Showing 1–20 of 656 results
health or safety law, regulation, code, or ordinance, the warranty of habitability under § 235-B (Warranty of habitability), the duty to repair under sections seventy-eight, seventy-nine, and eighty of the multiple dwelling law or Multiple Residence
parties could provide evidence was to include unpaid maintenance, late charges, repair charges, attorneys fees, warranty of habitability and repair. As will be further detailed below, the Court finds, after trial, that many of the issues on which the parties
General Obligations Law § 9-101); the responsibility to make repairs necessary to comply with the warranty of habitability in this case (elevator repair, roof repair, and the like) is fully consistent with that duty
entity that the tenants had contact with regarding leasing, rent payments and arrears, and complaints regarding needed repairs and habitability concerns. Tenants only had access to Mayfair employees with regard to these matters. A landlord/tenant relationship exists with property management
quit upon any tenant . . . in retaliation for" good-faith complaints regarding health, safety, the warranty of habitability, or the duty to repair or "(a)ctions taken in good faith . . . to secure or enforce any rights" under to the lease
access to the apartment in order to correct the alleged mold problem." When a landlord has willfully refused to repair habitability impairing conditions (see Real Property Law § 235-b), tenants have a right to arrange for those repairs
health or safety law, regulation, code, or ordinance, the warranty of habitability under § 235-B (Warranty of habitability), the duty to repair under sections seventy-eight, seventy-nine, and eighty of the multiple dwelling law or Multiple Residence
Warranty of Habitability The warranty of habitability requires the landlord of a residential property to repair and keep the property fit for human habitation and free from hazardous conditions. Park West Management Corp. v. Mitchell 47 NY2d
believe that the warranty of habitability itself gives rise to a right of the tenant to have habitability impairing conditions repaired and to set off the reasonable cost of those repairs against rent claimed, when the landlord has willfully refused
precluded from asserting counterclaims for damages for its alleged loss of income, legal fees, breach of warranty of habitability, and repair costs
following affirmative defenses : (1) Landlord owes respondent money, rent overcharge, rent abatement ; (2) respondent paid for repairs or services;(3) warranty of habitability (4) general denial; (5) harassment and counterclaim for harassment and repairs. The premises are subject to rent
make specified repairs, tenant's answers to the 2010 and 2011 petitions did not assert any habitability or repair claim. Rather, in the 2010 proceeding, tenant's answer stated that a portion of the rent had already been paid
lessee’s responsibility to keep the interior walls, floors and ceil- ings of the apartment in good repair. The implied warranty of habitability cannot similarly be waived or modified by contract (see Real Property Law § 235-b [2]), and, thus
therefore mitigated damages while the Apartment remained uninhabitable. After April 2016, when the Corporation completed the repairs, the Apartment was again habitable and the abatement ceases. Though at least one leak occurred after those repairs, it was quickly remedied upon
three-year certificate after the Court appearance on December 16, 2025. Respondent argued that there were no repairs made regarding the habitability issues because Petitioners did not allow access to the property to make such repairs. Respondent provided undated
petitioner made the repairs. At the hearing, petitioner's counsel acknowledged that petitioner is obligated to make repairs and maintain habitable and safe living conditions in respondent's apartment under the lease, the building code of the City of Mount
rent involving the same time period, and all have raised identical defenses, including breach of the warranty of habitability, repair and setoff, payment, res judicata and collateral estoppel. Put simply, these 23 respondents are apparently engaged in a concerted rent
precluded from asserting counterclaims for damages for its alleged loss of income, legal fees, breach of warranty of habitability, and repair costs in this summary proceeding, respondent is not deprived of a remedy. It is merely relegated to asserting these
Settlement, wherein Tenant consented to the entry of final judgments and payment schedules, without any mention of habitability or repairs issues. It was only after Tenant's subsequent Order to Show Cause asking for more time to pay based
lacked the financial wherewithal to cover the rent, not because she was withholding the rent due to habitability or repairs issues. Supporting its arguments, Landlord provides documentary evidence and an affidavit from the Premises agent, Ivette Moss, who affirms, among