Landlord Can Return to Court If Bedbug Treatment Tenant Requested Doesn’t Work

LVT Number: #27557

Landlord sued to evict tenant for unreasonably refusing access to the apartment in order to exterminate and remove bedbugs. Landlord’s termination notice stated that, although tenant claimed that she couldn’t accept the bedbug treatment for medical reasons, tenant also refused alternative treatments.

Landlord sued to evict tenant for unreasonably refusing access to the apartment in order to exterminate and remove bedbugs. Landlord’s termination notice stated that, although tenant claimed that she couldn’t accept the bedbug treatment for medical reasons, tenant also refused alternative treatments. Landlord and tenant, by their attorneys, signed a series of settlement agreements in court by which tenant was required to provide access on certain dates for extermination by steam service and cryonite, and landlord was to pay for storage and cleaning of tenant’s belongings.

Tenant later sued landlord in federal court, claiming that landlord was violating her rights under the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. She claimed that her unique health situation required reasonable accommodation when exterminating, as any use of chemicals would have a negative impact. The federal court denied tenant’s request to stay the housing court proceeding and asked the housing court to review questions. Later, after a hearing, the housing court answered the federal court questions, finding that tenant had a medical condition that was a disability and was entitled to a reasonable accommodation, that landlord had reasonably accommodated tenant, and that it was unclear whether nonchemical bedbug treatment would cure the condition.

The housing court further ruled that: (a) tenant must provide access for extermination within 30 days and follow-up; (b) tenant must provide access and properly prepare the apartment for extermination; (c) the extermination must be done using any nonchemical method, including cryonite or steam and freeze, that landlord’s contractor deems most effective; and (d) if the nonchemical treatment doesn’t work, landlord can go back to court to seek further appropriate relief while relocating tenant and her family during chemical treatment.

 

2 Perlman Drive, LLC v. Stevens: 54 Misc.3d 1215(A), 2017 NY Slip Op 50173(U) (Civ. Ct. Kings; 2/9/17; Avery, J)