Making condo tenants responsible for repairs plumbings and appliance an illegal clause

In New York State and Pennsylvania it is illegal. Tenants in condominiums can not be responsible to fix a stopped up toilet based on a 1986 law in NY (that PA mimicked) after a small child named Lisa got stuck in a urinal. Its called Lisa's law.

New Jersey doesn't have a law like this, although there is serious discussion. Last year the legislature tried to pass it as a rider to an infrastructure bill but it was vetoed by Governor Corzine.

California, of course being California, has a law similar to NY's Lisa's Law but regarding mopping kitchen floors in condominiums rather than plumbing and appliances. Apparently they don't want people falling on slippery floors and therefore require that the condominium owner, rather than the tenant, do the mopping during hours when the tenant is at work.

Hope that helps.

please see this discussion:

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/4619-secty-depsit-charge-tenant-for-re-caulking-tub-bc-mold-

From the AG:
"Landlords are required to maintain electrical, plumbing, sanitary, heating and ventilating systems and appliances landlords install, such as refrigerators and stoves, in good and safe working order. Tenants should bring complaints to the attention of their local housing officials. Multiple Dwelling Law �78 and �80; Multiple Residence Law �174"

See, I like my sarcastic approach because after a couple seconds, people figure it out, whereas postings like TheFed will be completely misleading because it sounds like the guy knows what he is saying and is citing something credible (but out of context). A condo owner renting his single unit is not subject to NYS Multiple Dwelling Law provisions.

This is merely an issue of contract, there is no legality or illegality to who maintains the plumbing. Should the landlord rush to your apartment every time there is a toilet overflow? That is what the landlord is trying to prevent.

Likely the best solution is that the tenant is responsible for routine working maintenance of these items, but repairs - absolutely not and certainly not without an explicit representation from the landlord at the outset (vs. simply a warranty of habitability) that these items are in working order, properly maintained prior to the tenancy and no reason to believe that in absence of routine maintenance that they would work as expected ... otherwise the 10 year old fridge finally gives out and the tenant gets stuck with repair.

Thanks ranter

Regardless of any law, I would just refuse to sign the lease. It seems to fly in the face of common sense.

I don't know if it's an illegal clause, but it's certainly an illiterate clause. Does that help?

no?