Suydam v. . Jackson
54 N.Y. 450 (1873)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute relieving a tenant from the obligation to pay rent when a building is 'destroyed' or 'so injured by the elements or any other cause as to be untenantable' applies only to sudden, fortuitous events, not to gradual deterioration resulting from the tenant's failure to make ordinary repairs.
Facts:
- A lessee rented a building from a lessor under a lease agreement.
- During the tenancy, the roof of a small extension on the main building gradually fell into disrepair and began to leak badly.
- The leakage was not caused by a sudden or unusual event, but from ordinary wear and decay over time.
- The persistent leaking rendered the demised premises untenantable and unfit for occupancy.
- Based on the condition of the premises, the lessee attempted to surrender the property and cease paying rent.
Procedural Posture:
- The lessor (plaintiff) initiated an action against the lessee (defendant) in a lower court to recover unpaid rent.
- The lessee raised the New York statute of 1860 as a defense, arguing the premises were untenantable.
- The trial court found for the lessor, holding that the statute did not apply to the facts of the case.
- The lessee appealed to an intermediate appellate court, which affirmed the lower court's judgment.
- The lessee (appellant) then appealed the case to this court, the state's highest 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 statute that allows a tenant to surrender a leasehold when the premises are 'destroyed' or 'injured' by the elements so as to become untenantable apply to a condition of disrepair, such as a leaky roof, that develops from gradual wear and decay?
Opinions:
Majority - The Court
No. The statute does not apply to gradual deterioration but is instead limited to destruction or injury caused by sudden and unexpected events. Before the statute, the common law held a tenant liable for rent even if the premises were destroyed by a fortuitous event like a fire or flood, a rule widely considered harsh. The statute was enacted to remedy this specific hardship, not to alter the tenant's separate common law duty to make ordinary, 'tenantable' repairs necessary to prevent waste and decay. The statutory terms 'destroyed' and 'injured' connote a sudden, powerful event, not the gradual deterioration from the ordinary action of the elements that is common to all structures.
Concurring - The Court
No. The statute was intended to relieve tenants from the harsh common law rule requiring rent payment after extraordinary disasters, not to abrogate the tenant's duty to make ordinary repairs. Statutes that alter the common law must be construed narrowly and are not presumed to make any changes beyond what is expressly declared. The common law duty for tenants to make ordinary repairs was not considered a hardship and was not the evil the legislature sought to remedy. Furthermore, because a landlord cedes possession and has no right to enter the premises to inspect for or make ordinary repairs, the burden properly remains on the tenant who is in possession.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of a remedial statute intended to protect tenants, preserving the traditional common law allocation of repair duties. By distinguishing between sudden, catastrophic events and gradual deterioration, the court reinforces the tenant's implied duty to perform ordinary repairs to prevent waste. This ruling establishes a precedent that statutes altering common law principles will be interpreted strictly, meaning courts will assume the legislature only intended to change what was explicitly stated. Future cases involving untenantable conditions will require an analysis of the cause of the damage—whether it was sudden and fortuitous or a result of gradual decay.
