## Facts

- A landlord leased a Manhattan condominium unit to residential tenants under a multi-year lease starting January 1, 2001.
- Soon after the tenancy began, occupants of an adjoining unit frequently smoked in their apartment and in a common hallway.
- Smoke allegedly infiltrated the tenants’ apartment despite efforts to block it, and the tenants repeatedly complained to building personnel and to the landlord.
- One tenant had heightened health concerns due to recent cancer surgery and an asserted allergy to tobacco smoke.
- The tenants vacated the apartment in August 2001 before the lease term ended and stated in writing that persistent secondhand smoke was the reason.
- The landlord sued for unpaid rent and late fees for the remaining lease months.
- The tenants asserted affirmative defenses and counterclaims based on breach of the implied warranty of habitability and constructive eviction arising from secondhand smoke.
- The landlord renewed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the defenses and counterclaims.

## Issues

1. Whether secondhand smoke infiltrating from a neighboring unit can constitute a breach of New York’s implied warranty of habitability under Real Property Law § 235-b.
2. Whether such smoke can support a claim of constructive eviction where it allegedly substantially interferes with use and enjoyment of the premises.
3. Whether the landlord was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the tenants’ habitability and constructive-eviction defenses and counterclaims despite disputed facts about severity, impact, and remediation.

## Decision

- The court denied the landlord’s renewed motion for summary judgment.
- The court held that secondhand smoke from a neighboring apartment may constitute a condition within the implied warranty of habitability under appropriate circumstances.
- The court further held that secondhand smoke may, under appropriate circumstances, support a constructive eviction claim.
- The court concluded that material factual disputes existed regarding the extent and impact of the smoke and the adequacy of any remedial response, precluding judgment as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Under N.Y. Real Prop. Law § 235-b, a landlord warrants that premises are fit for human habitation, consistent with the parties’ intended residential use, and free from conditions dangerous or detrimental to life, health, or safety.
- A breach of the implied warranty of habitability is assessed by an objective “reasonable person” standard in the context of modern urban dwelling.
- Conditions attributable to third parties may fall within the scope of the landlord’s warranty obligations when they materially affect habitability.
- Constructive eviction may be established when conditions substantially and materially deprive a tenant of the beneficial use and enjoyment of the premises, justifying vacatur.
- Summary judgment is improper where material disputes exist concerning the severity, frequency, and effects of the complained-of condition and the reasonableness or efficacy of attempted remediation.

## Conclusion

The court allowed tenants to pursue habitability and constructive-eviction defenses and counterclaims based on alleged secondhand smoke infiltration from a neighbor, holding that such smoke can fall within Real Property Law § 235-b and may support constructive eviction, and that disputed facts required resolution at trial.


Poyck v. Bryant, 820 N.Y.S.2d 774 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2006)