The listing called this apartment “bright and beautiful” — a full floor in a “stunning historical townhouse” on the Upper West Side. Rent was $5,950 a month — “a deal not to be missed,” its listing added.
During a FaceTime tour, the Compass agent mentioned construction in the building, but reassured the tenants that the work was mostly limited to the unit directly below and would be done within two months — by the end of 2022 — according to Manhattan Supreme Court papers filed last month.
Instead, the tenants found themselves living in an active construction site, tormented by noise, vibration, dust, smells, and outages of water and power.
When the water was shut off one day, the tenants allege in court papers, the landlord offered alternatives: “There are water bottles. You can pee in a toilet but wait to flush.”
The landlord is now suing for nearly a year’s worth of unpaid rent. The tenants — a young couple who paid only one month’s rent and vacated several weeks later — are counterclaiming for constructive eviction, with the landlord creating such intolerable, unlivable conditions that they were forced out.
The tenants fell victim to “fraudulent inducement to sign the lease” and “negligent misrepresentations” made by the agent, they say in court papers.
The landlord, Diana Campuzano, bought the building at 130 W. 81st St. around two years ago for a little more than $5 million, and is renovating the ground-floor unit for her own use, according to court papers. She is also adding an elevator and redoing the building-wide heating system.
Last fall, the tenants agreed to rent the two-bedroom, two-bathroom unit in “as is” condition, and “tenants were well aware of the construction,” according to papers filed by the landlord’s lawyer, Eric Pitter.
But the Compass agent told them much of the work would be done by their move-in date, the tenants wrote.
When the tenants complained, “the landlord remedied every concern,” adding air purifiers and plastic coverings for the door and windows, and having “dust professionally tested to assuage concerns it was dangerous,” the landlord’s lawyer wrote in the court documents.
The tenants said they were so fearful of breathing construction dust that they wore N95 masks in the common areas. The plastic shield covering the door required zipping and unzipping whenever they came or went.
“Tenants did not feel safe living on the premises,” they wrote, so they sometimes stayed in hotels or with relatives.
According to the tenants, the landlord said by phone that they could move out. According to the landlord, an agreement to end the lease must be in writing. The lease, as cited in court documents, notes that “even if Tenant gives keys … and they are accepted by Owner or representative, this Lease is not ended.”
The apartment was later re-listed on StreetEasy, and then taken off the market. Court papers say it has not yet been re-rented. The tenants moved to a one-bedroom nearby.
The landlord is suing for nearly $60,000, plus additional accrued rent and legal fees. “Stopping or reducing of service(s) will not be reason for Tenant to stop paying Rent, to make a money claim or to claim constructive eviction,” the lease says.
The lease also says the apartment is for “living purposes only and for no other purpose” and yet the tenants “intended to use the Premises as an office,” according to the landlord’s complaint.
Having a home office is not a violation of the lease, the tenants wrote in their reply.
The building has several active permits — including those for interior renovations, an elevator installation and plumbing fixtures. The permits expire in 2024 but are renewable.
The landlord’s lawyer and agent did not return messages, nor did the former tenants. The brokerage also didn’t respond.
