s not remedied with a day's worth of cleaning"].)
There are cases that have found "extraordinary damage," or conditions beyond merely ordinary wear and tear, implying even that such conditions might impact and violate the warranty of habitability. For example, in McCormick v Moran (182{**60 Misc 3d at 845} Misc 2d 568 [Watertown City Ct 1999]), the landlord sought damages in the amount of $455.64 for a general cleaning of the apartment (floors, walls, windows, woodwork and carpeting) due to smoke residue left by the tenant's heavy smoking. As the court noted, "[t]he landlord testified that the basic reason such an extensive cleaning was required was due to the excessive smoking by the tenant's [sic] leaving a smelly residue of tobacco smoke through out the leasehold on the walls, woodwork, carpets and other surfaces." (Id. at 569.) The court observed further that the tenant's "conduct of excessive smoking while in the house caused the tobacco smoke residue to collect on various surfaces of the house creating an offensive odor and a potential health risk that may arise to others who may use the premises." (Id.) Additionally, the court stated that
"[w]hen the use of tobacco by a tenant causes such a pervasive coating of tobacco smoke residue on a leasehold's surfaces, this condition results in more than ordinary wear and tear to the premises because the residue must be removed to make the rooms habitable for the protection of the health of the next tenants—a condition which if it were not corrected . . . [could possibly subject] the landlord to a violation of the warranty of habitability under section 235-b (1) of the Real Property Law." (Id. at 570.)