N.Y. Real Property Law § 235-b

Warranty of Habitability: N.Y. Real Property Law § 235-b

NY residential leases warrant premises fit for human habitation under N.Y. Real Property Law § 235-b. Tenant waivers are void; no expert testimony is required.

Official text N.Y. Real Property Law § 235-b — New York

§ 235-b. Warranty of habitability. 1. In every written or oral lease or rental agreement for residential premises the landlord or lessor shall be deemed to covenant and warrant that the premises so leased or rented and all areas used in connection therewith in common with other tenants or residents are fit for human habitation and for the uses reasonably intended by the parties and that the occupants of such premises shall not be subjected to any conditions which would be dangerous, hazardous or detrimental to their life, health or safety. When any such condition has been caused by the misconduct of the tenant or lessee or persons under his direction or control, it shall not constitute a breach of such covenants and warranties.

  • 2. Any agreement by a lessee or tenant of a dwelling waiving or modifying his rights as set forth in this section shall be void as contrary to public policy.
  • 3. In determining the amount of damages sustained by a tenant as a result of a breach of the warranty set forth in the section, the court;
  • (a) need not require any expert testimony; and
  • (b) shall, to the extent the warranty is breached or cannot be cured by reason of a strike or other labor dispute which is not caused primarily by the individual landlord or lessor and such damages are attributable to such strike, exclude recovery to such extent, except to the extent of the net savings, if any, to the landlord or lessor by reason of such strike or labor dispute allocable to the tenant's premises, provided, however, that the landlord or lesser has made a good faith attempt, where practicable, to cure the breach.
  • (c) where the premises is subject to regulation pursuant to the local emergency housing rent control law, the emergency tenant protection act of nineteen seventy-four, the rent stabilization law of nineteen hundred sixty-nine or the city rent and rehabilitation law, reduce the amount awarded hereunder by the total amount of any rent reduction ordered by the state division of housing and community renewal pursuant to such laws or act, awarded to the tenant, from the effective date of such rent reduction order, that relates to one or more matters for which relief is awarded hereunder.

Text as published in the 2026 snapshot of the code.

Source: Vaquill Open US Law, compiled from official state publishers (huggingface.co), reproduced under license CC BY 4.0.

Read this provision at the official source →

What it actually says

Section 235-b works by insertion. It does not tell a landlord to make repairs; it says that in every residential lease in New York - written or oral, signed or not - the landlord is "deemed to covenant and warrant" three things: that the premises are fit for human habitation, that they are fit for the uses the parties reasonably intended, and that the occupants will not be subjected to conditions dangerous, hazardous or detrimental to life, health or safety. Those words are treated as part of the lease whether or not anyone wrote them there, which is why a lease that says nothing about heat still promises heat.

The warranty extends beyond the four walls of the apartment. The text reaches "all areas used in connection therewith in common with other tenants or residents" - the lobby, the stairs, the hallway, the elevator, the laundry room. It also has a built-in limit that landlords rely on: where the condition was caused by the misconduct of the tenant, or of people under the tenant's direction or control, it is not a breach at all.

Subdivision 2 is the reason the section cannot be drafted around. Any agreement by a tenant waiving or modifying these rights is void as contrary to public policy - a signature on a clause giving up the warranty changes nothing. Subdivision 3 speaks to what a court does about a breach: it need not require expert testimony to fix the amount of damages, it carves out damage attributable to a strike or labor dispute the landlord did not primarily cause, and in rent-regulated units it reduces the award by any rent reduction the state housing agency has already ordered for the same conditions. What the section never does is state a formula, a percentage or a dollar figure. How much a breach is worth is decided case by case.

When it applies

  • No heat or hot water for days or weeks while the landlord does not respond.
  • Persistent leaks, damp and mold that the landlord has been told about and has not addressed.
  • A rodent or insect infestation running through the building.
  • A broken or unlit common stairway, a lift out of service for months, or a lobby door that no longer locks.
  • Sewage backup, a failing boiler, or exposed wiring in an apartment that is still being rented out.

What this section does not say

  • It is not a repair schedule. The section names no deadline for fixing anything and no penalty for missing one. Time limits for specific repairs come from housing codes and the Multiple Dwelling Law, not from § 235-b.
  • It does not authorize withholding rent. Nothing in the text says a tenant may stop paying. Rent abatement is something a court awards after deciding a breach occurred; deciding that for yourself is a different thing with different consequences.
  • It does not cover conditions the tenant caused. The first subdivision says so expressly - damage from the tenant's own misconduct, or that of people under the tenant's control, is not a breach of the warranty.
  • It does not make the landlord an insurer of comfort. The standard is fitness for habitation and freedom from dangerous or hazardous conditions, not that everything in the apartment works as well as the tenant would like.
  • It says nothing about who else may be liable. If a neighbor's plumbing caused the damage, § 235-b still speaks only to the landlord's obligation under the lease.

Worked examples

Invented situations, written to show how the wording bites. They are not real cases, not judgments and not precedent, and nothing here predicts what would happen in yours.

Illustrative example

There has been no hot water in an apartment for three weeks. The landlord keeps saying a part is on order, and now the rent is due.

How the wording applies

The warranty is inserted into every residential lease, written or oral: the premises must be fit for human habitation and free of conditions dangerous, hazardous or detrimental to life, health or safety. But the section does not authorize withholding rent - nothing in the text says a tenant may stop paying, and an abatement is what a court awards after finding a breach. So what the tenant does about this month's rent is a decision separate from whether the warranty was breached.

How the parties settled it

The rent is paid in full and the landlord agrees a written credit for the weeks without hot water, applied to the following month, with a date by which the part will be fitted.

Illustrative example

Mold spreads across a bathroom wall in an apartment where the extractor fan has never worked and the tenant has been drying laundry indoors all winter. Each blames the other for it.

How the wording applies

The first subdivision carries its own limit: where the condition has been caused by the misconduct of the tenant, or of persons under the tenant's direction or control, it is not a breach of the warranty at all. So it turns on causation - whether the mold follows from ventilation the landlord is responsible for or from how the space has been used.

How the parties settled it

The landlord replaces the extractor and treats the wall, the tenant dries laundry elsewhere, and both agree to look at the wall again in three months before either claims anything.

Illustrative example

A lease contains a paragraph in which the tenant accepts the apartment "as is" and gives up any claim about its condition. The landlord relies on it when the boiler fails in November.

How the wording applies

Subdivision 2 makes any agreement by a tenant waiving or modifying these rights void as contrary to public policy, so the paragraph does nothing whatever was signed. That leaves the ordinary question to be decided: whether the condition breaches the warranty, judged case by case, since the section states no formula, percentage or figure for what a breach is worth.

How the parties settled it

Both treat the clause as void, the boiler is replaced within a fortnight, and they agree a rent credit for the days without heat instead of arguing about the paragraph.

How courts have read it

Decisions construing this provision. The question and the summary are ours; the quoted sentence is the court's own words, taken from the published opinion. These are the decisions in our corpus, not every decision there is, and nothing here predicts any other case. Reported 2003 to 2017.

Aponte v. New York City Housing Authority, 54 Misc. 3d 220 (2016)

trial courts

What the court had to decide

Did NYCHA breach the warranty of habitability and other statutory duties by failing to eradicate the bedbug infestation in the plaintiffs' apartment?

What it held

The court held that the statutes, including the warranty of habitability, impose a mandatory, non-waivable duty on the landlord to eradicate bedbugs in a tenant's apartment, and NYCHA's failure to do so established liability, so the plaintiffs' motion for a directed verdict on liability was granted.

In the court's words
The statutes make eradication of bedbugs in a tenant’s apartment the obligation of the landlord, defendant NYCHA.

Goldhirsch v. St. George Tower & Grill Owners Corp., 142 A.D.3d 1044 (2016)

Appellate Division

What the court had to decide

Did the plaintiff establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on his cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of habitability under Real Property Law § 235-b?

What it held

Yes, the plaintiff established that the terrace closures rendered it unfit for the uses reasonably intended by the parties, and the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact, so the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for all periods the terrace was closed.

In the court's words
Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages under his warranty of habitability cause of action for all periods of time that the terrace was closed (see Matter of Nostrand Gardens Co-Op v Howard, 221 AD2d 637, 638 [1995]; see also Park W. Mgt. Corp. v Mitchell, 47 NY2d 316, 329 [1979]).

Adler v. Ogden Cap Properties, LLC, 42 Misc. 3d 613 (2013)

trial courts

What the court had to decide

Whether the warranty of habitability under RPP § 235-B applies to non-party managing agents and whether tenants who did not reside in their apartments during the storm can maintain a claim.

What it held

The warranty of habitability claim is dismissed against managing agents who are not parties to the lease, and tenants who left their apartments before the storm and did not actually reside in uninhabitable conditions have no claim.

In the court's words
The section 235-b claim, therefore, is dismissed as against the non-landlord defendants: Ogden, Solil, and Goldman.

Windy Acres Farm, Inc. v. Penepent, 40 Misc. 3d 63 (2013)

trial courts

What the court had to decide

In a residential holdover proceeding based on a lease provision allowing termination for nonpayment of rent, may a landlord be awarded a final judgment when the tenant establishes a breach of the warranty of habitability?

What it held

No, the holdover proceeding must be dismissed when the residential tenant establishes a breach of the warranty of habitability.

In the court's words
we conclude that a holdover proceeding may be maintained where the termination of a residential tenancy was based on an alleged rent default, but that public policy dictates that where the residential tenant establishes that there has been a breach of the warranty of habitability, the holdover proceeding must be dismissed.

Newkirk v. Scala, 90 A.D.3d 1257 (2011)

Appellate Division

What the court had to decide

Did the evidence support the trial court's finding that the defendant breached the implied warranty of habitability under Real Property Law § 235-b, and was the damages award proper?

What it held

The court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the evidence amply supported the finding of breach and that the damages were properly calculated based on the diminished rental value.

In the court's words
Giving deference to Supreme Court’s assessment of credibility, we conclude that the foregoing amply supports the court’s finding that defendant breached the implied warranty of habitability

Bender v. Green, 24 Misc. 3d 174 (2009)

trial courts

What the court had to decide

Did the presence of bedbugs in the subject premises constitute a breach of the warranty of habitability under RPP § 235-B?

What it held

Yes, the presence of bedbugs constituted a breach of the warranty of habitability, but the court found the landlord's response was not deficient and the tenants' testimony about the extent and duration was not credible.

In the court's words
Thus the court finds that the presence of bedbugs in the subject premises did constitute a breach of the warranty of habitability.

Source: Caselaw Access Project, CC0 1.0 Universal (public domain dedication).

The same problem elsewhere

The other legal systems in this collection answer the same everyday problem with their own provisions.

The comparison and these one-line summaries are in English.

The landlord will not repair: damp, mould and no heating in 7 jurisdictions

Read the full comparison →

Related sections

N.Y. Real Property Law § 235-a Deduct Utility From Rent: N.Y. Real Property Law § 235-a N.Y. Real Property Law § 235 Cutting Heat Is a Violation: N.Y. Real Property Law § 235 N.Y. Real Property Law § 223-b No Retaliatory Eviction: N.Y. Real Property Law § 223-b N.Y. Real Property Law § 227 Stop rent if untenantable: N.Y. Real Property Law § 227 N.Y. General Obligations Law § 5-321 Lease negligence exemption void: N.Y. GOL §5-321 N.Y. Real Property Law § 218 RPL § 218: a tenant cannot sign away good cause eviction protection

That's the law. Now let's settle your problem.

Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the New York Consolidated Laws.

This is with

Or open a session directly and invite the other party.

We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.

This page reproduces the text of N.Y. Real Property Law § 235-b in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in New York.

← All New York law pages