[JudyKayTee]

This is a statement, not a question, but I found it interesting. The question has been asked on AMHD before.

If this should be moved to another section of AMHD, I'm sure it will be.

A Nassau County (NY) Judge has very recently ruled that a landlord’s failure to resolve a tenant’s complaints of cigarette smoke justifies the abatement of the tenant’s rent AND allows the tenant to break the lease without payment of rent to the end of the lease. (I do not yet have the actual case citation.)

The tenant’s claim for expenses (smoke damage/smell on furniture, clothing) was dismissed.

As I understand the case the tenant complained about the cigarette smoke in her apartment caused by other tenants. She did not pay rent for two months and moved, effectively breaking her lease. The landlord sued for the unpaid months - the two where she resided in the apartment and the balance until the end of the lease term.

The Court stated: “Landlords of such dwellings have a corresponding duty to prevent one tenant’s habits from materially interfering with another tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. When a tenant’s smoking results in an intrusion of second-hand smoke into another tenant’s apartment, and that tenant complains repeatedly, the landlord runs a financial risk if it fails to take appropriate action.” The Judge said that the actual legal issue was whether the smoke was “so pervasive as to actually breach the implied warranty of habitability and/or cause a constructive eviction.”

The tenant met the burden of proof, and it was decided that the landlord’s actions in caulking and sealing vents were “Too little, too late, or included unacceptable conditions.”

A NY County Civil Court case (Poyck v Bryant) was cited. That Judge ruled that second-hand smoke comes under the protection of the warrant of habitability, NY Real Property Law Section 235-b.

[excon]

Hello Judy:

What a liberal pinko judge... I agree with him, though.

excon

[AK lawyer]

Hello Judy:

What a liberal pinko judge... I agree with him, though.

excon

:p Me too.

...
The tenant met the burden of proof, and it was decided that the landlord’s actions in caulking and sealing vents were “Too little, too late, or included unacceptable conditions.”
...

What unacceptable conditions, I wonder?

[LILL]

Just another reason for me to move out of Nassau County...


Thanks for the info Judy.

[excon]

Just another reason for me to move out of Nassau County...

Hello L:

So, you think it's GOOD to make tenants suffer with second hand cigarette smoke... Let me guess - you're a smoker...

excon

[ScottGem]

Just another reason for me to move out of Nassau County...


Thanks for the info Judy.

Smokers are fighting a losing battle. Smoke related illnesses are costing billions of dollars. This ruling is only the latest in a series that protects the rights of non-smokers.

[JudyKayTee]

:p Me too.


What unacceptable conditions, I wonder?

Good question - I'm trying to get my "paws" on the full decision. I also wonder about the burden of proof. Would appear difficult to me.

Found it a fascinating discussion question and interesting decision.