Scenario:
- Apartment has suffered significant water damage / leaking from a second-floor balcony above a bedroom (all same unit)

- Landlord's effort to remedy the damage have not been sufficient so far

- Apartment arguably uninhabitable / condition worsening

What are the Tenant's rights in this situation? Does one cease payment of rent?

Any advice greatly appreciated.

Despite the problems with the apartment, withholding rent is ALWAYS a breach of contract and very rarely looked favorably upon if and when the dispute eventually gets to court.

See http://tenant.net/Rights/CTRC/ctrcf002.html and http://www.nycbar.org/pdf/report/tenantsguide.pdf

notify that you are putting money into escrow while the situation is not resolved. find a new place to live, send a letter stating the landlord is in violation of Warranty of Inhabitability. move out....

good luck to him in trying to get the money from you in court if you take pictures and have all your docs in a row.

I believe you need to give the landlord a reasonable opportunity to fix the program...so a key fact missing from your description is how long this problem has been going on for

"Despite the problems with the apartment, withholding rent is ALWAYS a breach of contract and very rarely looked favorably upon if and when the dispute eventually gets to court."

Matt, if you don't actually know anything about a subject, it would be best if you didn't just make stuff up*. As the first link by NWT makes clear, withholding rent is an absolutely legal recourse when the implied warranty of habitability is not being fulfilled. More generally, refusing to pay when the other party is not living up to their side of the contract does not "ALWAYS" mean that a breach of contract is occurring.

jordyn, there's a difference between simply withholding rent and setting up an escrow.

There's no requirement to set up escrow if the apartment isn't habitable. In that scenario, the landlord isn't providing you with a reasonable place to live so you don't owe them money.

THe point is that is for the judge to decide, not you, regardless of what a slam dunk case you may or may not have.
Until that moment you are in breach of contract as well.
Why give any points to landlord on the scorecard?
Putting the rent in escrow is STRONGLY suggested.
(And I generally disagree with MAtt on a zillion things)

The EXACT language from NWT's link

o If no corrective actions are taken, rents may be withheld
collectively or individually. It is very important, however,
to get expert advice on rent withholding procedures from a
community organization, legal services or legal aid
provider, or a tenant attorney.

The PROCEDURE is to put it in ESCROW.

Disclosure: I am not a lawyer but I've seen one on TV.

I'm not saying that it's not a good idea to put rent in escrow, I'm saying that Matt's statement that it's always a breach of contract to withhold rent is absurd.

Hburg
Your point is the procedure sucks. I agree 1000%.
I'll sign anyone's petition for legal system and tort reform.

Unfortunately there is what it ought to be and what it is......

Jordyn...your statement that the tenant does not owe rent when the apartment is uninhabitable is not correct. The warrant of habitability states:

The court or DHCR may grant a rent reduction if it finds that the landlord violated the warranty of habitability. The reduction is computed by subtracting from the actual rent the estimated value of the apartment without the essential services. For a tenant to receive a reduction, the landlord must have actual or constructive notice of the existence of the defective condition.

You will only be entitled to the difference between the market value of the apt with and without the problem. Here, from the description of the problem, you have a leak and your walls are wet....You may get an abatement, but it won't be much and probably not enough to go through the process.

"My point is it is unreasonable for a person who can't inhabit his or her apartment to have to further inconvenience himself for the benefit of the landlord."

And MY point is that in a city of 8.6 million people, there are 8.6 million different definitions of "uninhabitable".

You've agreed to pay rent. You've now stopped paying. Breach of contract.

The landlord MAY not be living up to his end of the deal, with this water issue, which remains to be seen.

But in the eyes of the judge, until it's proven that the landlord is at fault here, YOU are clearly the one in the wrong.

please, get a lawyer...

"You've agreed to pay rent. You've now stopped paying. Breach of contract."

Landlord agreed to provide a habitable apartment and fix things, and isn't. Breach of contract. I guess your theory is that regardless of what your counterparty in a contract does, you're obliged to hold up your end? What if the building was destroyed? Would the tenant have to keep paying rent until a judge declared otherwise?

Nintz--I have no idea why you think what you posted contradicts the right of the tenant to withhold rent. NWT provided a pretty clear citation that withholding rent was legal; if you're going to assert that it's not, finding some clearly language to the contrary and an actual citation to the law (or case law) would make your case a lot more convincing.

"Landlord agreed to provide a habitable apartment and fix things, and isn't. Breach of contract. I guess your theory is that regardless of what your counterparty in a contract does, you're obliged to hold up your end?"

What I'm saying is that in the eyes of a judge, when the case is brought before him, all he knows for sure at that point is that the TENANT is in breach of contract. It remains to be seen whether the landlord is, as it has yet to be proven that the unit is "uninhabitable".

At best, at the end of the day, in the eyes of the judge, you're BOTH wrong.

What I'm saying is that you have no idea how many cases come before judges in this city pitting landlords against hysterical tenants who are withholding rent because the apartment is -- in their words -- "uninhabitable".

Some of their reasons:

-- The dishwasher isn't working
-- The electric window blinds aren't working
-- The water pressure in the guest bath shower isn't "strong" enough
-- The elevator is out of service (but the SERVICE elevator is working just fine)
-- Construction noise from the building next door is ruining their "quality of life"

These are actual excuses that tenants have used to withhold rent -- and actually brought before a court. So you understand why I say that judges already have a jaundiced eye before the arguments even begin ...

No. Most of them are just anti-bullshit.