Showing 21–40 of 656 results
three timely legal proceedings which could be relied upon by Landlord were either settled by stipulations containing repair and habitability issues or concluded after discontinuances. Hence, Tenant asserts that Landlord cannot characterize her as chronically delinquent and the Petition should
this proceeding, nor on the other legal proceedings which were either settled by Stipulations of Settlement and/or containing repairs and habitability issues. In sum, Tenant argues that Landlord cannot characterize her as chronically delinquent and that the Petition should
Supreme Court Action was litigated, and the understanding was that Respondents' claims regarding breach of warranty of habitability and for repairs would be litigated in the context of the Supreme Court Action. Further evidence that Respondents understood the dismissal
violations; breach of the warranty of habitability; rent abatement, repair costs, etc. Petitioner contends that respondent waived its jurisdictional defenses by bringing unrelated counterclaims, and seeks an order striking respondent's jurisdictional defenses and counterclaims and setting this matter
Parkway.) Respondent's counterclaims for its alleged loss of income, and damages for breach of [*3]warranty of habitability, cost of repairs, and attorney's fees are unrelated either because the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to hear them
period of 33 days) to give the owner an “opportunity” to eliminate the violations and render the building habitable. The essential repairs not having been completed by that date, the owner was given further time, until November 20, to complete
being locked out of and illegally evicted; unspecified conditions and housing code violations; breach of the warranty of habitability; rent abatement, repair costs, etc. Petitioner contends that respondent waived its jurisdictional defenses by bringing unrelated counterclaims, and seeks an order
Parkway.) Respondent’s counterclaims for its alleged loss of income, and damages for breach of warranty of habitability, cost of repairs, and attorney’s fees are unrelated either because the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to hear them
such breach constituted a continuing breach of the defendants' contractual duty to keep the building in good repair and to provide habitable premises (see Kaymakcian v Board of Mgrs. of Charles House Condominium, 49 AD3d 407 [2008]; Measom v Greenwich
THOMSON REUTERS WESTLAW® Path: Home > Cases > New York State & Federal Cases > New York Official Reports Query: habitability /p reimburs! /s repair & lease APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL Gregory J. Grinberg, appellant pro se. Law Office of Steven G. Fauth, LLC (Scott
that it was acting in good faith is irrelevant to its obligation to provide plaintiff with a habitable residence or to repair the unit in an expeditious manner. Moreover, plaintiffs contend that the scope of the work that defendant plans
make any assertion of withholding rent due to noise, and the corresponding breach of his warranty of habitability in his original repair demands exposes his present assertion as a "last-ditch attempt to salvage his former tenancy
City of Auburn § 182-70 an owner is responsible to maintain his property in good repair. Moreover, the warranty of habitability (see Real Property Law § 235-b) mandates an owner to covenant and warrant that any property leased
Tenant complained of, while they may be annoying, seem to be minor maintenance items that are easily repairable and do not prevent habitation. In addition to the foregoing, the Tenant's testimony during cross-examination, that the problems complained
defendant, the defendant maintains since the fire in 2003, that it has performed all of the necessary repairs to make the unit habitable. The defendant has provided the affidavit of its agent, Toni d'Egidio, the affidavit of Amadeo Mancusi
life, health, or safety. Respondent contends that several conditions in the premises violate the warranty of habitability: (1) bathroom sink needs repairs; (2) peeling paint throughout the apartment; (3) missing baseboard for the living-room heater; and (4) missing window
landlord had rested his case, tenant presented evidence regarding landlord's alleged breach of the warranty of habitability, and specified that the repair issues in the subject premises included the inability to open five of the seven windows. The court
February 2008, tenant claimed that she had withheld the rent because landlord had breached the warranty of habitability by failing to make repairs to her apartment. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court awarded landlord possession and the principal
them. Regarding Respondent's fifth affirmative defense and two counterclaims based on breach of the warranty of habitability, while Respondent testified about repairs she needed in the past, the court cannot award a rent abatement given her "vague and unparticularized
issue and claimed that he had withheld it because landlord breached the warranty of habitability by failing to make repairs to his apartment. However, at trial, tenant failed to establish the severity or duration of the conditions (see Park West