Opinion
588–18
06-15-2018
WESTCHESTER PLAZA HOLDINGS, LLC, Petitioner–Landlord, v. Kwasi AFRIYIE and Eunice Afriyie, Respondents–Tenants.
Joseph Chiantella, Esq., Gutman, Mintz, Baker & Sonnenfeldt, LLP, 813 Jericho Turnpike, New Hyde Park, New York 11040, Attorneys for Petitioner Lenworth Williams, Esq., 10 Fiske Place, Suite 417, Mount Vernon, New York 10550, Attorney for Respondent
Joseph Chiantella, Esq., Gutman, Mintz, Baker & Sonnenfeldt, LLP, 813 Jericho Turnpike, New Hyde Park, New York 11040, Attorneys for Petitioner
Lenworth Williams, Esq., 10 Fiske Place, Suite 417, Mount Vernon, New York 10550, Attorney for Respondent
Adam Seiden, J.
Petitioner brought a non-payment action against respondents for rental arrears in the amount of $4,951.92 for the months of October 2017, November 2017, December 2017, January 2018 and February 2018. The respondents served an answer asserting the affirmative defense of breach of warranty of habitability and a counterclaim for unjust enrichment against petitioner.
Petitioner now moves to strike the respondents' counterclaim for unjust enrichment. Respondents have opposed the motion.
Petitioner asserts that respondents' counterclaim should be dismissed because paragraph 27(B) of the subject lease contains a clause wherein the respondents waived the right to interpose a counterclaim in a summary proceeding. A copy of the lease is attached to petitioner's papers as Exhibit "B". Paragraph 27(B) of the lease states "If Owner begins any court action or proceeding against You which asks that You be compelled to move out, You cannot make a counterclaim unless you are claiming that Owner has not done what Owner is supposed to do about the condition of the Apartment or the Building". Respondents contend that the counterclaim asserted in their answer is so integral to their claim of breach of warranty of habitability that it should not be dismissed.
Lease terms precluding tenants from pursuing counterclaims in landlord-tenant summary proceedings are generally enforceable. See Admar Co. v. Hahalis , 145 Misc 2d 987 (1st Dept. App. Term. 1990). The exception is where a counterclaim is "so ‘inextricably intertwined’ with petitioner's claim that joint resolution of the claims will expedite disposition of the entire controversy, avoid multiplicity of other lawsuits between the parties to accomplish the same result, do speedy justice for all and eliminate greater delay and expense’." Ring v. Arts Intl. Inc. , 7 Misc 3d 869, 880 (Civ Ct., NY County 2004) ; Haskell v. Surita , 109 Misc 2d 409, 414 (Civ Ct., NY County 1981). In the case at bar, the respondents allege in their answer that in March 2017 a major waste pipe that services the entire building burst in respondents' apartment causing damage to respondent's kitchen, bathroom, living room and bedroom. Respondents further allege that their carpeting and some damaged furniture had to be removed from the apartment and that they had to vacate the apartment for over a week. Respondents further assert that they also suffered damage to their mattress and personal items. Respondents contend that petitioner assured them that they would replace or compensate them for their loss. Respondents further contend that they continued to timely pay their rent until October 2017 and only stopped paying after numerous attempts to receive restitution from petitioner were unsuccessful. Specifically, with respect to its counterclaim, respondents assert that in February 2018 an insurance adjuster from petitioner's insurance company inspected respondent's apartment regarding the loss but to date, respondents have not received any compensation for their loss nor even any information regarding the insurance claim and any possible payment made on said claim.
The Court finds that respondent's counterclaim for unjust enrichment, which is derived from the damage to their apartment and accompanying property damage, is inextricably intertwined with petitioner's claim for rent arrears and respondent's breach of warranty of habitability defense. Due to the underlying circumstances surrounding respondent's property damage and the subsequent withholding of rent, respondents' counterclaim is clearly related to the nonpayment of rent such that the joint resolution of the claims will expedite the disposition of the entire controversy, avoid multiplicity of other lawsuits between the parties and eliminate greater delay and expense. Haskell v. Surita , supra (holding that tenant may properly interpose counterclaims for property damage even when the lease contains waiver of counterclaims provision as said claims are inextricably intertwined with landlord's claim for rent arrears and tenant's defense asserting breach of warranty of habitability); 610 W. 142nd St. Owners Corp. v. Braxton, et al. , 137 Misc 2d 567 (Civ Ct. New York Cty 1987) (holding that counterclaim for negligence was properly interposed as it was inextricably intertwined with landlord's claim for rent arrears and tenant's defense asserting breach of warranty of habitability); Chinatown Preserv. HDFC v. Yu Hua Chen , 27 Misc 3d 1213(A) (Civ Ct. New York Cty 2010) (holding that given circumstances regarding change in apartment layout tenant's counterclaim for diminution of services and breach of contract were properly interposed as they were inextricably intertwined with petitioner's entitlement to rent). Moreover, it is possible that the resolution of these issues in respondents favor might result in an abatement in the amount of rent due to petitioner and as such, in the interest of judicial economy, respondents' counterclaim should be tried together with petitioner's claim for rent arrears and respondents' claim of breach of warranty of habitability.
Accordingly, petitioner's motion to strike respondents' counterclaim is denied.
The parties are directed to appear for a Trial in the instant matter on July 16, 2018 at 2:00 p.m.
The Court considered the following papers on this motion: Notice of Motion to Strike Counterclaim dated May 7, 2018, Exhibits 1–2; Opposition to Petitioner's Motion to Strike dated May 12, 2018, Exhibits A–B; Affirmation in Reply dated May 22, 2018.