The complaint recites a history of serious violations of the Rochester Property and Rehabilitation Code by the defendant, commencing with the year 1957, in support of the allegations that the property has been condemned by the City of Rochester.
The opprobrium associated with the ownership of the type of property depicted in the complaint is of little, if any, comfort to the plaintiffs, who urge that the court give sanction to a cause of action admittedly forged to make a “ slumlord ” respond in damages to poverty-stricken occupants of his property who suffered emotional stress and physiological injury by reason of their tenancies.
The plaintiffs ’ cause of action for1 ‘ slumlordism ’ ’ is patterned after an article reported in 65 Michigan Law Review 869 (March, 1967) entitled, “ Slumlordism as a Tort ”, to which a dissenting view appears in 66 Michigan Law Review 451 (January, 1968) with a response on page 465 of the same volume.
Most of the authorities cited in the plaintiffs ’ exhaustive memorandum of law (102 pages) were not decided by the courts of this State and were based upon the statutory enactments or the case law of f oreign jurisdictions. The many authorities set forth by the plaintiffs have been examined and it would serve no useful purpose to catalogue in this decision the manner in which they are distinguishable from the factual situation alleged in the complaint and the law of this jurisdiction applicable to the jural relationship of the parties.