## Facts

- John Pendleton (plaintiff) leased several rooms in a house to Joshua Dyett (defendant).
- Pendleton retained possession and control of other parts of the same house.
- After the lease began, Pendleton brought prostitutes into (and allowed prostitution-related activity in) the portions of the house he controlled.
- The activity produced loud nighttime noise and disturbances that substantially interfered with Dyett’s use of his rooms.
- Dyett left the premises because the interference made continued occupancy unreasonable.
- Pendleton sued Dyett for nonpayment of rent.
- The trial court entered judgment for Pendleton, and Dyett appealed to the New York Court for the Correction of Errors.

## Issues

1. Whether a landlord’s creation or permission of a noisy, immoral nuisance in portions of the building retained under the landlord’s control—substantially interfering with the tenant’s occupation and compelling the tenant to vacate—constitutes an eviction (constructive eviction) excusing further rent.
2. Whether, once the tenant vacates within a reasonable time after such interference, the landlord is barred from recovering rent that would otherwise accrue after the tenant’s departure.

## Decision

- The New York Court for the Correction of Errors reversed the judgment for Pendleton.
- The court treated Pendleton’s landlord-caused disturbance—arising from areas he retained and controlled—as an eviction in legal effect (constructive eviction) because it materially impaired Dyett’s occupation and drove him out.
- Because Dyett vacated due to that wrongful interference, Pendleton could not recover rent accruing after the constructive eviction.

## Legal Principles

- An eviction that suspends rent can occur without a physical ouster when the landlord’s conduct substantially interferes with the tenant’s beneficial use of the leased premises.
- A landlord’s use (or permitted use) of retained portions of a building in a manner that constitutes a nuisance—such as maintaining conditions associated with prostitution and resulting nighttime disorder—can amount to constructive eviction if it significantly disturbs the tenant’s occupation.
- Constructive eviction requires that the tenant actually vacate the premises in response to the substantial interference; when the tenant leaves because continued occupancy is not reasonably possible, the departure is treated as compelled, not voluntary.
- After a constructive eviction and the tenant’s consequent departure, the landlord cannot recover rent accruing after the eviction.

## Conclusion

Dyett v. Pendleton holds that when a landlord, through conduct in parts of the building the landlord retains, creates or permits a nuisance (here, prostitution-related nighttime noise and disorder) that substantially interferes with the tenant’s occupancy and forces the tenant to leave, the law treats that interference as a constructive eviction, and rent is not recoverable for the period after the tenant vacates.


Dyett v. Pendleton, 8 Cow 727 (1826)