November 2022, showing the condition of the apartment when they first moved in.
Many, if not ALL of the conditions that Petitioner seeks reimbursement for repairing
were present at the time when Respondents first occupied the apartment. Petitioner
correctly points out that Respondent' took the apartment "as is", but that does not mean
Petitioner can charge Respondent's to repair conditions that existed when they first took
possession of the apartment.
In addition, Respondents placed in evidence and played in open court a video of a
squirrel in the wall of the apartment as the squirrel was chewing through the sheet rock
wall.
Petitioner asserts that paragraph 9 excuses Petitioner from having to make any
repairs due to the water leak, as that provision only applies to a fire. In fact, the lease
provision applies to "fire, accident, damage, or dangerous or defective condition," and
only if Tenant gives prompt notice. Damage caused by a water leak is an "accident" that
has caused a "defective condition." Tenants gave Respondent prompt notice and
Respondent knew of the leak on the day it happened. While paragraph 9 does not require
the Landlord to repair furniture and fixtures, the Landlord "need only repair the damaged
part of the Apartment."
Respondents claim that Petitioner's failure to repair the ceiling, violated the warranty
of habitability imposed by state law. To whatever extent terms of the lease conflict with
the warranty of habitability, such lease terms are contrary to the statute and are void.
CONCLUSION
Base on the foregoing, the Court holds as follows:
Petitioner's claim to recover damages of $6,714.00 is denied because Petitioner
failed to comply with RPL § 235-3(d) which requires landlords to provide written