Landlord Not Responsible for Stopping Dispute Among Co-Tenant Family Members

Two rent-stabilized tenants, A and B, living in the same three-bedroom apartment, sued their other two co-tenants, C and D, and their landlord. Tenant A was the son of Tenant C. Tenant B was Tenant A's wife. The plaintiff tenants claimed that Tenant C forced them into the apartment's smallest room, stored personal items in the third bedroom, intentionally underpaid rent, used unauthorized surveillance, changed the mailbox key, and falsely accused Tenant B of assault. Tenant C's assault claims against Tenant B led to her arrest earlier in the year and the issuance of a temporary Criminal Court order of protection that prohibited her from entering the apartment. Tenants A and B claimed that landlord breached the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment by failing to manage Tenant C's disruptive behavior. They also sought an injunction against landlord to halt an eviction proceeding against all tenants for nonpayment of rent until the breach of quiet enjoyment was cured. There was also a separate, pending court case by Tenant C, the father, against Tenant A, his son, demanding half the rent while Tenant A counterclaimed he'd made unpaid loans to the father and each claimed harassment and abuse by the other.

The court granted landlord's motion to dismiss the plaintiff tenants' claims against them in the new case. The court found that landlord had no duty to control Tenant C's claimed tortious conduct against the plaintiff tenants. A landlord may have a duty to take reasonable security measures to protect tenants from intentional criminal acts in common areas of a building if recurrent criminal activities were known and foreseeable. But landlord here had no duty to safeguard Tenants A and B from their cotenant in an ongoing family dispute that gave rise to unforeseeable conduct. Landlord didn't act improperly by failing to control Tenant C's allegedly tortious conduct. And while a landlord also had a duty to control nuisance, such as recurring and excessive noise, in a building, the claimed conduct of Tenant C didn't give rise to an objectionable threshold that allowed landlord to evict him. There were no complaints from other building tenants about the behavior of any tenants in the subject apartment. Landlord also had no effective means of safeguarding Tenant B from being ousted by Tenant C through the protective ordered obtained in criminal court. There also was no reason for the court to stop landlord from pursuing the eviction proceeding based on nonpayment of rent. 

Incorvaia v. Incorvaia: Index No. 651716/24, 2024 NY Slip Op 651716/2024 (Sup. Ct. NY; 7/31/24; Lebovits, J)