[Moderation]

Here's the situation. There is an old row house where there are 4 separate apartment units. The new tenant in the basement apartment has been smoking in their apartment (cigarettes, pot, incense and an unknown substance). The entire house smells of smoke and the unit right above the basement apartment gets very bad and sometimes gets a sort of haze because of the smoke. Neighbors in the next house over (connected row house) have complained repeatedly that smoke has permeated their basement. When asked about the smoking, the tenant denies it and attributes the smoke odors that everyone is smelling to incense that is being burned in the apartment.

Granted, the incense smoke is very strong and usually comes on strong right before or right after the smell of cigarettes or pot or the smell of burnt rubber/plastic is detected.
The lease specifically prohibits smoking inside the house and the use of illegal drugs.
The "super", who also lives in the house, is a long-time friend of the landlord and acts on behalf of the landlord/owner of the house. After complaints from the other tenants in the house and the neighbors, and after an incident when the smoking tenant caught a wooden planter of dried mulch on fire (attached to the house - used by the smoking tenant as an ash tray) just outside the backdoor of the house, the super finally instructed the smoking tenant to move out.

Now, neither the super nor the landlord provided an initial written notice of eviction, so the smoking tenant sought legal assistance. The super gave a verbal notice again to the smoking tenant after continued complaints. The smoking tenant continued to deny the accusations of smoking indoors as well as catching the wooden planter on fire. In addition, the smoking tenant informed the super that there is a lawsuit being filed against him and the landlord for harassment and wrongful eviction - suing for emotional distress, etc.

A side note, the smoking tenant smokes all night and has people going in and out of the apartment between the hours of 2am and 5am. The tenant has also put up cameras inside the apartment (according to the super, who saw them while speaking to the smoking tenant) as well as outside the back door of the apartment.

The tenant living right above the smoking tenant went down to request a stop to the smoking (on a particularly bad night of smoke, creating the "haze" in their apartment) and the smoking tenant accused the other of lying and demanded that they all meet right then in the above apartment with the super. They were shocked by the request and asked the smoking tenant if that was really necessary at 11:30pm. The smoking tenant then closed the door on them. The non-smoking tenant went back upstairs and called the super, who did not answer the phone. The non-smoking tenant went back downstairs and invited the smoking tenant upstairs to smell/see the smoke for themselves, talk about it and offered a beer. The smoking tenant refused and accused the non-smoking tenant of denying the initial request, mentioned the harassment lawsuit, instructed them to contact his attorney and then closed the door on them again.

The super and landlord are now working with an attorney and going through the proper legal channels. Meanwhile, the smoking tenant's attorney now states that the tenant living directly above the smoking tenant has been "recruited" by the super to join in the harassment of the smoking tenant and sites the non-smoking tenant's visit as proof of the harassment. In addition, the smoking tenant now claims that his girlfriend was witness to the non-smoking tenant placing cigarette butts in the wooden planter at 5am on the day the non-smoking tenant went downstairs to complain. It should also be noted that this incident was weeks after the wooden planter had actually caught fire.
These claims are completely outrageous and reflect the continued disturbing behavior by the smoking tenant.

What did the super/landlord do wrong, how far can the smoking tenant take this and is the super/landlord responsible to the other tenants in the house who are complaining about loss of sleep, second hand smoke and exposure to drugs and are demanding some kind of compensation?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[ScottGem]

Is this a homework question? Certainly sounds like one. But in the event it isn't I'll answer.

The super/landlord did nothing "wrong" as far as I see, but they could have done things better. After multiple complaints by other tenants, then should have told the smoking tenants, that their lease prohibits smoking. That any further complaints by other tenants will constitute a breach of the lease. It would have been better that this notice was in writing.

If the complaints did not stop, then the next step would be a formal letter stating they were in breach of the lease and give them 30 days to vacate. If they still refused to vacate, then file for an eviction order.

The smoking tenants may still have gone with a harassment suit, but I doubt if it would fly. They would have to prove that all the other tenants conspired to get them out.

[Fr_Chuck]

Except that they perhaps should have file for an eviction for failure to follow the rules,

I would say they need to continue with warnings and eviction

[Moderation]

To perhaps complicate things, the lease was signed by the super, not the landlord and is now said to be unauthorized/null & void by the landlord.
The landlord is claiming that she never approved the lease due to the tenant's level of income. So, in addition to the claims that the smoking tenant has broken the terms of the lease, the landlord
Has sent a letter to the smoking tenant stating that he indeed has no legitimate lease. This is the second month of the smoking tenant's rental period.

What are the rights of the landlord, the smoking tenant and the non-smoking tenant?

[ScottGem]

The landlord can't disavow the lease nor do they have to. The courts will rule that the super was acting as an agent for the landlord, especially if he has done this before. I suspect the reason he landlord is saying this is to make it easier to evict. But its unnecessary and could prejudice his case.

The landlord has the right to terminate the lease because the tenant is violating its terms. The testimony of the other tenants and the super should be enough to counter the denials of the smoking tenant.

The non-smoking tenants have the right to complain and compel the landlord to act. They rented their apartments on the assumption the building would be non-smoking.

The smoking tenant has almost no rights at all. They signed the lease which specifies no smoking. End of story.

[Moderation]

Also, the smoking tenant is now claiming that the super had threatened his life, and that is part of the lawsuit.
The smoking tenant's attorney notes death threats, wrongful eviction and ceaseless harassment in a letter to the landlord's attorney.
The smoking tenant's attorney writes he has been instructed to seek a judgment for as much money as possible and that the landlord risks
Having her house "attached".

Are they looking at months of litigation?

[ScottGem]

The smoking tenant's attorney is blowing smoke. He has no grounds to forestall the eviction. And unless he has proof of the allegations of harassment that suit will be thrown out.

I strongly suspect these letters are either not coming from an attorney, just on letterhead or the attorney is a shyster who is trying to intimidate. If he had any real case he would have filed suit already not just sent letters.

But the landlord HAS an attorne so why aren't you asking these questions of the attorney?

[Moderation]

I was hoping that would be the case.
As far as the landlord's attorney, no updates yet.
What would the smoking tenant's attorney hope to gain by blowing smoke?

[ScottGem]

Intimidation, buying time for his client. But if the letters are being sent to the landlord's attorney, he's got to know the attorney is not going to be easily intimidated. That's why I think the smoking tenant may be sending the letters using an attorney's letterhead.

Where do you fit into all this?

[Moderation]

I am a friend to one of the people involved. Just thought this situation was a little crazy and wanted some help.

[twinkiedooter]

Death threats must be documented by the police or they are just thrown out of court.

Why didn't someone call the police on this obvious drug dealer a long time ago?

Also, up until the time a lawsuit is formally filed I think the smoking tenant is on very shaky ground.

The landlord should have formally evicted this tenant for breaking the lease. Don't know why the super told them to verbally leave and the tenant left. Dumb on the smoking tenant's part. They should have kept staying there until told by a Judge to depart the premises. The landlord having the super do their "legal" work for them was definitely in the lazy category.

[Moderation]

Yeah, I would assume that the police would have to be involved if there was a death threat involved.
I do know that the police were called on the smoking tenant's drug smoke at least once. The super only verbally evicted the smoking tenant, but the landlord sent a letter as an eviction notice.
The smoking tenant's attorney has also stated that the landlord has refused to go to landlord/tenant court to get this resolved.
What happens if the other tenants in the house are demanding a break on the rent and heating bill until the smoking tenant is removed? (windows need to be open 24/7 to air out the house)