plaintiff did not specifically assert such a claim. Instead,
plaintiff objected only to the manner in which the repairs had
been done and sought the cost of remedying the allegedly
shoddy repairs. To that end, plaintiff sought to introduce the
testimony of a contractor who had inspected the premises two
years after the repairs had been done. Although the contractor
noted the presence of mold, neither he nor plaintiff ever
maintained that the mold in the bathroom rendered the apart-
ment dangerous, hazardous or otherwise uninhabitable (see
Decrescenzo v Kalba, 8 Misc 3d 129[A], 2005 NY Slip Op
51031[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005]
[‘‘defendants, who resided on the first floor, have failed to show
how their health or well being were affected by the mold in the
basement’’]; see generally Martin v 159 W. 80 St. Corp., 3 AD3d
439 [2004] [air quality tests revealed high levels of highly toxic
fungus due to mold from a water leak]). Absent proof of any
threats to plaintiff’s health or safety, or that the leak or result-
ing repairs somehow rendered the apartment uninhabitable or
unfit for use, there was no evidence from which the trial court
could reasonably find a breach of the implied warranty of habit-
ability (see Solow v Wellner, 86 NY2d at 589; Park W. Mgt.
Corp. v Mitchell, 47 NY2d at 328; Grammer v Turits, 271 AD2d
644 [2000]).
Nor was there any other evidence to support an award of
damages on this record. Plaintiff’s failure to commence this ac-
tion until five years after the alleged water damage and two
years after the repairs had been completed casts serious doubt
on the credibility of his claims. Indeed, other than his own self-
serving testimony and his contractor’s confusing and unreli-