You are here: / / CLOSURE OF TERRACE BREACHED THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY.
,

CLOSURE OF TERRACE BREACHED THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY.

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for damages stemming from the defendant's breach of the implied warranty of habitability. Plaintiff held a proprietary lease in a cooperative. A storm damaged the terrace adjacent to the apartment. Plaintiff was entitled to damages for the period of time the terrace was closed:

The implied warranty of habitability, codified in the Real Property Law, provides that in every written lease for residential purposes, the landlord or lessor “shall be deemed to covenant and warrant that the premises so leased or rented and all areas used in connection therewith in common with other tenants or residents are fit for human habitation and for the uses reasonably intended by the parties and that the occupants of such premises shall not be subjected to any conditions which would be dangerous, hazardous or detrimental to their life, health or safety” (Real Property Law § 235-b[1]). In Solow v Wellner (86 NY2d 582, 587-588), the Court of Appeals clarified that Real Property Law § 235-b(1) includes three separate covenants: “(1) that the premises are fit for human habitation, (2) that the premises are fit for the uses reasonably intended by the parties, and (3) that the occupants will not be subjected to conditions that are dangerous, hazardous or detrimental to their life, health or safety” (id. at 587-588 [internal quotation marks omitted]). “A breach of warranty may be said to have occurred where the premises have not met the reasonable expectations of the parties” (7-82 Warren's Weed New York Real Property § 82.22 [2016]). Here, the plaintiff established that the water damage and subsequent closures of the terrace rendered it unfit for the uses reasonably intended by the parties … . Goldhirsch v St. George Tower & Grill Owners Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 06060, 2nd Dept 9-21-16

LANDLORD-TENANT (CLOSURE OF TERRACE BREACHED THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY)/REAL PROPERTY LAW (CLOSURE OF TERRACE BREACHED THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY)/APARTMENTS (CLOSURE OF TERRACE BREACHED THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY)/TERRACES (APARTMENTS, CLOSURE OF TERRACE BREACHED THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY)/HABITABIILITY, IMPLIED WARRANTY OF (CLOSURE OF TERRACE BREACHED THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY)

You might also like
Supreme Court Erred by Making Dispositive Rulings on Grounds Not Raised in the Motion Papers
DEFENDANT’ CLOTHING STORE’S EMPLOYEE ALLEGEDLY ATTEMPTED TO RECORD PLAINTIFF IN A CHANGING ROOM; THE NEGLIGENT HIRING CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED ON THE ALLEGATION THE STORE DID NOT CONDUCT A BACKGROUND CHECK BEFORE HIRING THE EMPLOYEE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Property Owners, Absent a Regulation, Do Not Have a Duty to Make Sure Vegetation Does Not Obstruct Drivers’ View/Here the Cited Code Violations Were Not Intended to Impose that Duty
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 NOT PROVEN; PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT)
Conviction Reversed—Court Denied For Cause Challenge to Biased Juror Without Eliciting an Unequivocal Assurance the Juror Will Be Impartial
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE DID NOT ENTER HIS GUILTY PLEA VOLUNTARILY, KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY; HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA WAS PROPERLY DENIED; STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED AN INADQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
INCIDENT REPORTS DID NOT PROVIDE THE CITY WITH NOTICE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW CLAIMS, PETITION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S INJURY DID NOT INVOLVE THE TYPE OF ELEVATION HAZARD CONTEMPLATED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND DEFENDANTS DID NOT EXERCISE A LEVEL OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL SUFFICIENT TO TRIGGER LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TERM “INSURANCE” IN A NONCOMPETE AGREEMENT... OFFICE OF MEDICAID INSPECTOR GENERAL COULD NOT SEEK REIMBURSEMENT OF OVERPAYMENTS...