dj can tell you more about NYC and rent control.
What I can contribute is this:
I believe that bluffing is generally not a good strategy.
Many people use it, and sometimes they are successful, but I think that you lose all of your bargaining power if you don't follow through, especially if you are dealing with an intelligent adversary.
I prefer taking a 100% defensible position, and then not being afraid to follow through with it without hesitation.
P.S.
The ordeal of a regular court litigation is not so much of an ordeal to an experienced landlord, who may not work in addition to his income from rentals, and may have a lawyer with whom he regularly works. He may have time on his hands, enough experience that it is not an emotional ordeal, maybe other things. So it may not really be an ordeal for him.
The only real power of the court is that the court can order him to pay back money, and that works the same in regular court as it does in small claims court. If he is sure of his position, he will be just as sure in one court as in the other. On the other hand, if he is unsure of his position, he will have to explain to a judge why he withheld the money regardless of what court he explains it in.
The point here is, that maybe the threat of a higher court is not really a threat to him at all. If he is unsure of his position and doesn't want to go before a judge to explain himself, then the threat of small claims court may be enough for him to decide that it isn't worth it to fight with you over such a small sum.
P.P.S.
Two more thoughts:
One is that, in regular court, you may need to have a lawyer of your own. A landlord with a lawyer can tie you up with procedure, which will cause YOU emotional distress taking away from your effectiveness, time away from your job, and of course money. If you lose, you may have to pay the other side's legal fees and costs. Don't think that an experienced landlord doesn't know this.
2. A standard technique for the defending lawyer might be to try to find some cause to counter-sue you, just to up the ante in terms of stress on you, and legal costs, anticipating that you will want to drop out sooner or later, and they can settle on not so good terms. In fact, it may be possible for the defending side to counter-sue you in regualr court after you file in small claims court, and have both actions heard in regular court.
P.P.P.S.
How long would it take for you to get a hearing in regular court, including all the stalling and maneuvering, discovery, settlement hearings and motions? Very likely, for such a small sum, a judge may decide in a mandatory settlement conference that this case is too small for regular court, it doesn't belong in his court, and that he wants you to settle, suggesting (instructing you) that the landlord give you some token sum and that you each handle your own legal costs. Thus, you could end up getting back less than it cost you. The landlord may be easily able to absorb the costs, and feel that he was wise to show that he was in control, let the grapevine pass it around that he prevailed, and even his ego may feel that it was worth it.
[Edited by LL on 03-08-2001 at 11:44 AM]
