Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Obtains Summary Judgment for Shareholder as to Cooperative Liability for Breach of Warranty of Habitability and Breach of Proprietary Lease, Negligence and Nuisance
Adam Leitman Bailey P.C. represents a shareholder in a Manhattan coop. The shareholder’s Apartment sustained mold and water damage as a result of leaks from the roof and façade. The Coop compelled the shareholder to leave the Apartment in February of 2020 and proceeded to gut the entire apartment, down to the studs, purportedly in furtherance of its efforts at mold remediation. When the Coop failed to restore the Apartment more than two years later, and after all the repairs to the roof and façade had been completed, the shareholder commenced a lawsuit to compel the Coop to restore the Apartment to its original condition, for damages in the form of rent abatement, including assessments, for the Coop’s breach of the statutory warranty of habitability and breach of the proprietary lease and for damages in the form of lost market rental value on her claims for negligence and nuisance.
While the case was pending, in or about April of 2024 the Coop retained a contractor to restore the apartment and the apartment was finally restored to habitable condition in or about August 2025.
The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to liability on her claims for breach of warranty of habitability, breach of the proprietary lease, negligence and nuisance and held that she would be entitled to recover attorneys’ fees.
The Court held the warranty of habitability and the Coop’s obligations to restore the Apartment under the Proprietary Lease were clearly breached as there was no doubt the Apartment was not habitable for at least five years.
The Court also granted summary judgment to Plaintiff on her causes of action for negligence and private nuisance, holding that the Coop breached its statutory duties under the Multiple Dwelling Law to keep the Apartment in good repair and there was prolonged and unreasonable interference with the use of the Apartment.
The Court held further that Plaintiff would be entitled to an abatement of rent including all maintenance charges and assessments imposed during the period when the Apartment was uninhabitable. The Coop had argued in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion that assessments were not maintenance and that Plaintiff should not be entitled to an abatement of assessments imposed during the period of uninhabitability. The Court held that there is no distinction in the law between rent and assessments.
The Court referred the issue of the amount of rent abatement, loss of use damages and attorneys fees to be determined at trial.
Connolly v 18 East 18th Street Tenants Corp., et al; Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 653566/2022 (Judge Nicolas Moyne)
Bonnie Reid Berkow, a partner at Adam Leitman Bailey P.C. in the Coop/Condo Litigation Group represented the Shareholder in this matter.