In Gordon v. Eshaghoff, 60 A.D.3d 807 (2009 Slip Op 1945) the Court after determining there was no factual support that a surrender of the lease had been accomplished went on to reject the term in the lease "Tenant shall not attempt to apply or deduct any portion of any security deposit from the last or any month's rent or use or apply any such security deposit at any time in lieu of payment of rent. If tenant fails to comply, such security deposit shall be forfeited and landlord may recover the rent due as if any such deposit had not been applied or deducted from the rent due" concluding: "Here, the lease provision regarding the forfeiture of the security deposit regarding the forfeiture of the security deposit does not bear a reasonable relation to the amount of probable actual loss...susceptible to calculation" (60 A.D.3d at 808, 876 N.Y.S.2d at 434 ). The Gordon Court rejected this forfeiture because the amount of rent due after the tenant terminated the lease before the original termination date could be calculated by determining the balance of the rent due from the tenant until the lease was to have ended from the date the tenant breached the agreement by leaving before that date. The Court in recognizing the landlord's right under the lease contract terms to collect the balance of the rent from the tenant for the period it remained unpaid through the termination date set by its terms and that the landlord was under not duty to mitigate her damages caused by the defendant's breach of the parties [residential] lease (60 A.D.3d at 808, 876 N.Y.S.2d at 434 ), rejected the forfeiture of the security deposit as it amounted to an unconscionable term under Real Property Law 235-c.