Barash v. Pennsylvania Terminal Real Estate Corp.
26 N.Y.2d 77, 308 N.Y.S.2d 649, 256 N.E.2d 707 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord's wrongful act that substantially diminishes a tenant's beneficial use and enjoyment of the premises, but does not involve physical expulsion or exclusion, constitutes a constructive eviction, not an actual eviction. To suspend the obligation to pay rent under a claim of constructive eviction, the tenant must abandon the premises.
Facts:
- Seymour Barash, a lawyer, entered into a written lease with Pennsylvania Terminal Real Estate Corporation for office space in a newly constructed, sealed, and fully air-conditioned building.
- Barash alleged that prior to signing, the landlord's agents fraudulently represented that the building would have a continuous flow of air 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, making the offices usable at all times.
- The executed lease explicitly stated that the landlord was obligated to furnish air cooling and ventilation only on business days from 9 A.M. to 6 P.M.
- The lease contained a general merger clause stating that no representations were made except as expressly set forth in the written agreement.
- After taking possession, Barash found that the landlord turned off all ventilation at 6 P.M. on business days and on weekends, causing the offices to become "hot, stuffy, and unusable."
- The landlord offered to provide after-hours ventilation for an additional fee of $25 per hour, which Barash refused to pay.
- Barash did not abandon or vacate the premises and continued to possess the office space.
Procedural Posture:
- Seymour Barash (tenant) filed a complaint against Pennsylvania Terminal Real Estate Corporation (landlord) in the New York Supreme Court, Special Term (trial court).
- The landlord filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- The Special Term denied the landlord's motion to dismiss.
- The landlord, as appellant, appealed the denial to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the Special Term's order, siding with Barash, the appellee.
- The landlord, as appellant, was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of the State of New York (the state's highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landlord's failure to provide ventilation to a leased office space during evenings and weekends, rendering it unusable during those times, constitute a partial actual eviction that suspends the tenant's obligation to pay rent while the tenant remains in possession?
Opinions:
Majority - Breitel, J.
No. A landlord's failure to provide an essential service like ventilation constitutes a constructive eviction, not an actual eviction, and a tenant must abandon the premises to be relieved of the duty to pay rent. An actual eviction requires a physical expulsion or exclusion from the premises, which did not occur here. The landlord's action merely diminished the tenant's beneficial enjoyment, which is the hallmark of a constructive eviction. Since the tenant remained in possession, he cannot suspend his rent obligation. Furthermore, the tenant's second cause of action for reformation of the lease fails because, while alleging fraud by the landlord, it fatally omits an allegation of unilateral mistake on his own part, which is a necessary element for such a claim.
Dissenting in part - Fuld, C.J.
No, but the reformation claim should be permitted. While agreeing with the majority's conclusion on the eviction claim, the dissent argues that the second cause of action for reformation should be sustained. The tenant's allegation that 'the lease was incorrectly drawn' is sufficient to plead unilateral mistake under modern pleading rules. To dismiss this claim for failing to use specific 'magic words' is an insistence on excessive technicality.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the distinction between actual and constructive eviction, establishing that a landlord's failure to provide essential services within the premises is not a physical ouster. The ruling reinforces the traditional requirement that a tenant must abandon the premises to successfully claim constructive eviction, thereby preventing tenants from remaining in possession of a property rent-free due to service deficiencies. This precedent is particularly significant for commercial leases in modern, sealed buildings where tenants are entirely dependent on landlord-provided services like HVAC, clarifying that the remedy for such failures is not to withhold rent while in possession, but to either vacate or seek other remedies like damages.
