Secondhand smoke was drifting into a tenant’s apartment from the downstairs unit. The landlord’s attempts to caulk and seal vents did not fix the problem. The tenant stopped paying her rent and moved out after the landlord refused to allow the tenant to move to a new unit. The landlord sued the tenant for violating her lease and the tenant responded with claims (1) that the landlord violated the warranty of habitability; (2) that she was constructively evicted from her unit because she was unable to use and enjoy the premises; and (3) that the landlord breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Leases in the apartment building specified that causing secondhand smoke to infiltrate other apartments may constitute a nuisance, a health hazard, and may infringe on the quiet enjoyment of other tenants. The court ruled in favor of the tenant, finding that the landlord failed to meet its obligations, which resulted in a constructive eviction of the tenant. The court ordered the landlord to reduce the tenant’s rent by a total of $2,852 based on a specific percentage each month.
Upper East Lease Associates, LLC v. Cannon 924 N.Y.S.2d 312 (2011).
Some jurisdictions allow an individual or organization to initiate an action against another private party who is not following a particular law. For example, a person may sue a restaurant that allows smoking despite a smoke free law. If the plaintiff is claiming the violation of the law caused physical harm, this may also be a personal injury case.
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.
"Under the circumstances presented, the parties' rights and obligations are governed by the provisions of the lease, judged together with the statutory implied warranty of habitability (RPL §235-b). Recent caselaw, which the Court finds persuasive, recognizes that second-hand smoke "qualifies as a condition that invokes the protections of RPL §235-b under the proper circumstances." Poyck v. Bryant, 13 Misc 3d 699, 702 (Civ Ct NY Co. 2006). "As such, it is axiomatic that second-hand smoke can be grounds for a constructive eviction." Id. While proof of a "single occurrance" plainly will not suffice, the key question typically will revolve around "whether or not the second-hand smoke was so pervasive as to actually breach the implied warranty of habitability and/or cause a constructive eviction." Id. The Court's answer necessarily is fact sensitive."
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.
Secondhand smoke was drifting into a tenant’s apartment from the downstairs unit. The landlord’s attempts to caulk and seal vents did not fix the problem. The tenant stopped paying her rent and moved out after the landlord refused to allow the tenant to move to a new unit. The landlord sued the tenant for violating her lease and the tenant responded with claims (1) that the landlord violated the warranty of habitability; (2) that she was constructively evicted from her unit because she was unable to use and enjoy the premises; and (3) that the landlord breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Leases in the apartment building specified that causing secondhand smoke to infiltrate other apartments may constitute a nuisance, a health hazard, and may infringe on the quiet enjoyment of other tenants. The court ruled in favor of the tenant, finding that the landlord failed to meet its obligations, which resulted in a constructive eviction of the tenant. The court ordered the landlord to reduce the tenant’s rent by a total of $2,852 based on a specific percentage each month.