Neither Party Gets Attorney's Fees in Nonpayment

Facts: Tenants of a luxury rental building went on rent strike in 1987, claiming landlord wasn't maintaining services. Landlord then sued to evict 70 tenants for nonpayment of rent. Tenants claimed breach of the warranty of habitability and asked for 100 percent rent abatement. The court imposed a higher standard than usual in considering the warranty of habitability claims and granted each tenant each a 10 percent rent abatement for the building's conditions and additional abatement of 1 to 11 percent, depending on individual apartment conditions. The court also ruled that tenants were the ``prevailing party.'' Landlord appealed. The appeals courts found that no special standard could be applied to luxury building for determining breach of the warranty of habitability and reduced the amounts of rent abatements. In one case, landlord and tenant then asked for attorney's fees. Court: No one gets attorney's fees since neither party clearly won the case. Landlord appealed the case to challenge the heightened warranty of habitability standard and to seek prejudgment interest on back rent owed. Landlord didn't preserve his right to appeal the trial court's finding that landlord didn't ask for attorney's fees. And landlord didn't collect all the back rent sought. Tenant also didn't clearly win the case since he sought a 100 percent rent abatement and received only a 5 percent abatement for a 13-month period.

Solow v. Risman: NYLJ, p. 29, col. 6 (2/6/97) (Civ. Ct. NY; Shulman, J)