Condominium tenants sued their landlord for secondhand smoke that drifted into their unit despite efforts to seal their door and the operation of two HEPA air filters. The court found that secondhand smoke, under the proper circumstances, can be grounds for constructive eviction and allowed the tenants’ claims for constructive eviction and for breach of warranty of habitability to proceed. The court stated that secondhand smoke “is just as insidious and invasive as the more common conditions such as noxious odors, smoke odors, chemical fumes, excessive noise, and water leaks and extreme dust penetration.” Although the landlord argued that he had no control over the smoking tenants, the court found that the landlord could have asked the neighbors to stop smoking in the hallway and elevator; could have properly ventilated the smokers’ unit so that smoke did not seep into the other tenants’ unit; and could have taken action against the smoking tenants under the condominium bylaws.
Poyck v. Bryant, 820 N.Y.S.2d 774 (N.Y. Civ. Ct., 2006).
An individual or organization may seek civil damages against a tobacco company based on the claim that the use of tobacco products causes disease or death. Some of these cases will relate to general tobacco products, while others will relate to specific subcategories of tobacco products--for example, light or low products, menthol or other flavored products. Additionally, there may be cases relating to exposure to secondhand smoke.
A claim for violating a law protecting tenants or home owners, such as the covenant of quiet enjoyment, the warranty of habitability, constructive eviction, or trespass. For example, a tenant could sue a neighbor or the property owner when exposed to drifting secondhand smoke in their home.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"The gravamen of plaintiff's motion is that he cannot be held liable for the actions of third parties beyond his control such as the neighbors in unit 5-C. This argument is misplaced as the Court of Appeals, since 1979, has clearly stated that the acts of third parties are within the scope of a landlord's responsibility pursuant to Real Property Law § 235-b. (Park W. Mgt. Corp., 47 NY2d at 326.) The courts have continuously held that the implied warranty of habitability can apply to conditions beyond a landlord's control. (Elkman v Southgate Owners Corp., 233 AD2d 104 [1st Dept 1996] [an alleged noxious odor emanating from a retail fish store in an adjacent building neither owned nor controlled by the landlord cooperative corporation may be a breach of the implied warranty of habitability]; Sargent Realty Corp. v Vizzini, 101 Misc 2d 763 [Civ Ct, NY County 1979] [floods caused by upstairs tenant on four occasions which landlord allowed to persist resulted in substantial abatement]; Quasha v Third Colony Corp., NYLJ, Oct. 10, 1990, at 22, col 2 [Sup Ct, NY County] [noise emanating from neighbor stated a claim for breach of implied warranty of habitability]; Solomon v Brandy, NYLJ, Sept. 7, 1994, at 22, col 6 [Civ Ct, Bronx County] [evicted neighboring tenant who caused nuisance resulting in lack of water supply to tenant did not constitute a good faith defense to the implied warranty of habitability].)While the landlord contends that he had no control over the neighbors in apartment 5-C, he failed to offer any evidence that he took any action to eliminate or alleviate the hazardous condition. The landlord could have asked the board of managers of the condominium to stop the neighbors from smoking in the hallway and elevator as well as to take preventive care to properly ventilate unit 5-C so that the) secondhand smoke did not seep into the Bryants' apartment. Specifically, Real Property Law § 339-v (1) (i) mandates that condominium bylaws restrict the use and maintenance of both the units and common elements such as the hallways and elevators so as to "prevent unreasonable interference with the use of respective units and of the common elements by the several unit owners." The board[13 Misc.3d 706] of managers and even the landlord could have commenced an action for damages or injunctive relief for noncompliance with the bylaws and decisions of the board of managers pursuant to the Condominium Act. (See, e.g., Board of Mgrs. of Vil. House v Frazier, 81 AD2d 760 [1st Dept 1981], affd 55 NY2d 991 [1982].) Moreover, in the case of "flagrant or repeated violation" by a unit owner, the Condominium Act also authorizes the board of managers to impose sufficient surety to ensure future compliance with their bylaws and decisions. (Real Property Law § 339j.)"
"While there appear to be no reported cases dealing with secondhand smoke in the context of implied warranty of habitability, secondhand smoke is just as insidious and invasive as the more common conditions such as noxious odors, smoke odors, chemical fumes, excessive noise, and water leaks and extreme dust penetration. Indeed, the United States Surgeon General, the New York State Legislature and the City of New York City Council declared that there is a substantial body of scientific research that breathing secondhand smoke poses a significant health hazard. (U.S. Surgeon General's Report on The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking [Dec. 1986]; Public Health Law § 1399-n [1]; Administrative Code of City of NY § 17-501.) Therefore, this court holds as a matter of law that secondhand smoke qualifies as a condition that invokes the protections of Real Property Law § 235-b under the proper circumstances. As such, it is axiomatic that secondhand smoke can be grounds for a constructive eviction. (See, Barash v Pennsylvania Term. Real Estate Corp., 26 NY2d 77 [1970]; cf., East End Temple v Silverman, 199 AD2d 94 [1st Dept 1993] [holding that a single occurrence of smoke did not amount to a substantial deprivation of use and enjoyment of the residential premises].)"
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
Condominium tenants sued their landlord for secondhand smoke that drifted into their unit despite efforts to seal their door and the operation of two HEPA air filters. The court found that secondhand smoke, under the proper circumstances, can be grounds for constructive eviction and allowed the tenants’ claims for constructive eviction and for breach of warranty of habitability to proceed. The court stated that secondhand smoke “is just as insidious and invasive as the more common conditions such as noxious odors, smoke odors, chemical fumes, excessive noise, and water leaks and extreme dust penetration.” Although the landlord argued that he had no control over the smoking tenants, the court found that the landlord could have asked the neighbors to stop smoking in the hallway and elevator; could have properly ventilated the smokers’ unit so that smoke did not seep into the other tenants’ unit; and could have taken action against the smoking tenants under the condominium bylaws.