Higher Standard Doesn't Apply to Luxury Buildings

Facts: Tenants of luxury east side building went on rent strike for eight months in 1987-1988. Landlord sued to evict for nonpayment of rent. Tenants claimed breach of the warranty of habitability based on elevator problems and defects in individual apartments. Tenants paid high rents for various amenities that weren't being maintained. The court ruled for tenants, finding that it was reasonable for them to expect more than the minimum services in this particular building. The court gave tenants a 10-percent rent abatement and awarded them attorney's fees. Landlord appealed. Court: Landlord wins. The warranty of habitability was intended to provide a minimum standard to protect tenants against conditions that render their apartments uninhabitable or unusable. The building's elevator problems were conditions reasonably related to health and safety and essential functions in a high-rise building. This was a breach of the implied warranty of habitability. But the trial court went beyond that, finding a breach of warranty based on breach of these particular tenants' leases. It was improper to use the warranty of habitability to enforce landlord's provision of more than the basic amenities. Tenants could rely on their leases for that. The appeals court's ruling for landlord was affirmed by the state's highest court. The case was sent back for recalculation of the rent abatement.

Solow v. Wellner: NYLJ, p. 28, col. 5 (11/1/95) (Ct. App.; Kaye, PJ, Levine, Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Ciparick, Smith, JJ)