The following excerpt is from 111 East 88th Partners v. Simon, 127 Misc.2d 74, 489 N.Y.S.2d 139 (N.Y. App. Term 1985):
In light of the testimony given by many of the tenants, and the testimony of their expert witness, concerning the decrease in essential services which occurred in or about November 1979, the award of damages for landlord's breach of the implied warranty of habitability was within the permissible range of evaluation and is not disturbed. We do disagree with so much of the outcome below as assessed substantial punitive damages against the landlord in addition to the award of contract damages. There is no hard evidence that the decline in services was linked to some ulterior motive or design, and it appears that the landlord did make some efforts to restore services. Nor is there any indication of rent impairing violations or any showing that landlord was in contempt of outstanding administrative or court orders relating to the maintenance of the building. Accordingly, even assuming that the law of punitive damages may appropriately be extended to habitability cases, we conclude that on the facts here there was not demonstrated that measure of "high moral culpability" or "criminal indifference to civil obligations" (see Walker v. Sheldon, 10 N.Y.2d 401, 405, 223 N.Y.S.2d 488, 179 N.E.2d 497) necessary to sustain such an award.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.