## Facts

- Karen George was a tenant-shareholder in a cooperative building at One West 64th Street and held a proprietary lease to her apartment.
- The apartment directly below George’s unit was owned or occupied by Madonna Ciccone.
- George alleged persistent amplified music used for dance training and exercise, typically lasting about 1.5 to 3 hours per day.
- George claimed the noise and vibrations caused her floors and walls to shake and interfered with her use and enjoyment of her apartment.
- An acoustical engineer measured sound levels in George’s apartment and concluded the levels exceeded ambient sound and were consistent with significant impact noise transmitted from below.
- George repeatedly complained to building staff, the managing agent, and the cooperative board.
- Building rules prohibited disturbing noises, and the board had notice of the ongoing complaints.
- Madonna allegedly attempted a noise-abatement measure in May 2009, but George asserted it was ineffective and the disturbance continued.
- George sued the board (not Madonna in this action), asserting breach of the warranty of habitability (N.Y. Real Prop. Law § 235-b) and private nuisance.
- The board moved for summary judgment, arguing it did not create the noise, responded reasonably, and the alleged conditions were not actionable as a matter of law.

## Issues

1. Whether a cooperative board, acting as landlord for warranty-of-habitability purposes, may be liable for tenant-on-tenant noise when it has notice and the ability to act, and whether the board’s response was reasonable as a matter of law.
2. Whether the board’s alleged failure to take effective steps to abate persistent noise from another apartment can support a nuisance claim despite the board not being the direct source of the noise.
3. Whether the severity of the alleged noise and the adequacy of the board’s response presented triable questions of fact precluding summary judgment.

## Decision

- The court denied the board’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court held that the extent and impact of the noise, and whether it amounted to a breach of the warranty of habitability and a nuisance, could not be resolved as a matter of law on the record.
- The court concluded that the reasonableness and effectiveness of the board’s actions, given its notice and enforcement authority, presented factual disputes for trial.

## Legal Principles

- Under New York’s warranty of habitability, residential premises must be fit for habitation and free from conditions materially detrimental to a tenant’s use and enjoyment; severe disturbances may qualify when they substantially interfere with occupancy.
- A landlord (including a cooperative board in its landlord role) may face liability for tenant-caused conditions if it has notice and control sufficient to take reasonable corrective action.
- On summary judgment, material factual disputes about the severity, persistence, and objective impact of noise, and about the adequacy of remedial measures, require trial resolution.
- A nuisance claim may proceed where a party with control and notice is alleged to have unreasonably failed to abate an ongoing, substantial interference, even if another actor directly produces the disturbance.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the tenant-shareholder’s habitability and nuisance claims against the cooperative board to proceed because disputed facts existed regarding the seriousness of the recurring noise and whether the board, despite notice and authority to enforce building rules and lease provisions, responded reasonably and effectively.


George v. Bd. of Dirs. of One W. 64th St., Inc., 2011 WL 3898076 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 24, 2011)