Poyck v. Bryant

Supreme Court, New York County · Property

Propertyimplied warranty of habitabilityconstructive evictionsecondhand smokeReal Property Law § 235-bhabitabilityconstructive evictionsecondhand smoke

Facts

The defendants rented condominium unit 5-D from the plaintiff. After new neighbors moved into adjacent unit 5-C in March 2001, they constantly smoked in the hallway and in their apartment, and the smoke penetrated into defendants' apartment. The tenants complained to the superintendent and then sent a June 29, 2001 letter to the landlord and his attorney-in-fact explaining that the smoke created an ongoing health hazard, especially because Michelle Bryant was recovering from cancer surgery and was extremely allergic to tobacco smoke, but the landlord took no action. The tenants then notified the landlord on August 1, 2001 that they would vacate by the end of the month because of the ongoing smoking problem and health concerns.

Issue

Whether secondhand smoke emanating from a neighboring apartment can, under modern urban living conditions, constitute a condition that breaches the implied warranty of habitability under Real Property Law § 235-b and gives rise to constructive eviction. Also at this stage, whether the landlord was entitled to summary judgment dismissing those defenses and counterclaims.

Rule

Under Real Property Law § 235-b, a landlord warrants that residential premises are fit for human habitation, accord with the uses reasonably intended by the parties, and do not subject tenants to conditions dangerous or detrimental to life, health, or safety. The warranty extends to conditions caused by third parties, and the existence of a breach is judged objectively in the eyes of a reasonable person. Secondhand smoke qualifies as a condition that can invoke the protections of § 235-b and can support constructive eviction if, on the facts, it is sufficiently pervasive to substantially impair use and enjoyment of the premises.

🔒

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.

Dana Kim rents an apartment in Chicago from Lakeside Terrace Holdings. For four months, cigarette smoke from the adjoining unit seeps through vents and under the door almost every evening, making the apartment smell strongly of smoke despite Dana's repeated use of air purifiers and written complaints to the landlord.

If the landlord sues Dana for unpaid rent after she moves out, which is the strongest argument against summary judgment for the landlord on Dana's habitability defense?

Explanation. The majority held that secondhand smoke can, under proper circumstances, invoke the protections of the implied warranty of habitability and can support constructive eviction. The key question is whether the smoke was sufficiently pervasive, viewed objectively, to render the premises unfit or dangerous to health or safety. The opinion rejected the idea that only structural defects count, rejected a categorical no-liability rule for third-party conduct, and did not hold that any amount of smoke automatically proves breach.