Lexplug logoLexplug

Solow v. Wellner

New York Court of Appeals
635 N.Y.S.2d 132, 86 N.Y.2d 582, 658 N.E.2d 1005 (1995)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The implied warranty of habitability under New York Real Property Law § 235-b establishes a uniform, objective minimum standard for what constitutes a safe, clean, and habitable living space, not a subjective standard based on a tenant's reasonable expectations of amenities and services tied to the rent paid or the luxury status of the building.


Facts:

  • A group of approximately 65 tenants resided in a uniquely designed, high-rent apartment building on Manhattan's upper east side at 265 East 66th Street.
  • The tenants engaged in a pervasive rent strike.
  • The landlord sought to recover unpaid rent from the tenants for the period of October 1987 through May 1988.
  • The tenants alleged that the landlord had breached the warranty of habitability due to problems with common areas, such as elevator service, and conditions within their individual apartments.

Procedural Posture:

  • The landlord commenced summary nonpayment proceedings against the tenants in New York City Civil Court (the trial court).
  • The tenants asserted breach of the implied warranty of habitability as an affirmative defense and counterclaim.
  • The Civil Court found for the tenants, applying a heightened 'reasonable expectations' standard based on the high rent and luxury nature of the building, and awarded rent abatements.
  • The landlord (as appellant) appealed to the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court.
  • The Appellate Term (an intermediate appellate court) rejected the trial court's heightened standard, reduced some abatements, and remanded the case for recalculation under the proper objective standard.
  • The tenants (as appellants) were granted leave to appeal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
  • The Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court) affirmed the Appellate Term's order with a minor modification.
  • The Appellate Division then granted the tenants' motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals (the state's highest court).

Locked

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 the implied warranty of habitability under New York Real Property Law § 235-b require a landlord to maintain premises in accordance with the tenants' reasonable expectations based on the nature of the building and the rent paid, rather than a uniform, objective standard of what is essential for residential habitation?


Opinions:

Majority - Levine, J.

No. The implied warranty of habitability sets forth a minimum, objective standard to protect tenants against conditions that render residential premises uninhabitable or unusable, and is not a guarantee of every amenity or a standard tied to the tenants' specific expectations under their lease. The court reasoned that the statute's purpose is to ensure that premises are fit for human habitation and provide the 'essential functions which a residence is expected to provide,' as established in Park W. Mgt. Corp. v Mitchell. The statutory reference to 'uses reasonably intended by the parties' refers to the basic function of residential occupation, not a broad spectrum of contractual expectations. To interpret it otherwise would make the statutory warranty coextensive with the lease agreement, undermining the statute's non-waiver clause and its intent to create a uniform standard. Such an interpretation would also duplicate existing contract-based remedies available to tenants.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies that New York's implied warranty of habitability is a floor, not a ceiling, for a landlord's obligations. It prevents the creation of a two-tiered system of habitability, one for luxury housing and one for standard housing, by establishing a single, objective standard applicable to all residential leases. The ruling clarifies that tenants in high-end buildings seeking to enforce expectations of luxury amenities must rely on specific provisions in their lease agreements and traditional contract law, rather than the statutory warranty. This maintains the warranty's purpose as a shield against unsafe and unsanitary conditions, not a sword to enforce contractual expectations for luxury services.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Solow v. Wellner (1995)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"