Recent Court Cases Involving Landlord Tenant Issues

For this month’s Owner Update, we thought that landlords may enjoy reading about a few court cases that were recently cited in the Landlord Tenant Law Bulletin. Their website can be accessed at www.quinlan.com.

Case # 1 Evictions—Noisy Tenant Fights Eviction (Citation: Carnegie Park Associates v. Graff, Supreme Court of New York, App. Term, 1st Dept., No. 570864/02 (2003)

Graff lived in an apartment complex owned by Carnegie Park Associates (Carnegie). Several other tenants complained about Graff repeatedly, claiming he created “unbearable noise on a regular basis” by banging on the walls and pipes of his apartment at all hours. As a result of his neighbor’s complaints, Carnegie sought to terminate Graff’s tenancy. Graff refused to leave, claiming the eviction was improper. Carnegie then sued for possession of the apartment. The court granted Carnegie possession of the apartment, and Graff appealed. Decision: Affirmed.

Carnegie had the right to evict Graff. Graff’s lease with Carnegie prohibited any interference with his neighbor’s comfort and enjoyment of the premises. It also allowed the landlord to terminate a tenancy if he or she found it unreasonable.

Graff’s neighbors frequently made complaints to Carnegie about his behavior, and had been doing so for the past few years. This disruption was enough to affect their enjoyment of the premises, and therefore violated the lease, giving Carnegie a basis on which to evict Graff. Graff claimed he should have been given an opportunity to cure his behavior. However, the pattern of his “unbearable noise” having continued for years and having even persisted throughout the trial convinced the court Graff’s behavior “showed no signs of abating.” The eviction was proper.

Case Note: Keep impeccable records of complaints lodged against tenants. Repeated and documented complaints will go a long way to convincing a court the tenant cannot be rehabilitated.

Case # 2 Discrimination—Landlord Refuses to Rent to ‘Mixed Race’ Couple: Couple Awarded Almost $40,000 (Citation: Matteo v. New York State Division of Human Rights, Supreme Court of New York, App. Div., 2nd Dept., No. 2002-04056 (2003)

Matteo made arrangements with Pachonka, who was white, to rent an apartment in his three-family home. When Matteo became aware Mrs. Pachonka was black, he informed the Pachonkas he would not rent to them because he did not condone “mixed race” marriages. Pachonka filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights. After a hearing, the Division awarded Pachonka almost $40,000 in damages. Matteo appealed, arguing the damages were excessive. Decision: Affirmed

The damages were not excessive. The division’s determinations were entitled to considerable deference due to its expertise in evaluating discrimination claims. The Pachonkas both testified to the mental anguish they suffered as a result of Matteo’s discrimination action. Since the division was vested with broad powers to eliminate discrimination, it was entitled to award damages as it saw fit.

Case Note: The court would not set aside the division’s decision merely because the opposite decision would have been reasonable and sustainable.

Case # 3 Affordable Housing—Landlord Sued For Refusing to Participate in Section 8 Rent Subsidies: Tenant Sues Under State Human Rights Law (Citation: Babcock v. BBY Chestnut Limited Partnership, Court of Appeals of Minnesota, No. CX-03-90 (2003)

Babcock and BBY Chestnut Limited Partnership entered into a one-year lease for an apartment in June 2000, Babcock asked the property manager to fill out the form required to make her apartment eligible for a rent subsidy under the Section 8 program. The property manager informed Babcock it would not participate in the Section 8 program and refused. Babcock vacated her apartment at the end of the lease and sued the property manager and BBY for violation of the state human rights act and for 12 other claims. In two separate orders, two judges granted judgment for BBY and the property manager. Babcock appealed. Decision: Affirmed

Participation in the Section 8 program was voluntary, so a landlord’s refusal to participate could not be a per se violation of the law. The Minnesota Human Rights Act provided it was an unfair discriminatory agent to refuse to sell, rent, or lease real property because of status without regard to public assistance. The law required a showing both of a refusal to rent and a failure to do so because of the tenant’s status with respect to public assistance. Instead, the landlord could choose not to participate in the Section 8 program for non-discriminatory reasons, such as an unwillingness to pay for the administrative requirements of the program. Babcock also complained the failure to participate in Section 8 was discriminatory because it disparately impacted women and female-headed households. However, the state law only recognized disparate impact discrimination with respect to employment discrimination, not housing discrimination.

Page 2