After years of neglecting repairs to the roof, the landlord's engineer has told them that the roof is so dangerous that it is about the collapse into the apartments below. The engineer has warned that the tenants on the top floor should move out immediately, although the Department of Buildings has not yet issued a formal vacate order.
The building is fairly large and many apartments turn over all of the time, so there are always some vacancies. But the landlord does not want to relocate the top floor tenants pending the repairs to the roof unless they pay market rents during the relocation. Obviously, we think this is a ridiculous demand, but, remarkably, there is very little precedent that compels a landlord to relocate the affected tenants to other apartments while the roof is being repaired.
The Rent Stabilization Code contains very specific rules for relocation of regulated hotel tenants during repairs. There is also a provision in the RSC that permits an owner to deny a renewal lease on the ground that repairs are required, RSC 2524.5, but that provision also requires that the landlord relocate the tenant to comparable housing or pay the relocation stipend. The tenant also has the right to move back when the work is completed. It appears that the Rent Stabilization Code never considered the problem of emergency relocation before the expiration of a lease.
We've been arguing that this was not an issue under rent stabilization because the emergency condition is a breach of the lease, both the warranty of habitability and the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Because this is a breach of lease, the landlord is responsible for all consequential damages.
We have asked for equitable relief from the Housing Court and the landlord has argued that the Housing Court lacks jurisdiction to compel relocation.
The case will go to trial soon. Any thoughts that you have would be welcome.