## Facts

- Louisiana Leasing Company owned an apartment building in Queens, New York and leased an upstairs apartment to the Sokolows, a young couple with two small children.
- The lease contained a covenant barring “disturbing noises” and conduct that would interfere with the “rights or comforts or convenience” of other tenants.
- During the Sokolows’ tenancy, the Levins, a middle-aged couple, moved into the apartment directly below the Sokolows.
- Shortly after moving in, the Levins complained that noise from the Sokolows’ apartment—primarily from the children walking, running, and playing—disturbed their enjoyment of their unit.
- The Sokolows maintained that any sounds were ordinary incidents of daily living in a multi-unit building and were not intended to bother anyone.
- The record reflected typical overhead noises associated with small children’s play during normal living hours, and there was no showing that the noises were malicious or produced as harassment.
- Evidence suggested that the building’s construction and limited sound insulation contributed to the level of noise heard in the Levin apartment.
- No earlier downstairs tenant had complained about noise from the Sokolow apartment before the Levins moved in.
- The landlord brought a summary holdover proceeding seeking to terminate the Sokolows’ tenancy and recover possession for alleged breach of the noise covenant.

## Issues

1. Whether a landlord may evict tenants for violating a lease noise covenant when the complained-of sounds are ordinary noises of young children in daily apartment life and are not shown to be deliberate or unreasonably excessive.
2. Whether the fact that the complaining tenants moved into the downstairs apartment after the family with small children affects the landlord’s ability to obtain forfeiture based on noise complaints.
3. Whether, in a summary holdover proceeding seeking forfeiture, equitable considerations justify denying eviction where the alleged breach amounts to normal household activity amplified by poor sound insulation.

## Decision

- The court denied the landlord’s petition and dismissed the holdover proceeding.
- The court concluded that the proof did not establish a breach warranting eviction because the noises complained of were the ordinary sounds of children living in an apartment, not deliberate, malicious, or unreasonably excessive disturbances.
- The court treated as significant that the Levins moved in after the Sokolows and their young children were already occupying the upstairs unit; the Levins took the apartment subject to ordinary, existing living conditions, including overhead noise from a family.
- The court considered the realities of apartment living and the building’s inadequate soundproofing in deciding that forfeiture would be unfair under the circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- A lease covenant against “disturbing noises” is applied with a reasonableness limit; it does not require near-silence and does not reach ordinary sounds of family life, including typical noise from small children, absent proof of deliberate or unreasonably excessive disturbance.
- In an eviction proceeding seeking forfeiture, courts may apply equitable principles and may deny possession where enforcement would be unfair in light of the parties’ conduct and expectations.
- When a complaining tenant moves into a unit after an upstairs family with young children is already in place, the later-arriving tenant may be expected to tolerate ordinary, foreseeable overhead noise associated with normal residential use.
- Conditions caused or intensified by building construction (such as poor sound insulation) weigh against treating ordinary household noise as a material lease breach justifying eviction.

## Conclusion

The court refused to evict the Sokolows because the landlord failed to prove that the family’s children created deliberate or unreasonably excessive noise, and the downstairs tenants who complained moved in after the Sokolows were already living there; given ordinary expectations of apartment living and the building’s limited sound insulation, equity did not support forfeiture of the tenancy.


Louisiana Leasing Company v. Sokolow, 266 N.Y.S.2d 447 (1966)