Showing 61–80 of 656 results
first counterclaim. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant owner breached the warranty of habitability by, inter alia, failing to perform repairs and failing to provide heat. In regard to Apartment 3U, the defense of breach of warranty of habitability
need only repair the damaged part of the Apartment." Respondents claim that Petitioner's failure to repair the ceiling, violated the warranty of habitability imposed by state law. To whatever extent terms of the lease conflict with the warranty
July for habitability issues that were not being addressed. Petitioners brought this special proceeding alleging habitability issues and seeking corrective action and repairs including but not limited to: holes in the ceiling and walls, electrical outlets not covered; exposed wires
petitioner landlord. On or before that date, according to landlord, most (if not all) of the repairs necessary to restore the apartment to habitable condition had been completed. However, tenant contends that such is not accurate. She alleges that
conditions in the apartment, and finds that petitioner breached the warranty of habitability by failing to timely and properly repair [*5]multiple conditions throughout the subject premises. RPL§ 235(b); see also Park West Management Corp. v. Mitchell, supra. Petitioner
Rental Registry Certificate. Respondent's testimony and affidavit did not justify the delay in correcting the habitability issues but instead showed that proper repair and remediation were completed for what this Court deems a meager sum (less than two months
take place, impedes its ability to comply with the law and maintain the building in good repair as required under the warranty of habitability as codified in RPAPL § 235-b, the Housing Maintenance Code
denying the allegations and raising as an Affirmative Defense that her Premises were in need of repairs in violation of the Warranty of Habitability embodied in Real Property Law § 235-b. Tenant attached to her Answer a letter from Lutheran
access to the premises on particular days and specific times for landlord to make the necessary repairs to restore the premises to a habitable condition. It appears from Jeremias's affidavit, submitted in opposition to the contempt motion
holdover proceeding on May 9, 2025, seeking to evict petitioners. Petitioners brought this special proceeding alleging habitability issues and seeking corrective action and repairs including but not limited to: roach and mice infestation; mold in bathroom and around tub; unusable
began to withhold rent in July 1984 because of the landlord’s failure to make repairs and maintain the building in a habitable and safe condition. This claim and affirmative defense each state a valid cause of action and amount
access to the premises on particular days and specific times for landlord to make the necessary repairs to restore the premises to a habitable condition. It appears from Jeremias's affidavit, submitted in opposition to the contempt motion
raise the need for repairs, those stipulations similarly did not state that the repairs were no lon- ger an issue. The habitability claims were well documented and there was no demonstration of actual surprise or prejudice on petitioner’s part
defendant agreed to repair the demised premises. Hence, he was under no legal obligation to repair the same or keep them in a habitable condition. Schick v. Fleischhauer, 26 App. Div. 210. Even if he had made such an agreement
recoverable for a breach of the warranty of habitability. Landlord and Tenant — Warranty of Habitability — Responsibility for Moving Furniture to Permit Landlord to Make Repairs 2. In a nonpayment proceeding where respondent tenant asserted a breach of the warranty
purposeful effort to force tenants to move. Thus quite aside from the warranty of habitability, after a tenant notifies the landlord that repairs are necessary and after the landlord fails in due course to make those repairs, the tenant
provides that a landlord will not be relieved of his responsibility to make repairs to residential rental property and to provide habitable space that is fit for human occupancy, citing to R.P.A.P.L 235-b; Koch v. McQueen, 192 Misc
withheld his rent money and also refused the petitioner access to his apartment to make repairs; and that the breach of warranty of habitability is not a defense to a holdover proceeding. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW In deciding
made to appear. Although the buildings may not have been capable of being fitted for habitation, still, if they were so put in repair that the e.vil smells should be removed and the sources of contagion taken away
underlying holdover petition seeking possession based upon tenant's failure to provide access for repairs, which petition was discontinued long after the habitability counterclaim was interposed. In the circumstances, we remand for a new trial, as indicated. We have considered