## Facts

- Charles Eisenreich rented a rent-controlled studio apartment in New York City.
- Rumiche Corporation purchased the building and became Eisenreich’s landlord.
- Eisenreich reported that the apartment ceiling was deteriorating and requested repairs; the landlord did not repair it.
- Eisenreich performed work himself:
  - Repaired the ceiling using sheetrock later found not to meet the applicable fire-code thickness.
  - Replaced a defective ceiling light fixture.
  - Installed a wooden closet attached to a wall.
  - Installed a wooden frame around a window.
- After learning the sheetrock was noncompliant, Eisenreich offered to redo the ceiling to code; Rumiche refused to allow corrective work.
- Rumiche brought a summary eviction proceeding under New York City rent-control regulations, claiming the tenant’s work caused material damage and constituted a willful violation of a substantial tenancy obligation or serious and substantial injury to the landlord.

## Issues

1. Whether a tenant’s self-help repairs and modest alterations, undertaken after the landlord failed to make requested repairs, constitute a willful violation of a “substantial obligation” of the tenancy under New York City Rent, Eviction and Rehabilitation Regulations § 52(a).
2. Whether such repairs and alterations amount to “serious and substantial injury” to the landlord’s property under § 52(a), permitting eviction.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals reversed the orders affirming eviction and denied the landlord’s petition for possession.
- The court held the tenant’s conduct did not constitute a willful violation of a substantial tenancy obligation.
- The court held the tenant’s conduct did not inflict serious and substantial injury on the landlord within the meaning of § 52(a).

## Legal Principles

- Under New York City Rent, Eviction and Rehabilitation Regulations § 52(a), eviction requires either (1) a willful violation of a substantial obligation of the tenancy or (2) serious and substantial injury to the landlord.
- The § 52(a) standards impose a materiality threshold; minor or technical departures from ordinary tenancy obligations do not, without more, justify eviction.
- In assessing alleged injury or breach under § 52(a), a court may consider context, including the landlord’s failure to make needed repairs and the tenant’s remedial purpose.
- A technical defect in tenant-performed work, promptly offered to be corrected, does not establish serious and substantial injury absent proof of meaningful property harm or value impairment.

## Conclusion

Because the tenant’s repairs and modest installations were primarily remedial, did not show material harm to the premises, and included an offer to correct the only identified code deficiency, the conduct did not meet § 52(a)’s requirements for eviction based on a substantial tenancy breach or serious and substantial injury.


Rumiche Corp. v. Eisenreich, 40 N.Y.2d 174, 352 N.E.2d 125, 386 N.Y.S.2d 208 (N.Y. 1976)