Opinion
Index No. SC-000084-22/LF
08-11-2022
Paul Ruffrage, Claimant, v. Richey Harter, Defendant.
Claimant, Paul Ruffrage, appearing pro se Defendant, Richey Harter, appearing pro se
Unpublished Opinion
Claimant, Paul Ruffrage, appearing pro se
Defendant, Richey Harter, appearing pro se
HON. JOSHUA P. BANNISTER, LITTLE FALLS CITY COURT JUDGE
Claimant Paul Ruffrage filed the instant small claims against Defendant Richey Harter on May 12, 2022, seeking $3,850 in unpaid rent. The Defendant was no longer residing at the dwelling as of the date of this filing. The matter was adjourned for various reasons and ultimately proceeded to a trial on August 4, 2022.
Claimant admitted an email printout from ERAP as well as the residential lease. Claimant testified that ERAP paid the Defendant's rent for the twelve months from March 2020 to February 2021. Additionally, ERAP paid the Defendant's rent for an additional three months from August 2021 to November 2021. ERAP did not pay for the 5 months from March to July 2021 nor for the 6 months from November 2021 until the Defendant moved out on May 1, 2022. At $350 per month, the unpaid rent totaled $3,850.
At the trial, the Defendant made an oral motion to dismiss because the Claimant had accepted payments from the ERAP program and because of breaches of the implied warranty of habitability. This Court reserved decision on the motion to dismiss with respect to the Claimant having accepted ERAP payments, denied the motion to dismiss with respect to a breach of the warranty of habitability, and allowed the Defendant to admit evidence to seek an abatement of rent with respect to any breaches of the warranty of habitability.
Defendant admitted several pictures to demonstrate the condition of the property. According to the Defendant's testimony, these pictures detail: a leaking sink; water damage on the ceiling; a window that was broken, but with a covering he was able to keep the home warm in the winter; a wall patched with cardboard; and the condition of the basement. Defendant testified that the stove stopped working, the exterior ramp was broken, and there was mold in the apartment. Defendant testified that there were rats in the basement. The Claimant: contested the notice timelines of the broken stove and window; did not know what the Defendant was talking about with respect to the sink or ramp; and was never told about the leaking ceiling or mold. The Claimant testified that the Defendant did not regularly take out the trash.
This Court must adjudicate the claims "in such manner as to do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law" (UCCA § 1804). With respect to the maximum ERAP payment duration, the legislation that became law during the relevant period provides in section 9, subdivision (1) that: "[p]ayments shall be made for rental payments or rental and utility arrears accrued on or after March 13, 2020. No more than 12 months of rental and/or utility assistance for arrears and 3 months of prospective rental assistance may be paid on behalf of any eligible household" (NY Assembly Bill 3006).
With respect to the tenant protections in the ERAP legislation, subdivision (2)(d) of section 9 provides: "(d) Acceptance of payment for rent or rental arrears from this program shall constitute agreement by the recipient landlord or property owner: (i) that the arrears covered by this payment are satisfied and will not be used as the basis for a non-payment eviction; (ii) to waive any late -C fees due on any rental arrears paid pursuant to this program; (iii) to not increase the monthly rent due for the dwelling unit such that it shall not be greater than the amount that was due at the time of application to the program for any and all months for which rental assistance is received and for one year after the first rental assistance payment is received; (iv) not to evict for reason of expired lease or holdover tenancy any household on behalf of whom rental assistance is received for 12 months after the first rental assistance payment is received, unless the dwelling unit that is the subject of the lease or rental agreement is located in a building that contains 4 or fewer units, in which case the landlord may decline to extend the lease or tenancy if the landlord intends to immediately occupy the unit for the landlord's personal use as a primary residence or the use of an immediate family member as a primary residence; and (v) to notify the tenant of the protections established under this subdivision" (NY Assembly Bill 3006).
Some courts have looked to the legislative intent to determine that tenants are liable for rent beyond the 15-month maximum payments under the ERAP program (see Barton v Bixler, 74 Misc.3d 1226(A) [Dist Ct, Suffolk County 2022]. Without discussing the appropriateness of considering legislative intent, the facts of this case can be decided by the plain terms of the statute. By its terms, the ERAP program pays a maximum of 12 months in past due rent and 3 months of prospective rent. This is exactly the benefit that the parties received in this case. With respect to the remaining 11 months, notably absent from the list of tenant protections, is the right to avoid paying rent for the period which is not covered by the ERAP payments.
Based upon the foregoing, substantial justice dictates that the Defendant is liable for the 11 unpaid months of rent in this case. The question that remains is the appropriate valuation of the unpaid rent. Here, the Defendant raised issues about the condition of the property which puts the implied warranty of habitability into question. "In every written or oral lease or rental agreement for residential premises the landlord or lessor shall be deemed to covenant and warrant that the premises so leased or rented and all areas used in connection therewith in common with other tenants or residents are fit for human habitation and for the uses reasonably intended by the parties and that the occupants of such premises shall not be subjected to any conditions which would be dangerous, hazardous or detrimental to their life, health or safety. When any such condition has been caused by the misconduct of the tenant or lessee or persons under his direction or control, it shall not constitute a breach of such covenants and warranties" (Real Property Law § 235-b [1]). Breaches of this warranty are grounds for a rent abatement (see 3660 Oxford Avenue Associates LLC v Ambrosini, 43 Misc.3d 1236(A) [Civ Ct, Bronx County 2014]). Landlords can also avoid liability under warranty of habitability claims by prompt remediation of the issues (see NPR LLC v. KABB, 25 A.D.3d 674 [2nd Dept 2006]).
It is unclear from the testimony whether the leaking sink and the broken window were caused either by actions of the tenant such that the tenant would be liable or by general wear and tear with notice to the landlord such that the landlord would be liable. In any event, the Defendant's exhibits detail an overall condition of the rental unit which is in general disrepair such that its fitness for human habitation has been degraded such that its occupants are subjected to conditions that are dangerous, hazardous, or detrimental to their life, health or safety.
This Court will take judicial notice that $350 per month is at the extreme low end of rents in the local area which seems to indicate that the conditions of the rental unit had some impact on the rental price. However, it is also against public policy to allow these conditions to continue without some penalty. This Court finds that substantial justice dictates that the Defendant is liable for the past due rent of $3,850 which will be reduced by 10% for a breach of the warranty of habitability.
NOW, upon the pleadings, the submitted exhibits, the testimony of the parties, and the Court having evaluated the credibility of the parties together with the legal and factual merits of the case, it is
ORDERED, that judgement is for the Claimant in the amount of $3,465.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.