Contractors caused flood in my nyc apt, expensive gear ruined, but lease has a clause saying tenant must get renters insurance. Should I take this to court? Landlord/contractor are not compensating anything.

Location: brooklyn, ny

my former apt building has a fire sprinkler system. they had sent ppl to look at it on a friday, and a diff crew shows up on a monday, they were very young hacitic boys one was definitely not even 18. long story short they caused a pipe burst, took way too long to shut the water off, and caused 4-5 inches of water to get flooded into the basement where i have claimed around $14k worth of documented/photographed items. i have videos of the workers talking about what they screwed up.

i had just resigned another year on the lease a week before also. so before anything i requested to be let out of that lease but still with full security deposit since they have long wanted me to get out bc they can finally jack the rent up (i was a long term tenant w rent stabilized), plus its summer so very easy to rent. i got them to agree to this in writing, and shortly afterwards got a lawyer who sent them documented damages. i have not retained him, just paid a fee to try and settle this out of court basically.

as the subject says, theres a renters insurance requirement clause in the lease and my dumb arse didnt have it. is it too risky to presume that im still entitled to compensation bc of negligence? if mother nature wouldve caused the flood, id just take this on the chin, but im wondering if its worth investing thousands in a lawyer and going to court? where, if i lose, i believe the lease says i have to pay their legal fees?

now the landlord is trying to say letting me out of the lease with security was the consideration for the flood incident. theres a 2 week policy on returning a security deposit in nyc, and i took video of the apartment to show no major damage above normal wear and tear, and whatever damages the flood caused downstairs (like closet doors warping)

lawyer was sposed to research the renters insurance clause but when asked he didnt have much to saw on what he thinks its implications on negligence like this are... hes not the most locked in guy tbh, like tenant law is something the firm covers, but its not bread and butter