42 Misc. 3d 613
N.Y. Sup. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiffs filed a putative bilateral class action seeking statewide rent rebates under the warranty of habitability for Superstorm Sandy-related outages; defendants moved for summary judgment and the court stayed discovery.
- Named plaintiffs: Briana Adler (tenant at Windsor, a luxury building owned by Mastic Associates), Lauren Shoenfeld (tenant at Washington Irving House), and Perri Steiner (tenant at a Stuyvesant Street walk-up owned by Tres).
- Facts differ materially across plaintiffs: Windsor had generator power, elevators, water and building-provided services; Shoenfeld and Steiner evacuated before or during the storm and returned after conditions normalized.
- Plaintiffs sued for breach of the implied warranty of habitability (Real Property Law § 235-b) and unjust enrichment; several defendants were managing agents, not parties to the leases.
- Court limited its review to undisputed facts on summary judgment and dismissed discovery pending resolution of dispositive issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability of managing agents under RPL § 235-b | Managing agents that control premises should be treated as "landlords" and liable | Managing agents are not parties to leases and lack privity; §235-b applies to contracting landlords | Dismissed §235-b claims and unjust enrichment claims against non-landlord managing agents (Ogden, Solil, Goldman); privity required |
| Availability of damages for tenants who vacated during storm | Tenants who paid rent despite leaving are entitled to abatements for uninhabitable periods | Warranty only compensates for loss experienced by tenants who actually resided in apartments during breach | Shoenfeld and Steiner’s §235-b claims dismissed because they left for convenience and suffered no compensable loss |
| Viability of a plaintiff (statewide) class | Class action can aggregate many similar Sandy-related habitability claims across NY | Damages and mitigation are highly fact-specific by building/apartment; heterogenous leases and mitigation defeat commonality and manageability | Statewide plaintiff class inappropriate; court will only consider narrower building-specific classes if tenants experienced similar conditions and mitigation |
| Viability of a defendant class (bilateral class action) | (Plaintiffs sought a defendant class of all NY landlords to centralize relief) | A defendant class risks due process violations for absent defendants and cannot accommodate individualized mitigation/damages inquiries | Defendant class not permitted: due process concerns, lack of commonality, impracticability of notice and enforcement |
Key Cases Cited
- Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 (summary judgment burden shifting framework)
- Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 (summary judgment burden on moving party)
- Park W. Mgt. Corp. v. Mitchell, 47 NY2d 316 (warranty of habitability and measure of damages)
- Goldman v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 5 NY3d 561 (contractual remedy precludes unjust enrichment claim)
- Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 NY2d 382 (limits on quasi-contractual claims)
- Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (due process protections for absent class members)
- Park W. Mgt. Corp. (repeated authority on landlord obligation and damages computation), 47 NY2d 316 (explaining fact-specific damage inquiries)