Louisiana Leasing Co. v. Sokolow
1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2331, 266 N.Y.S.2d 447, 48 Misc. 2d 1014 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The ordinary and unavoidable noises generated by everyday family life do not constitute a breach of a standard residential lease clause prohibiting "disturbing noises" sufficient to justify eviction, especially when the noise is not shown to be excessive or deliberate.
Facts:
- The Sokolows, a couple with two young children aged four and two, leased an apartment under a lease agreement that prohibited 'disturbing noises'.
- For over two and a half years, the Sokolows resided in the apartment without any complaints against their tenancy.
- In October, the Levins, a middle-aged couple, moved into the apartment directly beneath the Sokolows.
- Shortly after moving in, the Levins began to complain about noises emanating from the Sokolows' apartment, which they attributed to the children running and playing, and the father walking.
- The Sokolows contended that any sounds from their apartment were normal noises associated with everyday family living and were not excessive.
- The landlord, siding with the Levins, alleged that the Sokolows' noise and 'unco-operative attitude' constituted a substantial violation of the lease.
Procedural Posture:
- The landlord (petitioner) initiated a summary proceeding in a New York trial court to remove the Sokolow family (respondents) from their apartment.
- The landlord sought eviction on the grounds that the Sokolows were objectionable tenants due to noise complaints from their downstairs neighbors.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the normal noises of everyday family life, such as children playing and adults walking, constitute a breach of a lease's covenant against 'disturbing noises' sufficient to warrant the eviction of the tenant?
Opinions:
Majority - Fitzpatrick, J.
No. The normal noises of everyday family life do not constitute a breach of a lease's covenant against 'disturbing noises' sufficient to warrant eviction. The court reasoned that in modern, high-density urban living, a certain level of noise from neighbors is an unavoidable reality. The sounds complained of—children playing and adults walking—are inherent to family life and have not been shown to be excessive or deliberate. The court balanced the equities, noting the Sokolows were tenants in good standing for years before the Levins arrived, and the Levins had the opportunity to ascertain the conditions above them before leasing the apartment. The court concluded that the ancient maxim of a 'man's home is his castle' must be tempered by the reality that modern apartment 'castles' are stacked atop one another, requiring mutual forbearance among residents.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant precedent in landlord-tenant law, particularly for noise-related disputes in multi-family dwellings. It sets a reasonableness standard, shielding tenants from eviction based on the ordinary sounds of daily life, thereby protecting families with children who might otherwise be vulnerable to complaints from more sensitive neighbors. The ruling emphasizes that the nature of modern apartment construction makes some sound transmission inevitable and places a burden on all tenants to exercise a degree of tolerance. Future cases involving noise complaints will likely look to this decision's balancing of equities and its distinction between ordinary living noises and deliberately excessive disturbances.
