We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.
A tenant who flouts building rules and disregards the city’s mask mandate is likely to spark complaints from neighbors and staff members who are concerned about their health. The eviction moratorium doesn’t mean a landlord can’t take the matter to court. Consider the recent case of a Brooklyn landlord who sought injunctive relief and a temporary restraining order against a tenant based upon nuisance conduct that created health and safety risks affecting other occupants of the building.
When landlords take tenants to court over nonpayment of rent, tenants often claim as a defense that the landlord breached the warranty of habitability. But, as a recent case illustrates, a tenant may preemptively claim such a breach before a landlord acts to evict—and argue not only that that the breach was aggravated by the pandemic, but that it amounted to harassment for which the tenant should be awarded a civil penalty.
Legal blogs are "agog" with speculation as to the viability, during the pandemic, of force majeure and impossibility/frustration-of-performance defenses to obligations under leases, mortgages, and other real property contracts. A recent case examines the viability of those defenses in another context—a change in law.
On April 19, 2019, Malachite Servs., LLC agreed to purchase a building in Midtown Manhattan from 148-150 E. 28th St LLC for $6.668 million, with a down payment of $668,000 but no mortgage contingency clause.
Most of the litigation triggered by the coronavirus pandemic so far has involved business disputes – over the terms of commercial leases, for instance, or over claims for business-interruption coverage that were denied by insurance carriers. But a recent decision in state Supreme Court in Brooklyn could be the harbinger of a coming wave of COVID-inspired lawsuits in residential properties.
RSS