86 N.Y.2d 582 (1995)

The implied warranty of habitability in residential leases protects tenants against conditions that materially affect health and safety, or that deprive them of essential functions a residence is expected to provide, but it doesn’t extend to every amenity or expectation based on lease terms.

Summary

Tenants in a Manhattan apartment building withheld rent, claiming the landlord breached the implied warranty of habitability due to various building-wide and apartment-specific defects. The Civil Court awarded rent abatements based on the tenants’ “reasonable expectations” given the building’s location and high rents. The Appellate Term modified, finding only elevator service problems warranted a common area abatement and remanding for recalculation of individual apartment abatements. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the warranty of habitability protects against conditions materially affecting health and safety or depriving tenants of essential functions, not all amenities expected under the lease.

Facts

Approximately 65 tenants of an apartment building at 265 East 66th Street in Manhattan engaged in a rent strike. The landlord initiated summary nonpayment proceedings to recover unpaid rent. The tenants argued the landlord breached the implied warranty of habitability, citing various defects throughout the building and in individual apartments. These tenants resided in a uniquely designed building on Manhattan’s upper east side and paid comparatively high rents. The tenants also sought attorney’s fees as the prevailing party.

Procedural History

The Civil Court ruled for the tenants, granting rent abatements for common area and individual apartment issues, interpreting the warranty of habitability to encompass tenants’ reasonable expectations based on their leases. The Appellate Term modified the Civil Court’s decision, significantly reducing the abatements and remanding for recalculation of individual apartment abatements. The Appellate Division modified the Appellate Term’s order and affirmed it. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal from the Appellate Division.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the implied warranty of habitability in Real Property Law § 235-b extends to encompass the level of services and amenities that tenants reasonably expect to be provided based on the financial and other terms of their individual leases.

Holding

1. No, because the implied warranty of habitability sets forth a minimum standard to protect tenants against conditions that render residential premises uninhabitable or unusable, and does not create an individualized subjective standard dependent on the specific terms of each lease.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals stated that the implied warranty of habitability, as defined in Real Property Law § 235-b, is limited to ensuring that premises are fit for human habitation and are not subject to conditions that are dangerous, hazardous, or detrimental to life, health, or safety. The Court referenced Park W. Mgt. Corp. v Mitchell, clarifying that the warranty protects against conditions materially affecting health and safety or depriving tenants of essential functions a residence is expected to provide. The Court rejected the Civil Court’s interpretation that the warranty extended to all services and amenities tenants reasonably expect based on lease terms. The Court emphasized that the statute’s non-waiver clause indicates a legislative intent to ensure the warranty’s independence from specific lease terms. “[T]he implied warranty protects only against conditions that materially affect the health and safety of tenants or deficiencies that ‘in the eyes of a reasonable person * * * deprive the tenant of those essential functions which a residence is expected to provide’”. The Court found that operable elevator service in a high-rise building is an essential function within the warranty’s scope. Allowing the lease agreement to define the warranty would unnecessarily duplicate other tenant remedies.