BACKGROUND Plaintiff commenced this action seeking a judgment in the amount of $5000 defendant, her former landlord, based on defendant’s failure to make repairs to apartment 8S at 30 West 141st Street, New York, New York 10037 (Subject Premises). On October 15, 2019, both parties appeared ready for trial, and the court held a bench trial and reserved decision. FINDING OF FACTS Two witnesses testified at the trial, claimant and Patricia Figueroa, who is the director of maintenance for defendant. Claimant was the rent-stabilized tenant of record of the Subject Premises, pursuant to an initial written lease dated November 30, 2006 (Ex 9). The last renewal executed by the parties was dated September 25, 2018 and was for a one year term from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019 at a monthly rent of $1634.34 (Ex 5). Claimant credibly testified that in August 2018, a major leak occurred in the Subject Premises occurred due to a burst pipe in the kitchen. Claimant was not home at the time of the leak, but water started pouring outside the Subject Premises into the hallway and a neighbor notified the landlord, who entered the Subject Premises to stop the leak. The following day, claimant returned to the Subject Premises and saw that the floors in the Subject Premises were still wet and her neighbor told her about the leak. As a result of the leak there were two large holes in the walls that were covered with blue tarp. The Subject Premises had wood flooring, Defendant sent someone to the Subject Premises to assess the damages. The worker told claimant that the floors needed to be refinished and sent an estimate for the work to defendant. Defendant did not contract for the floors to be refinished. No repairs had been done at all to the Subject Premises and on or about October 3, 2018, claimant met with three agents from defendants office. They told claimant it would be better for her to move to another renovated unit in the complex, than for them to make repairs to the Subject Premises. They told claimant that if she moved to another unit, they could list the work in the Subject Premises as a renovation rather than a repair and that they had money budgeted for renovations, but not as much for repairs. Claimant did not wish to relocate to another unit in the development and asked the landlord to make repairs. They said they would be able to make repairs in November. Approximately 30 minutes after this meeting, a second major leak occurred in the Subject Premises, water and waste came pouring into the Subject Premises. “Smelly black stuff” filled the Subject Premises. Defendant sent the super or maintenance man, named Moses, who did his best to mop it up. Claimant submitted photos of the condition of the Subject Premises prior to the first leak (Ex 4). After the first leak the wood floors were damaged and there was discoloration on the bottom of the walls where the floor met the walls (Ex 1). Photos of the damage from both leaks and the holes in the walls were also submitted in evidence (Ex 2 & 3). Plaintiff had to remove and store all her furniture from the living room. This cost her $440.00. After the initial leak, claimant was unable to use her living room for any purpose and could only use the kitchen for storage and the refrigerator but not for cooking and eating. The only part of the Subject Premises she could use after the first leak was her bedroom and bathroom. A problem with mold began to develop in the Subject Premises. On or about October 16, 2018 an HPD inspection took place in the Subject Premises which resulted in five Class “B” violations and two Class “A” violations being placed on the Subject Premises for conditions including: 15 square feet of mold in the kitchen, 9 square feet of mold in the living room and 10 square feet of mold in the entrance of the Subject Premises; and painting and plastering in the kitchen and living room; and defective wood floors. A printout of the open violations as of November 7, 2018 was submitted in evidence (Ex 7). The defendant did some mold remediation work in late November 2018 (Ex A).In December 2018, claimant retained counsel who sent a letter to defendant demanding that the remaining repairs be done and seeking damages (Ex 8). In January 2019, the landlord did some painting but did not finish the painting. On March 11, 2019, claimant’s counsel emailed defendant’s counsel seeking to have them finish the repairs and arrive at a settlement for the past conditions (Ex 6). As of that date mold conditions remained in the Subject Premises, the floors still needed to be refinished and additional plaster and painting was necessary. On March 17, 2019, counsel again emailed defendant’s counsel to advise that claimant had decided to move out of the Subject Premises, and was still seeking a financial settlement. Claimant paid all rent due for the Subject Premises through and including March 2019. Claimant moved out of the Subject Premises on or about March 24, 2019. DISCUSSION Article 18 of the New York City Civil Court Act§1804 requires courts in small claims actions, “to do substantial justice between the parties…”. A residential lease is deemed a sale of shelter and services by the landlord, who impliedly warrants that the premises are fit for human habitation, that the condition of the premises is in accord with the uses reasonably intended by the parties, and that the tenants are not subjected to any conditions endangering or detrimental to their life, health or safety (Park W. Mgmt. Corp. v. Mitchell, 47 NY2d 316, 325(1979). In determining damages, the court must measure “the difference between the fair market value of the premises if they had been as warranted, as measured by the rent reserved under the lease, and the value of the premises during the period of the breach (Park West Management Corp., 47 NY2d 316 at 329).” Courts typically examine the severity of the violation and duration of the conditions giving rise to the breach as well as the effectiveness of steps taken by the landlord to abate those conditions (id at p.329). The court finds that Claimant is entitled to a 75 percent abatement for August 2018 and September 2018 and an 85 percent abatement for October and November 2018. The monthly rent for this period was $1610.19. The total amount of said abatement equals $4991.58. Additionally, the court finds that claimant is entitled to the $440.00 spent to store her furniture. These two amounts already total over $5000, and as this is the jurisdictional limit of the court, the court does not reach the other claimed damages. Based on the foregoing the clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of claimant against defendant in the amount of $5000.00 plus costs and interest from June 14, 2019. This constitutes the decision and order of this court. Dated: October 16, 2019 New York, New York
