Berg v. Chelsea Hotel Owner, LLC
2022 NY Slip Op 01511 (2022)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A complaint sufficiently states causes of action for breach of the warranty of habitability, private nuisance, and statutory harassment (without a predicate violation for threats of force) if it alleges specific and severe disruptions of essential services or explicit threats, and for assault if it describes menacing physical acts creating a reasonable apprehension of imminent harm, thus preventing dismissal at the pleading stage.
Facts:
- Susan Berg and other plaintiffs resided in the Chelsea Hotel.
- Chelsea Hotel Owner, LLC owned the building, and Ira Drukier was its principal.
- Plaintiffs experienced repeated interruptions of essential services including heat, hot water, gas, electricity, elevator, phone, television, and internet service.
- Plaintiffs observed large amounts of construction dust, including lead dust, in public hallways, as well as flooding, mold on the tenth floor, and rat and vermin infestations.
- The building allegedly suffered from a lack of security in the lobby and a lack of a fire safety system.
- Ira Drukier came 'immediately behind' plaintiff Susan Berg, yelled at her, 'encroached further upon her,' screamed an expletive, and 'spewed his spittle into her face.'
- A building employee stepped between Susan Berg and Ira Drukier and loudly said, 'Just stop,' indicating a perceived imminent threat of physical force.
Procedural Posture:
- Susan Berg et al. (plaintiffs) filed a complaint against Chelsea Hotel Owner, LLC et al. (defendants) in Supreme Court, New York County.
- Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' claims for statutory harassment, private nuisance based on conditions arising after January 22, 2019, and assault.
- The Supreme Court, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J.) granted defendants' motion to dismiss these claims.
- Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, including a claim for breach of the warranty of habitability based on conditions arising after January 22, 2019.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the claim for breach of the warranty of habitability in the amended complaint.
- The Supreme Court, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J.) granted defendants' motion to dismiss the breach of warranty of habitability claim.
- Plaintiffs (appellants) appealed both orders of dismissal to the Appellate Division, First Department.
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 complaint sufficiently state causes of action for breach of the warranty of habitability, private nuisance, statutory harassment, and assault, and related punitive damages, when it alleges repeated interruptions of essential services, construction dust and infestations, a lack of security and fire safety, an express threat of force from a building principal, and an aggressive physical encounter, despite defendants' motion to dismiss?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, the complaint sufficiently states causes of action for breach of the warranty of habitability, private nuisance, statutory harassment, assault, and related punitive damages, and the defendants' motion to dismiss these claims should be denied. The court found that the allegations for breach of the warranty of habitability were sufficiently specific, mirroring those found sufficient in Jobe v Chelsea Hotel Owner LLC. The conditions alleged, such as interruptions of essential services, dust, infestations, and lack of security/fire safety, affect the 'health, safety or welfare' of residents, rather than being 'mere annoyances,' consistent with Park W. Mgt. Corp. v Mitchell. The same allegations supporting the warranty of habitability claim were also found to state a claim for private nuisance, aligning with Jobe and 61 W. 62 Owners Corp. v CGM EMP LLC, with potential for punitive damages if actions were intentional and malicious (Minjak Co. v Randolph). For statutory harassment, the court clarified that Supreme Court is a 'court of competent jurisdiction' (Jobe) and that for claims based on 'express or implied threats that force will be used' under Administrative Code § 27-2004(a)(48)(ii)(a), no predicate violation is required. Drukier's alleged conduct of encroaching, yelling, screaming an expletive, and spewing spittle, along with the building employee's intervention, supported an inference of a threatened use of force. Finally, Susan Berg's assault claim was reinstated because Drukier's alleged actions of 'encroached further upon her' while screaming an epithet constituted the menacing physical act required for a reasonable apprehension of imminent harm, distinguishing it from mere 'finger pointing and generalized yelling' (Okoli v Paul Hastings LLP and Gould v Rempel), with prior interactions supporting punitive damages (Hotaling v Carter).
Analysis:
This case reinforces the pleading standard for various landlord-tenant and tort claims, clarifying what constitutes sufficient allegations to survive a motion to dismiss. It underscores that specific and severe alleged disruptions of essential services, direct personal threats, and menacing physical acts are enough to proceed with claims for breach of warranty of habitability, private nuisance, statutory harassment, and assault. The decision is particularly significant for tenant protections, affirming that certain statutory harassment claims, specifically those involving threats of force, do not necessitate a prior predicate violation, thereby lowering the initial barrier for tenants seeking legal recourse against landlords for intimidation or deplorable living conditions.
