blame, because they did not provide reasonable access to exterminate. In 2005, for example, the
building exterminator was unable to gain access to respondents' combined apartments for 48
days. Moreover, according to the credible testimony of Patrick Burke, the superintendent,
respondents refused for seven years to remove temporarily respondents' radiator covers to allow
proper extermination.
Finally, as to the asbestos contamination in the basement storage area, respondents claim that
they suffered injury because of "property damage from asbestos powder covering their property;
their inability to use or retrieve any of their personal property stored there, and the incomplete
cleanup effected by petitioner." (Respondents' Post-Trial Memorandum of Law, Oct. 30, 2007, at
12.) But respondents may not recover for property damage in this summary proceeding seeking
an abatement; the trial evidence does not show how and to what extent respondents could not use
their storage property; and the evidence proves that respondents cured the asbestos violation
immediately after they learned about it. It is speculation contradicted by [*6]the evidence that petitioner's cleanup was incomplete. Additionally,
petitioner argues without contradiction that respondents neither lived in nor were charged or paid
rent for their storage area (Petitioner's Post-Trial Memorandum of Law, Oct. 30, 2007, at 7.)
Thus, respondents may not recover for a violation of their residential warranty of habitability
even if they had sought that relief.
III. Judgment and Further
Proceedings
Final judgment for money and possession in petitioner's favor for
$13,504.84 for Apartment 3-C and $10,028.70 for Apartment 3-D, for a total of $23,533.54, for