The landlord got himself into the problem. I don’t know how he will solve it. Perhaps he could make all the improvements the tenant wants and then (if permitted) raise the rent to reflect the value of the upgraded apartment.

If this is a rent-controlled apartment, I don’t know wha the landlord can do.

We are not dealing with misinformed landlords here. If they wanted to minimize the risk, they could have, by making all improvements before tenants moved in. They assumed the risk, so I have no problem.

On the other hand, the law is a bit draconian. Perhaps it should read that the tenant does not have to pay the rent in a non-conforming rental only if the tenant does not prevent the landlord from making the property conforming…

Why would you say unjust enrichment? The tenant kept the money in escrow. So, she already paid income tax on it.

And the State Law of New York says that the Landlord was out of compliance with the law and as a result can not charge rent on the building. I would argue that any landlord who is illegally collecting rent on an out of compliance building is the one receiving unjust enrichment.

I can understand that the landlord wouldn’t get back rent, even though the tenant obvioulsly considered the apartment suitable,he’s in breach of the law.
But if its so important for these mods to be made to the apartment, as the NY Times article points out this is not just to make the place nicer but for “fire and safety”, isn’t it unsafe for the tenant to remain?
Shouldn’t the apartment be declared uninhabitable until brought up to code and the tenant removed to look for a “safe” place to live?

Chazon’s lawyer, David Berger, said that legalizing the building had taken so long in part because all improvements required tenants’ approval. He said tenants nitpicked on aesthetic issues that had nothing to do with safety.

“If it wasn’t safe, they wouldn’t be living there,” he said. He said that a system including tenants in the process that ultimately decided how the building was legalized, who did not have to pay rent until it was legalized, meant “you’re handing the building to the tenants.”

The tenant seems to be playing both sides of the street here in that she claims that the loft is too dangerous to be worth renting but safe enough to live in for nine years. It seems to me that there should be some period of repose after which the tenant has to be considered to have accepted conditions having made no apparent good faith effort to find another dwelling elsewhere.

If it is true that the building is uninhabitable after nine years, shouldn’t the city condemn the property and relocate the tenants? Perhaps at the landlord’s expense?

Surely the landlord here is not the most sympathetic plaintiff, but the tenant has just as surely received quite a windfall.

Would your answer be the same if the tenant, recognizing a dirt-cheap opportunity, had promised not to complain about code compliance in exchange for cheap rent?

That would make both tenant and landlord richer, than keeping the loft empty.

Admittedly, a landlord should not allow a tenant to accept *genuine* dangers, eg fire hazards. But even there, the appropriate remedy is to evict the tenant from an unsafe loft and fine the landlord.