Gombo v. Martise
1964 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2207, 246 N.Y.S.2d 750, 41 Misc.2d 475 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord's failure to provide essential services and maintain premises in a safe and habitable condition, amounting to a partial actual eviction, suspends the tenant's entire obligation to pay rent, based on the common law principle that a landlord cannot apportion their own wrong.
Facts:
- Martise, Walston, Traham, and Valsechi were tenants residing in an apartment building owned by Uniondale Realty Co.
- For months, including October, November, and December, the tenants received no heat or hot water, leading to extreme cold within their apartments.
- One tenant's wife, suffering from an asthmatic condition, developed pneumonia due to the severe cold and required constant use of an atomizer.
- The apartments were infested with large 'Oriental and American' roaches, dead and alive, measuring an inch to an inch and a half in size.
- The premises contained severe structural hazards, including large holes in the floors through which a child could fall to the cellar, and ceilings and walls that were crumbling and dangerous.
- The landlord had moved the building's heat thermostat from the hallway to a locked area, placing it solely under their control.
- Tenants repeatedly pleaded with the landlord to address these conditions but received only empty promises and minimal, ineffective attempts at repair by an unknown handyman.
- The landlord's counsel eventually conceded that the testimony of the tenants and city inspectors regarding the deplorable and dangerous conditions was true.
Procedural Posture:
- The landlord, Uniondale Realty Co., commenced summary proceedings against Martise, Walston, Traham, and Valsechi in the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, seeking possession for nonpayment of rent.
- Prior to the commencement of trial, a previous judge ordered the tenants to deposit their rental payments into the court's registry pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) § 755.
- The tenants complied with this order, depositing approximately $838 with the Clerk of the court.
- The Corporation Counsel of the City of New York appeared amicus curiae (friend of the court) for three of the tenants (Martise, Walston, and Traham), identifying them as 'relief clients'.
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 essential services and maintain premises free from dangerous and hazardous conditions, constituting a partial actual eviction, suspend the tenant's entire obligation to pay rent, even if the tenant remains in possession?
Opinions:
Majority - Fred G. Moritt, J.
Yes, a landlord's failure to provide essential services and maintain premises in a safe and habitable condition, amounting to a partial actual eviction, suspends the tenant's entire obligation to pay rent, even if the tenant remains in possession. The court found the landlord's premises were not fit for human habitation and were dangerous, citing overwhelming testimony from tenants and city inspectors, and importantly, the landlord's counsel's concession of these facts. The court relied on the established common law principle from Fifth Ave. Bldg. Co. v. Kernochan, which states that if a partial eviction is caused by the landlord's own wrong, it suspends the entire rent. The court clarified that statutory provisions, such as Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 755 and Social Welfare Law § 143-b, were not in derogation of common law but were additional measures that reiterated existing legal principles. The court denied the Corporation Counsel's motion to dismiss the petition on jurisdictional grounds (lack of allegation of no violations), stating it was not within the court's power to create new law or jurisdictional requirements. The court also critiqued a proposed legislative bill requiring tenants to pay rent into a special fund for repairs as 'unworthy, unconscionable and unconstitutional,' especially for taxpayers, and unnecessary for welfare recipients given existing statutes.
Analysis:
This case strongly reaffirms the common law doctrine of partial actual eviction, emphasizing that landlords bear a fundamental obligation to provide safe and habitable housing. By applying longstanding precedent to severe modern housing conditions, the court reinforces tenant rights and provides a powerful defense against rent nonpayment claims when a landlord fails to maintain essential services. The decision also highlights the judiciary's role in interpreting statutes as consistent with, rather than superseding, established common law principles, and serves as a check on legislative proposals perceived as undermining existing protections or being unconstitutional.
