Minjak Company v. Randolph

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department · 1988 · Property

140 A.D.2d 245 (1988)

Updated July 23, 2026

Propertyconstructive evictionpartial abandonmentrent abatementnonpayment proceedingwarranty of habitabilitypunitive damagesmoral culpability

Facts

The tenants lived in a 1,700-square-foot loft under a commercial lease, although the landlord knew they would use it as a residence; about two thirds of the loft functioned as Kikuchi's music studio and the rest as the living area. Over several years, repeated water leaks from the floor above, ongoing sand intrusion, and later dust and debris from the landlord's renovation work interfered with use of the loft and damaged or threatened the tenants' belongings and health. The record showed especially dangerous construction practices, including debris thrown into an elevator shaft, jackhammering and cement mixing inside the loft, and stair demolition without warning signs. From 1981 until trial, Kikuchi was completely unable to use the music studio portion of the loft, while the residential portion also remained affected by the conditions.

Issue

May tenants in a nonpayment proceeding assert constructive eviction as a defense when they abandoned only a portion of the demised premises made unusable by the landlord's wrongful acts? May punitive damages and attorney's fees also be awarded on these facts?

Rule

A tenant may assert constructive eviction as a defense to rent even when the tenant has abandoned only a portion of the demised premises, so long as the landlord's wrongful acts substantially and materially deprive the tenant of the beneficial use and enjoyment of that portion. Punitive damages may be awarded in habitability-type cases when the landlord's conduct shows high moral culpability or criminal indifference to civil obligations, including intentional or malicious actions undermining housing standards. Under Real Property Law § 234, a residential tenant who successfully defends a summary proceeding arising out of a lease containing a landlord attorney's-fee provision may recover reasonable attorney's fees.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Park rents a large live-work loft in Brooklyn under a lease the landlord knew she would use as both a residence and a ceramics workspace. After the landlord begins negligent roof repairs, water and plaster repeatedly flood only the rear workshop area for months, and Nina removes her kiln and stops using that section while continuing to sleep in the front living area.

In the landlord's later nonpayment proceeding for unpaid rent during those months, which is the strongest argument for Nina?

Explanation. The majority recognized partial constructive eviction as a defense to rent where the landlord's wrongful acts substantially and materially deprive the tenant of the beneficial use and enjoyment of a portion of the premises and the tenant abandons that portion. Full abandonment of the entire premises is not required.