Both Leases contain an identical provision governing the Corporation's right of entry
into the Apartment, permitting
the [Corporation] and its agents and their authorized workmen to visit,
examine, or enter at any reasonable hour of the day upon notice, or at any time and
without notice in case of emergency, to make or facilitate repairs in any part of the
Building or to cure any default by the Lessee and to remove such portions of the walls,
floors and ceilings of the Apartment and storage space as may be required for any such
purpose (Lease/Amended Lease ¶ 25).
To facilitate
such access, Plaintiff was required to "provide the Lessor with a key to each lock
providing access to the Apartment or the storage rooms " (id.). The same
provision provided, however, that "[t]he right and authority hereby reserved do not
impose, nor does the Lessor assume by reason thereof, any responsibility or liability for
the care or supervision of the apartment, or any of the pipes, fixtures, appliances or
appurtenances therein contained, except as herein specifically provided." These
provisions, read together, preserve the right of the Corporation to enter upon notice, and
require tenants to provide keys enabling the Corporation to do so, but impose no
obligation upon the Corporation to exercise the right of entry.
The question, then, is whether the Corporation had an obligation to exercise its right
of entry here to make repairs. The Court finds in the affirmative.
Bearing in mind that the relationship between a cooperative and tenant is akin to any
other landlord-tenant relationship, where a landlord retains the right of re-entry, the
landlord is liable for conditions within the apartment (Chapman v Silber, 97