Landlord sued to evict successor of deceased rent-controlled tenant for nonpayment of rent. Landlord sought $152 per month from October 2019 through August 2023. Tenant asked the court to dismiss the case, claiming that landlord failed to repair apartment defects. The court ruled for tenant in part. Because landlord had failed to make repairs to a defective roof, the court granted tenant a 100 percent rent abatement for 44 of the 46 months sought in the petition. The court also found that landlord had harassed tenant and imposed an injunction and maximum civil penalty.

Landlord, a co-op unit sponsor who maintained control of the building, sued to evict rent-stabilized tenant of the unit for nonpayment of rent. Landlord claimed tenant owed over $15,000. Tenant in turn asked the court to grant a 100 percent rent abatement and to dismiss the case. Tenant claimed that between July 1, 2021, and May 25, 2023, there was a rent-impairing violation in the building common areas that supported his abatement claim under Multiple Dwelling Law Section 302-a.

Landlord sued to evict tenant for nonpayment of rent. Tenant claimed that landlord breached the warranty of habitability and asked the court for permission to conduct discovery. The court ruled for tenant in part, finding that limited discovery could clarify issues at trial, and directed landlord to produce certain documents relating to tenant's claims about mold in the apartment.

Landlord sued to evict tenant for nonpayment of rent, claiming that tenant owed over $18,000. Tenant responded with a number of defenses, including breach of the warranty of habitability. Tenant claimed that there were a number of rent-impairing violations in her apartment. The court ruled for tenant after trial and gave her a 100 percent rent abatement for a 17-month period while the conditions remained. The court found that one missed access date for the removal of HPD violations and landlord's testimony that the work was done weren't sufficient to defeat the defense.

Landlord NYCHA sued to evict tenant for nonpayment of rent. Landlord and tenant stipulated in 2020 that tenant would pay $4,929 owed by March 2020. Landlord was granted a final judgment of possession and a money judgment. Tenant then failed to make payment due to the pandemic. Landlord later moved to restore the case to the court's calendar and sought subsequently accrued rent arrears. Tenant asked the court to vacate the stipulation.

Tenant sued landlord in State Supreme Court, claiming ongoing damages due to breach of the warranty of habitability. The court dismissed the case because tenant had already obtained relief against landlord in a housing court HP proceeding.

Tenants of a townhouse sued landlord for fraud, breach of the warranty of habitability, and breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Tenants claimed that the house was infested with rodents and they had moved out after being constructively evicted due to the infestation. Landlord claimed there was no rodent infestation before tenants moved in, although there had been only periodic extermination services. Landlord asked the court to dismiss the case because he made no false representations or omissions and tenants took the premises as is without any latent defect.

Landlord, the owner of a condominium unit, sued tenant after tenant broke the lease and moved out of the apartment in December 2018. Tenant's one-year lease term started in August 2018 at a monthly rent of $19,500. Tenant claimed that the unit was in an uninhabitable condition after many issues remained unrepaired months after he moved in. Tenant claimed that the unit's wood flooring was buckled in three areas and that landlord knew this when tenant moved in.

Tenants sued landlord for fraud, breach of the warranty of habitability, and partial constructive eviction due to the building elevator being temporarily out of service. Tenants asked the court to rule in their favor without a trial. The court ruled against tenants, who appealed and lost. As to fraud, an arms' length rental transaction between landlord and tenant didn't create a fiduciary relationship, so landlord had no affirmative duty to inform prospective tenants that repairs would take the elevator temporarily out of service.

Tenants sued landlord and its management company, claiming that landlord obtained temporary certificates of occupancy (COs) for an additional floor atop four adjoining buildings in order to avoid complying with the requirements for obtaining non-temporary COs. Tenants argued that DOB required landlord to obtain new COs due to the construction of new penthouses and that landlord deliberately circumvented fire safety and other protections, including the installation of operable sprinklers.