Ms. Bank's Case: 235-B Warranty Of Habitability?

QUESTION PRESENTED
Do the facts of Ms. Bank’s case make her eligible a rent abetment under NY CLS Real P §235-b Warranty of Habitability?

BRIEF ANSWER
???

STATEMENT OF FACTS
April 2017 a formal notice is posted in the lobby of the building, letting tenants know there is a bedbug issue occurring on the first and second floors and exterminations will be happening there.

Bank and her boyfriend Clarkson notice bites on stomach and legs in groupings of three beginning around the 4th of July 2017. They assumed these bites were mosquito bites until the evening of July 15th when they searched the apartment for a source of the bites and found bedbugs in the cushions of the living room couch, pulled out a zip lock bag, took photographic evidence,
After Bank found the bedbugs she and Clarkson got rid of a lot of furniture and subsequently left the apartment for the night. They did not return to the apartment for regular habitation purposes until August 20, 2017. During this time Bank and Clarkson stayed at a hotel for two nights and then at her cousin’s beach house in South Jersey.

The landlord paid for 2 experimentations the first on July 18th and the second on August 17th. Both of these exterminations were only done in the living room where the bedbugs were originally found. Bank stated that the exterminators visually looked through the other rooms but did not see signs of bedbugs so they did not exterminate in other rooms.

After the second round of exterminations, Bank moved back into the apartment and was still quite uncomfortable, so she contracted Eco-Exterminators that kill bedbugs though exposure to extreme heat, rather than through chemical exposure. Bank both feels this is more effective and safer for her and her boyfriend’s ingestion. Bank is contracting this company on her own expense, each visit is $350. The first time they came to exterminate they found bedbug droppings in the bedroom which had never been exterminated before.
Wellner and Park West Mgmt. Corp. v Mitchell. In Solow, the court “reflects the legislature’s concern that tenants be provided with premises suitable for residential habitation, in other words, living quarters having “those essential functions with a residence is expected to provide.”’ page 6 The essential functions of a home are made clear in Ludlow Props., LLC v Young, which are: shelter, sleeping, eating, bathing and working purposes. Page 4

Explanation:
In Solow, the elevators did not work in a high-rise apartment building, something tenants would reasonable expect to work. The court in this case did note that the landlord would not be in breach of §235-b if the tenants found the building to be unpleasing aesthetically. In Ludlow, Young the tenant was unable to use one of the apartments five essential functions.

Application:
In Ms. Bank’s situation, she was unable to use her apartment for its’ intended purposes because she left the evening the bugs were uncovered after having disposed of her mattress and other furniture. Ms. Bank left the apartment after already having had suffered from bedbug bites for over a week. Ms. Bank was unable to use her apartment for all five of the essential functions listed by the courts.

Conclusion: