Solow v. Wellner - 86 N.Y.2d 582, 635 N.Y.S.2d 132, 658 N.E.2d 1005 (1995)

Rule:

Pursuant to N.Y. Real Prop. Law § 235-b, every residential lease contains an implied warranty of habitability which is limited by its terms to three covenants: (1) that the premises are fit for human habitation, (2) that the premises are fit for the uses reasonably intended by the parties, and (3) that the occupants will not be subjected to conditions that are dangerous, hazardous or detrimental to their life, health or safety.

Facts:

Appellants are a group of approximately 65 current and former tenants of an apartment building located at 265 East 66th Street in Manhattan. Following a pervasive rent strike, the landlord commenced summary nonpayment proceedings to recover unpaid rent for the period October 1987 through May 1988. In a joint trial before the Civil Court the tenants conceded the landlord's prima facie case of rent nonpayment but asserted as an affirmative defense and counterclaim the landlord's breach of the implied warranty of habitability (Real Property Law § 235-b). The tenants also counterclaimed, inter alia, for an award of attorneys' fees. Finding the landlord had breached the warranty; the trial court awarded the tenants abatement for the common area problems, additional abatements for individual apartments, and attorneys' fees. The appellate term modified the judgment by reducing the amount and duration of the common area abatement awarded and striking all of the apartment-specific abatement awards. The appellate division affirmed the modified order, and the tenants challenged. 

Issue:

Was the order of the appellate division, which modified the order of the appellate term of the Supreme Court, properly made?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

 The court affirmed the order. The trial court's interpretation of the warranty under N.Y. Real Prop. Law § 235-b was rejected. The warranty protected against conditions that, while they did not render an apartment unsafe or uninhabitable, constituted deficiencies that prevented the premises from serving their intended function of residential occupation. In light of the order remitting the case, it was premature to review the award of attorneys' fees, as well as the parties' entitlement to prejudgment interest.