn't require proving anything about apartment condition:
Establish your move-out date: Your lease end date, text/email confirming you moved out, moving company receipt, utility shutoff confirmation, or your own testimony.
Calculate the 14-day deadline: Move-out date + 14 days = deadline date.
Establish when (if ever) you received itemization: Postmark on envelope, timestamp on email, date on letter, or statement that you received nothing.
Compare: Did itemization arrive by the deadline? If no, violation proven.
Example timeline proof:
You just proved a legal violation without mentioning apartment condition once. Your landlord's ability to make up damages became irrelevant because they violated the procedure required to keep any money.
Even if your landlord somehow sends something within 14 days, New York law requires that the statement be properly "itemized"—detailed, specific, and supported with evidence of actual costs.
These statements don't qualify as adequate itemization:
"Cleaning: $800"
"Repairs: $1,500"
"Damages to apartment"
"General restoration and turnover costs"
These vague, category-based statements don't meet the legal standard for itemization. Courts have held that landlords must provide specific, detailed breakdowns—not general buckets of charges.
To satisfy the statute, itemization must specify:
Exactly what damage or issue is claimed:
The cost to repair or replace each specific item:
Supporting documentation showing actual costs:
Distinction between damage and normal wear:
When landlords provide this level of detail, their claims become testable. You can challenge whether the damage existed, whether you caused it, whether the repair was necessary, and whether the cost is reasonable.
If your landlord sends something within 14 days but it's too vague, you argue they didn't actually comply with the statute:
"Your itemization dated [date] lists 'Cleaning: $500' with no further detail. This does not satisfy the itemization requirement under GOL § 7-108, which requires specific descriptions of work performed and actual costs incurred. Without knowing what was cleaned, why cleaning was necessary beyond normal turnover, or seeing invoices for actual costs, this is not an adequate itemized statement. Therefore, you have not complied with the statute and have forfeited the right to retain any portion of my deposit."
This argument works even when you have no evidence about apartment condition, because you're attacking the adequacy of their documentation, not the truth of their claims.
The most important thing to understand about made-up damage claims: your landlord must prove their claims are true. You don't have to prove they're false.
For each claimed deduction, your landlord bears the burden of proving:
1. The damage actually existed when you moved out
2. You (not a previous tenant or normal aging) caused the damage
3. The repair was necessary and appropriate
4. The cost charged is reasonable and actual
5. Normal wear and tear is excluded from charges
This is a high burden. Landlords must prove all five elements for each deduction, and they must prove them with evidence, not just claims.
Your burden is much lighter. You only need to show that your landlord failed to meet their burden on any one element for any claimed deduction.
You can prove:
Timeline violation: "They didn't send itemization within 14 days, so none of this matters."
Inadequate itemization: "Their statement is too vague to evaluate, so they didn't comply with the statute."
Damage was pre-existing: "My move-in photos show this same stain existed when I moved in."
Cost is inflated: "Three quotes from local contractors show similar work costs $300, not the $800 they're claiming."
Damage is normal wear and tear: "Carpet shows normal traffic wear after 3 years of occupancy, which is expected depreciation, not tenant damage."
They're lying: "They claim broken cabinet, but here's my move-out photo showing all cabinets intact."
You only need one of these to work for each claimed deduction. Meanwhile, your landlord needs all five elements proven to keep that deduction.
Here's the key principle many tenants miss: when the evidence is unclear or both sides lack documentation, the law favors returning the deposit to the tenant.
If neither you nor your landlord has photos, your landlord can't prove damage existed or that you caused it. They fail their burden. You win.
If you both have photos but they don't definitively show when damage occurred, your landlord can't prove you caused it rather than the previous tenant. They fail their burden. You win.
If the itemization lists a cost but provides no receipt and you question whether work was actually done, your landlord can't prove actual costs incurred. They fail their burden. You win.
The legal structure puts the risk of uncertain evidence on the landlord, not the tenant. This makes sense because landlords control the property after move-out and have better access to documentation. If they can't produce evidence meeting their burden, they don't get to keep tenant money.
Let's walk through what happens when a landlord tries to fabricate damage claims under New York's actual legal framework:
Landlord's claim (sent 25 days after move-out): "Tenant destroyed carpet with multiple large stains, broke kitchen cabinet doors, left walls with numerous holes requiring full repainting. Total damages: $3,500. Keeping entire $2,400 deposit and tenant owes additional $1,100."
What tenant knows: Apartment was clean, no stains, no broken cabinets, only normal tiny nail holes from picture hanging.
Tenant's response: "You sent this claim on day 25. The law required itemization within 14 days. You missed the deadline by 11 days. Under GOL § 7-108(1-e), you forfeited the right to make any deductions. Whether your claims are true or false is now legally irrelevant. Return my full $2,400 deposit immediately, or I will file in small claims court where I'll also seek statutory penalties for willful violation."
Outcome: Landlord's entire fabricated story is defeated by timeline violation. Case never reaches the question of whether damage existed. Landlord either returns deposit or loses in court on procedural grounds alone.
Landlord's claim (sent day 12): "Cleaning and repairs: $1,800. Returning $600 of your $2,400 deposit."
Tenant's response: "Your itemization lists 'Cleaning and repairs' with no specifics. What was cleaned? What was repaired? Where are invoices? This doesn't satisfy the statutory requirement for itemized statements. Under GOL § 7-108, itemization means specific descriptions and actual costs, not vague categories. Your statement is legally insufficient. Return my full deposit."
Outcome: Even though landlord met the 14-day deadline, their itemization is inadequate. Tenant challenges the sufficiency. If landlord can't provide detailed breakdown with supporting invoices, court treats this as failure to comply with the statute. Tenant wins full deposit.
Landlord's claim (sent day 10):
What tenant knows: No carpet stain existed. Cabinet was already broken at move-in. No wall hole—tenant spackled all nail holes before leaving.
Tenant's response: Attaches move-in photos showing:
Tenant's argument: "All claimed damage was either pre-existing (photos prove carpet stain and cabinet damage existed at move-in) or didn't exist at all (move-out photos show walls intact). Landlord cannot meet their burden of proving I caused any of this damage. Full deposit must be returned."
Outcome: Landlord's detailed itemization looked professional, but tenant's photos defeated each claim. Landlord can't prove tenant caused pre-existing damage. Landlord can't prove wall damage ever existed. Landlord fails burden of proof. Tenant wins full deposit.
Landlord's claim (sent day 8):
Tenant's response: "I accept the $45 deduction for the blind I accidentally broke. However, the 'deep scratches' you claim are normal wear marks from furniture movement over 4 years. My move-in photos show some of these marks already existed. Floor refinishing is normal turnover maintenance, not tenant damage. I contest the $400 charge. I'll accept $45 deduction and expect return of $2,355."
Outcome: Tenant concedes the legitimate claim (broken blind) but fights the fabricated one (floor damage). In court, landlord must prove floor damage was beyond normal wear and tenant-caused. If landlord can't (and they likely can't for normal traffic wear), the $400 deduction fails. Tenant pays $45, gets $2,355 back.
Notice the pattern: made-up claims fall apart when subjected to the legal requirements of proof, specificity, and burden allocation.
Here's your action plan when you receive damage claims you know are false:
Before you even analyze whether the claims are true, check:
If the claim arrived after the 14-day deadline, you win on timeline alone. Draft your response:
"I moved out [date]. You had until [14-day deadline date] to provide itemization. You sent this on [actual date], which is [X] days late. You forfeited all deduction rights under GOL § 7-108(1-e). Return my full deposit immediately."
Send via certified mail. You're done arguing about whether damage existed.
If the claim came within 14 days, read it carefully:
If the itemization is vague ("Cleaning: $X", "Repairs: $X"), challenge its adequacy:
"Your itemization lacks the specificity required by statute. You list 'Cleaning: $500' without specifying what was cleaned, why it was necessary beyond normal turnover, or providing invoices. This inadequate itemization doesn't satisfy GOL § 7-108. Return my full deposit."
For each specific claim your landlord made, gather evidence showing it's false:
For damage claims:
For cleaning claims:
For repair cost claims:
Respond to each false claim specifically:
"Your itemization includes the following claims I contest:
1. 'Carpet stain removal: $120' Rebuttal: No carpet stain existed when I left. My move-out photos (attached) show carpet in clean condition. Additionally, my move-in photos show a stain in this same area already existed, which I noted on my move-in checklist (attached). You cannot charge me for pre-existing damage or for damage that didn't exist.
2. 'Cabinet door replacement: $95'
Rebuttal: This cabinet was already broken when I moved in, as documented in my move-in photos (attached) and noted on my move-in inspection form (attached). This is pre-existing damage. You cannot charge me for repairs to pre-existing conditions.
Based on these rebuttals, you have no valid deductions. Return my full $2,400 deposit within 7 days or I will file in small claims court."
If your landlord doesn't return the deposit after your rebuttal, file in small claims court. Your case:
Timeline violation (if applicable): "Defendant sent itemization on [date], which was [X] days after the statutory 14-day deadline, forfeiting all deduction rights."
Inadequate itemization (if applicable): "Defendant's itemization was too vague to satisfy statutory requirements, constituting non-compliance with GOL § 7-108."
False claims (with evidence): "Defendant claimed [specific damage], but my move-in photos (Exhibit A) prove this damage was pre-existing. Defendant claimed [other damage], but my move-out photos (Exhibit B) prove no such damage existed. Defendant cannot meet their burden of proof."
Relief sought: "Full return of $2,400 deposit plus statutory penalties for bad faith retention of deposit, court costs, and filing fees."
Attach your evidence exhibits. Show up to court. Present your timeline and evidence. Let your landlord try to prove their claims—they'll fail because they're lying.
Understanding why landlords fabricate damage claims helps you see why those fabrications usually fail:
Cash flow: Some landlords are broke and spent deposit money they were supposed to hold in trust. They invent damage to justify keeping money they already spent.
Standard practice: Some property managers routinely keep a percentage of all deposits as unofficial policy, fabricating reasons to justify it.
Retaliation: Some landlords punish tenants who complained about conditions or asserted rights by inventing damage as payback.
Opportunity: Some landlords see uncontested deposits as "found money"—they lie because they think they can get away with it.
Ignorance: Some landlords genuinely don't understand the difference between normal wear and tenant damage, so they wrongly claim turnover costs are tenant-caused damage.
The 14-day deadline is absolute: Most fabricators don't know about the deadline or miss it while concocting their story. Automatic forfeiture defeats their claims.
Itemization requirements are strict: Vague lies ("damages throughout") don't satisfy the statute. Detailed lies require documentation landlords don't have.
Burden of proof is on them: They must prove damage existed, tenant caused it, and costs are reasonable. Proving lies is hard when the lies aren't true.
Tenants have evidence too: Move-in photos, move-out photos, witness statements, communication history—tenants who fight back usually have some evidence contradicting false claims.
Judges see patterns: Housing court and small claims judges hear deposit cases constantly. They recognize common landlord lies (exaggerated cleaning needs, normal wear claimed as damage, inflated costs) and are skeptical of unsupported claims.
Consequences for perjury: Landlords who testify falsely under oath risk perjury charges. Most won't risk criminal liability over a $2,000 deposit.
Attorney fees and penalties: Tenants who win can get attorneys' fees and statutory penalties. Landlords who fabricate claims and lose end up paying far more than if they'd returned the deposit.
The risk/reward calculation for lying about damages doesn't favor landlords as much as they think.
Your landlord's ability to successfully fabricate damage claims depends entirely on whether you challenge them. The lie only works if you accept it.
Here's what happens when tenants challenge false claims:
Landlord sends: "Keeping deposit for damages."
Tenant responds: "Provide itemized statement per statute."
Landlord sends: Vague list or nothing.
Tenant responds: "This violates GOL § 7-108. Return deposit or I'm filing in court."
Landlord realizes: "This tenant knows the law. If I fabricated claims, I'll lose in court and pay penalties. Better to return the deposit."
Versus what happens when tenants stay silent:
Landlord sends: "Keeping deposit for damages."
Tenant responds: Nothing.
Landlord thinks: "They accepted it. Free money."
Outcome: Landlord keeps deposit. Lie succeeds.
The lie succeeds only through your silence and inaction. The lie fails when you invoke the law's protections.
The limiting belief "they'll just make up damages" keeps you passive and powerless. But you're not powerless—you have New York's strictly tenant-protective security deposit law on your side.
Stop thinking: "They can claim whatever they want and I can't fight back."
Start thinking: "They can claim whatever they want, but if they don't comply with the 14-day rule and burden of proof requirements, they lose."
Stop asking: "How do I prove they're lying?"
Start asking: "Did they provide proper itemization within 14 days? Can they prove their claims with evidence? Can I show any of their claims are false or exaggerated?"
Stop feeling: Helpless acceptance of whatever your landlord claims.
Start feeling: Confidence that the law requires them to prove their claims or return your money.
The law doesn't allow "my word against theirs" disputes where landlords automatically win. The law requires landlords to comply with strict procedures and meet evidentiary burdens, or they forfeit deposit retention rights.
Your landlord can lie all they want. But lies don't survive legal scrutiny when you invoke the protections New York law provides.
If you're facing damage claims you believe are false:
Your landlord is betting you'll believe their lies and give up. Prove them wrong.
Find out if you have a case in 30 seconds →
