hilder v. st. peter.
NY RPL 235-b
the conditions were heinous. but not heinous enough for the tenants to leave.
all of the issues were brought to the landlord's attention. why didn't she just leave considering the deplorable conditions? we just talked about a case on tuesday where the conditions were so grave that they were rendered unfit for use and she would have been released if vacating.
what is the tenant seeking?
expectation damages: the difference between what the tenant paid and what the tenant got... do we go through each condition the landlord promised? if there's a breach of contract there must be a contractual duty. what is the duty here? the landlord covenanted to an implied warranty of habitability.
caveat lessee: why does the court abandon this doctrine? because we are in an urban rather than an agrian culture. why does this matter? because in modern society, we would expect for there to be a disparity in the capabilities of the landlord and lessee in the maintenance of a property:
the landlord is in a better position to fix the property because he has a reversion interest; because
but the cost of the property is almost nill... in part because the place is a shithole. if the landlord makes the improvements, he may have to raise the rent. is this ok? we think that it's ok to make the improvements so long as (a) the housing is still affordable, (b) the improvements are made and (c) the landlord is making a profit.
why is constructive eviction not applicable here? the family probably doesn't have another place to go.
"fit for human habitation" = safety and health of the tenant
this is very different from restee, because these types of conditions and defects of fitness can't be waived.
how do we know what is fitness for habitation and what will qualify for safety? building codes, which present what is/not fit for habitability. the court should inquire what is the safety or health of the tenants: it is a context-dependent standard (for example, a lightbulb going out is not necessarily a
for the doctrine to apply, the tenant must put the landlord on notice that the potential breach exists and give the landlord a reasonable opportunity to . if the landlord does not fix the problem, the there is a contractual relationship between the parties for which the landlord would be liable to the tenant for damages.
the damages may be remedied by allowing the tenant to COMPLETELY withhold rent, and the tenant does not have to vacate during this period and the tenant does not have to prorate the rent during this period.... this is a difference from restee: under constructive eviction, the tenant had to vacate but here the tenant can remain in possession and not pay rent. why? to empower tenants and place the risk on the landlord! why do we do this in residential situations? to keep the residential market safe, sanitary and comfortable in urban environment.
the tenant can also have the repairs made herself and then deduct the cost of repairs from her rent.
problem.
a property $1000/month has a problem that makes the value of the property $800. the tenant sets up a defense that the landlord breached the warrant of habitability. does this mean that the landlord cannot recover anything from the tenant? NO -- the ability to withhold rent is not a release from liability, such as in constructive eviction. it is instead an obligation but the tenant can withhold rent as a procedural tool for enforcing its rights. retaliatory eviction.
NY RPL 223-b
forbidden landlord actions: acts that might substantially alter the terms of the tenancy
such as refusal to continue or renew a lease considering a term of years lease,
and other retaliatory alterations of terms
remedies can be injunctive relief or damages.
how do we prove retaliatory effect? if it's not retaliatory it's not wrongful. there is a statutory presumption under 223-b(5) that certain actions (serving notice to quit, ending tenancy, or taking to court) taken within six months will be considered proof of retaliatory eviction unless the landlord can in good faith show that he took these actions.
... basically, just read and understand this statute.
tenant's duties.
waste: tenants may not use the land in a way that will permanently destroy/ disrupt use of the land. the tenant will exercise ordinary care to use of the property, and not do any damage beyond ordinary wear and tear.
fixtures and improvements.
duty to repair. who has the duty to conduct needed repairs during a lease? implied warranty of habitability for residential properties. with respect to commercial properties, the parties are generally still free to contract for this and absent any allocations, the commercial tenant has the responsibility to keep the property in good care.
destruction of premises. if there's an act of god, or a fire/ flood, etc... where the tenant isn't at fault then the tenant may surrender and terminate the lease and the landlord must accept unless the parties agree otherwise, which the parties are free to do.
conveyancing: p. 451-463, 479-484, 513-521
No comments:
Post a Comment