Bender v. Green
874 N.Y.S.2d 786, 24 Misc.3d 174 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New York's statutory warranty of habitability, a landlord is strictly liable for a bedbug infestation, and this duty is not excused even if the tenant unintentionally introduced the pests, so long as the tenant's actions do not constitute 'misconduct'. However, the amount of rent abatement awarded depends on the tenant's ability to provide credible evidence proving the extent and severity of the infestation.
Facts:
- Geoffrey Green and Danna Shapiro began leasing apartment 3B from the petitioners in April 2004.
- Prior to this tenancy, Green and Shapiro had experienced a bedbug infestation in a different apartment in an adjacent building owned by the same landlord.
- Beginning around April 2005, Green and Shapiro started experiencing what they identified as bedbug bites in their current apartment.
- They notified the landlord, who retained an exterminator that provided regular treatment to the apartment for over a year.
- Despite the treatments, the tenants claimed the infestation persisted, causing them physical discomfort, lack of sleep, and forcing them to sleep in different parts of their apartment.
- The tenants withheld rent payments in September and October of 2005 due to the ongoing issue.
- No other tenants in the building complained of bedbugs, and the landlord's exterminator never personally observed any live or dead bedbugs in the apartment, apart from specimens the tenants had collected.
- The infestation allegedly persisted in varying degrees until November 2007.
Procedural Posture:
- The landlord (petitioners) initiated a summary nonpayment proceeding in the Housing Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York to recover possession and unpaid rent from the tenants (respondents).
- The tenants filed an answer and counterclaims, alleging a breach of the warranty of habitability due to a bedbug infestation.
- The case was initially set for trial but was marked off the calendar.
- Following cross-motions, the court granted the petitioners' motion to restore the case for a trial de novo.
- A bench trial was held before Judge Kraus in the Housing Part of the Civil 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 bedbug infestation constitute a breach of the landlord's statutory warranty of habitability under New York Real Property Law § 235-b, even if the tenants likely introduced the bedbugs into the premises without engaging in misconduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Sabrina B. Kraus, J.
Yes, a bedbug infestation constitutes a breach of the landlord's warranty of habitability, even if the tenants unintentionally introduced the pests. Real Property Law § 235-b imposes a strict and non-delegable duty on landlords to maintain a habitable premises, and insect infestation is a clear breach of this duty. The landlord is only excused if the condition is caused by the tenant's 'misconduct.' The court found no evidence of misconduct, as unintentionally bringing bedbugs into an apartment through travel or from a prior residence does not meet this standard. While the landlord is liable for the breach, the tenants failed to meet their burden of proving the full extent and duration of the infestation with credible evidence. Their testimony was inconsistent with expert opinion and lacked corroboration such as housing code violations or sightings by third parties. Therefore, the court awarded a limited rent abatement of 12% for the 16-month period from September 2005 through December 2006, reflecting the proven, rather than the alleged, severity of the breach.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies that under New York law, a landlord's duty to address a bedbug infestation is based on strict liability, meaning the landlord is responsible regardless of fault unless the tenant engaged in actual misconduct. It distinguishes the high standard of the warranty of habitability from lesser administrative standards, such as those used by the DHCR. The case serves as a crucial lesson on the burden of proof, demonstrating that while the law may be on the tenant's side regarding the breach, the amount of damages awarded is directly tied to the quality and credibility of the evidence presented about the infestation's severity. This ruling pressures landlords to act decisively on infestations while cautioning tenants to meticulously document their claims with evidence beyond personal testimony.
