Khodeir v. Sayyed
348 F. Supp. 3d 330
| S.D. Ill. | 2018Background
- In Nov. 2013 Subhi Sayyed deeded a Bronx apartment building to his son Marwan; Subhi continued to manage the property and signed the tenants’ month-to-month lease in Feb. 2014.
- Plaintiffs Ashraf Khodeir and Rasha Elgahsh lived in the unit with children from Feb. to late Nov. 2014, paid rent to Subhi, and were identified on the lease as tenants with Subhi as "landlord."
- On Oct. 19, 2014 Subhi obtained a temporary order of protection against Khodeir; Khodeir left the residence thereafter.
- Plaintiffs’ electricity was turned off for nonpayment; plaintiffs paid Con Edison on Nov. 12, 2014, but Con Ed records show the building’s landlord refused to provide access to restore service.
- Housing Court issued a default judgment of possession to Subhi Oct. 27, 2014; plaintiffs obtained an Order to Show Cause staying eviction on Nov. 24, 2014, but on Nov. 28 plaintiffs returned and found the apartment locked and many belongings missing or damaged.
- Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on unlawful eviction; Marwan moved for summary judgment seeking no vicarious liability as owner. The court granted plaintiffs’ motion in part (constructive eviction) and denied Marwan’s motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs were constructively evicted when landlord refused Con Ed access to restore electricity on Nov. 12, 2014 | Refusal to allow restoration of electricity substantially and materially deprived plaintiffs of beneficial use, constituting constructive eviction | Subhi contests admissibility/accuracy of Con Ed records and disputes that he prevented access; argues plaintiffs did not plead "constructive eviction" | Court: Granted summary judgment for plaintiffs — undisputed record (Con Ed business records, payments, testimony) shows landlord blocked access and electricity was not restored, amounting to constructive eviction |
| Whether Marwan (record owner) is vicariously liable for Subhi’s acts toward tenants | Marwan, as owner, manifested assent by permitting Subhi to manage, collect rent, sign leases; agency (actual/apparent) established so owner liable under FHA and tort law | Marwan says no formal agreement, no benefit, and lacked active control so no agency or vicarious liability | Court: Granted summary judgment that Subhi acted as Marwan’s agent — Marwan’s ownership plus conduct (accepting tax bills, permitting Subhi to manage, silence) supports agency and vicarious liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Barash v. Pennsylvania Terminal Real Estate Corp., 26 N.Y.2d 77 (N.Y. 1970) (defines constructive eviction as landlord's wrongful acts substantially depriving tenant of beneficial use)
- Tallman v. Murphy, 120 N.Y. 345 (N.Y. 1890) (landlord’s control over essential services can give rise to constructive eviction)
- Drapaniotis v. 36-08 33rd St. Corp., 48 A.D.3d 736 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008) (locking electrical service can constitute constructive eviction)
- Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280 (U.S. 2003) (statutory torts like FHA incorporate ordinary vicarious liability rules)
- Cleveland v. Caplaw Enterprises, 448 F.3d 518 (2d Cir. 2006) (articulates agency elements used to assess owner liability under FHA)