The Authority further argues that Cortes has failed to state a claim for breach of the implied warranty of habitability because the warranty does not extend to the walkway outside her apartment. “(T]he implied warranty of habitability is concerned with the provision, maintenance, and repair of the physical facilities vital to the use of the leased premises .. .” Doe v. New Bedford Hous. Auth., 417 Mass. 273, 282 (1994). The complaint states that, on the morning of the incident, Cortes “walked out of her apartment and walked outside onto the front walkway . . .” It cannot be said that the walkway, so described, is not a physical facility vital to the use of Cortes’ apartment as a matter of law. See Ruiz v. Pelson Realty Trust, 2001 WL 810347 at * 5 (Mass.Super. 2001) [13 Mass. L. Rptr. 346] (holding that an exterior staircase leading to an apartment building was vital to the use of the apartment). Compare Brooks v. Manzaro, 2008 WL 5146863 at * 3 (Mass.Super. 2008) [25 Mass. L. Rptr. 31] (holding that a parking lot outside an apartment building was not a facility essential to the use of the dwelling unit itself nor was the condition of the parking lot relevant to the dwelling’s “fitness for human occupation” in the way that the condition of a structure physically appurtenant to the building would be).3