In that case, Paulette Hirsch was found to have impeded her landlord's ability to effect repairs to her apartment's wood flooring. Although that condition violated the local housing codes, Ms. Hirsch repeatedly refused to permit the landlord access to the unit citing an extreme allergic response to the glue that would be used to adhere the wood tiles to the floor.
Despite medical testimony as to the adverse physical reaction some may have to the glue fumes, a physician testified that once that glue dries it ceases to pose a health or safety hazard.
A Housing Judge of the New York County Civil Court did not find the tenant's refusal to cooperate with the landlord "reasonable" under the circumstances, particularly given the "trip hazard" caused by the continuing existence of the loose floor boards. As the court observed:
An ordinary prudent individual would accept potential short term risk to his or her health in order to alleviate a condition that was causing an ongoing and continuing risk to health and safety.
Further, a person of ordinary prudence, who was susceptible to an allergic reaction during a repair, would mitigate the short term risk to health by absenting herself from the premises during the period of glueing and drying. Thus the continuing hazard caused by the broken floor would be abated and the short term potential hazard from the glue avoided.
As a result of Hirsch's obstructionist behavior, the Civil Court found in the landlord's favor but gave the tenant a final opportunity to preserve her tenancy if she allowed her landlord to have unrestricted access to the apartment so that the wood flooring could be replaced. Failing that, Ms. Hirsch could be evicted from her rent-stabilized apartment.
We wonder if the Appellate Term will be taking a whiff of this case any time soon?
For a copy of the Civil Court's decision in this please, please use this link: MHM Sponsors Co. v. Hirsch
----------------------------
Our thanks to Robert Roth, Esq, for bringing this case to our attention.