Question

The defendants are approximately 80 tenants of a 300-unit luxury apartment building on the upper east side of Manhattan. The monthly rents in the all-glass-enclosed building, which won several architectural awards, were very high. The landlord brought a summary proceeding against the tenants to recover rent when they engaged in a rent strike in protest against what they viewed as deteriorating conditions and services. Among other things, the evidence showed that during the period in question, the elevator system made tenants and their guests wait interminable lengths of time, the elevators skipped floors and opened on the wrong floors, a stench emanated from garbage stored near the garage and mice appeared in that area, fixtures were missing in public areas, water seeped into mailboxes, the air conditioning in the lobby was inoperative, and air conditioners in individual units leaked. The defendant-tenants sought abatement of rent for breach of the implied warranty of habitability. Did the landlord breach the implied warranty of habitability? Solow v. Wellner, 150 Misc.2d 642, 569 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1991 N.Y. Misc. 169 (Civil Court of the City of New York)

Answer 1

Implied warranty of habitability : It is an implied warranty that is implied by law. It implies that all the premises under the lease contract is habitable and fit. It implies on the landlord's to keep their property fit safe and habitable for the laser even if the lease is specifically mentions the repairs to be done in the primises.

A landlord was arrow and owner of a luxury apartment building filed a suit against around 80 tenants alleging breach of the tenancy contract all the tenants were on strike for the rent as they believed that the landlord has breached the implied warranty of habitability. The 80 tenants complaint that they faced lots of problems because of negligence of the landlord. Some of the problems with the building were, improper working of the elevator, mice, mixing , fixtures, broken mailbox ,and inoperative air conditioning.

The defendanttenants were on strike for the rent because they were facing several problems with the elevator, air conditioners, water leakage, mice etc.

For luxury apartments with high cost of living and maintenance , the tenants must get what they pay for. Implied warranty of habitability is an unstated guarentee that the rental property satisfies basic living and safety standards.

Hence, the landlord's was not able to maintain the level of standards in the apartment , he did breach the implied warranty of habitability and should pay the damages to the tenants or the value should be cut from the respective rents.

______________________________________________________________________

Please up vote this answer. Your up vote is so valuable to me Please. Thank you so much.