Azar v. Quinn, 1 Mass. L. Rptr. 519 (1994)

Citation: Azar v. Quinn, 1 Mass. L. Rptr. 519 (1994)
Parent Document: Azar v. Quinn, 1 Mass. L. Rptr. 519 (1994)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 1994-01-15
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8351304/azar-v-quinn/ ↗

Full Text

1,339 chars

The plaintiffs’ claim for breach of warranty of habitability and quiet enjoyment must fail as it is not supported by the factual record in this case. Though Quinn commenced an eviction proceeding by serving the plaintiffs on December 31, 1987 with a notice to quit, the plaintiffs protested and Quinn did not evict the plaintiffs. Moreover, Quinn allowed the plaintiffs to continue using the Space at the Premises until the plaintiffs eventually left of their own volition in August 1988. Although there was some testimony that the Premises were not cleaned as often during Quinn’s tenure as when Camiel owned Pleasures, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the Premises were uninhabitable at any time. There was also testimony that occasionally an electrical fuse in the fuse box would blow out temporarily interrupting power service. A fuse blowing out is a minor inconvenience to be expected and it does not constitute a serious interference with the plaintiffs’ tenancy. Similarly, testimony that Quinn lowered the air conditioning during the day and turned off the air conditioning at night after business hours using automated thermostats does not establish a serious interference with the plaintiffs’ tenancy. The Quinns are not liable to the plaintiffs for breach of warranty of habitability and quiet enjoyment. D. Damages

Other Sections in This Document (62)

Full Text