Hearing Showed Landlord Remediated Mold Condition

Long-term tenant sued landlord and HPD in 2016, seeking an order directing them to correct Housing Maintenance Code (HMC) violations. Tenant claimed that there was chronic water intrusion into his apartment, high humidity levels, a faulty parapet that let the water intrude, damaged plaster throughout the unit, water-damaged window frames, mold growth on walls, and terrible indoor air quality. HPD placed violations in 2016 after inspection, including a violation directing landlord to trace and repair the source and abate a nuisance consisting of about five square feet of mold at a point on the bathroom wall. The parties settled the matter in court in May 2017. The court stipulation called for landlord to correct the HPD violation and remediate the mold condition.

Tenant later claimed that the condition hadn't been cured, while landlord disagreed and asked the court to dismiss the case. After a hearing, the court ruled for landlord.

In a lengthy decision, the court reviewed the extensive proof presented by all sides. The court found that landlord had complied with the stipulation to remediate. The agreement required landlord to first repair the building exterior to stop the water intrusion. Landlord's engineer and contractor, as well as DOB filings and the report of an independent mold expert all showed that landlord did the necessary work to stop water intrusion and that the premises was dry. Landlord's project manager also showed that landlord then remediated the mold within the apartment. Tenant didn't dispute that landlord engaged the engineer, construction company contractor, project manager, and mold assessor.

The court also noted that DOHMH Guidelines confirmed that sampling methods for mold weren't well standardized and could yield highly variable results that were difficult to interpret. But, even if the findings of tenant's mold expert raised questions about the effectiveness of landlord's remediation, tenant drilled holes that opened up the ceiling after landlord performed remediation work. This likely dispersed dust and mold counts that landlord couldn't be held responsible for. There also appeared to be new mold several years after landlord completed work to comply with the stipulation. The court found this occurred too long after the matter was settled to be considered now.

Landlord complied ith the stipulation and the case was  dismissed.

Bard v. Glick: Index No. L&T2266/2016, 2022 NY Slip Op 50025(U)(Civ. Ct. NY; 1/19/22; Stoller, J)