ALRIGHT.... trouble with old landlord

WN31>> I take not position on the 2 wk vs 6 wk debate.

Would you at least agree that both can not be telling the truth?

Without seeing the proof, I believe that could each party could genuinely believe they are telling the truth.

example: I believe that I was not speeding because I was watching my speedometer. However, the cop believes I was as per his radar detector.

...only this instance, I was already driving without a license. In an unregistered car.

...and the cop chose to merely ticket me for having an expired registration.

(Note: I have not assumed that either party was intoxicated, or driving recklessly ...these would be serious offenses)

You really think I would lie to get sympathy from a message board? Unbelievable. I'm really done. We are gonna let her keep the money. Not worth the hassle..

CTK, I believe you are telling the truth.

CTK: Being able to document who is telling the truth matters because it establishes whether the LL got 6+ weeks or 2 weeks notice. The point is this: Did she make a good faith attempt to mitigate your losses? If she did nothing for four weeks and then called the broker, it could be argued that she did not. But doing so is required by law (in Brooklyn). If that argument is accepted in court, she has improperly taken your security deposit. You said you have a legal insurance. If you are not going to use it now, when are you going to use it?