Thomas Breen photo
Landlord Raphael Badouch and attorney Jeffrey Weisman in court on Tuesday.
A state judge turned down a New Jersey landlord’s bid to evict a nonpaying West Hazel Street tenant after finding that her apartment’s persistent housing code violations justified the temporary withholding of rent.
State Superior Court Judge Walter Spader, Jr. handed down that 19-page decision on Friday in the eviction case 232 West Hazel St LLC v. Chelsea Wickerson.
He ruled that a company controlled by Lakewood, N.J.-based landlord Raphael Badouch could not evict the tenants of a first-floor apartment at 232 West Hazel St. In the ruling, the judge cited housing code violations that Livable City Initiative (LCI) inspectors found in December. Violations at that time included a leaking bathroom ceiling, a leaking and damp bedroom ceiling, the need to install a house meter, the need to clean and sanitize an old sewage spill in the basement, and missing smoke and carbon monoxide detectors in the basement.
“Accordingly, the defendant has prevailed on her claim, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the plaintiff has failed to comply with Connecticut General Statute §47a‑7(a) and that failure has materially affected her safety and the safety of her family,” Spader wrote. “No rent can be due during a period that the plaintiff has been in non-compliance with its statutory obligations, so a nonpayment judgment cannot follow.”
Click here to read the decision in full.
The ruling came down three days after a two-and-a-half hour trial in New Haven’s third-floor housing court on April 25 that revealed this case involved a tenant’s nonpayment of rent, a landlord’s failure to make timely repairs to the property, a tenant’s refusal to let maintenance workers in to make those fixes, and a general communication and trust breakdown between all parties involved.
That trial also saw Judge Spader criticize Badouch for trying to move ahead with an eviction lawsuit in one housing court case while at the same time failing to show up to a separate criminal housing court case in which he was being prosecuted for 24 housing code violations at that same property.
Badouch told the Independent at the time that he missed his initial criminal housing court arraignment because he was away for Passover and didn’t receive the court’s mailed order until it was too late.
He did show up to court on Tuesday and, standing alongside attorney Jeffrey Weisman, saw Judge Spader continue the West Hazel Street housing-code-violation case until May 16.
After Tuesday’s brief court hearing, Weisman told this reporter that nearly all of the housing-code issues identified by LCI at 232 West Hazel St. have now been addressed. He repeated Badouch’s explanation that his client missed his initial arraignment because he was away for Passover, and stressed his commitment to keeping the property in good condition. He also advised his client not to comment on either the eviction case or the criminal housing case since the latter is still making its way through court.
Judge: Landlord Has "Societal Responsibilities To Tenants"
Thomas Breen file photo
Judge Spader.
In his April 28 decision, meanwhile, Judge Spader put to rest the eviction case in favor of the tenants — even as he laid out a court-ordered schedule for when repairs need to be made by the landlord and inspected by the city in the days ahead.
After reviewing all of the evidence, testimony, and arguments in the case, as well as the legal standards governing what a landlord must prove to prevail in a nonpayment of rent eviction case and what a tenant must prove to prevail in her special defense, Spader explained why he would not allow the landlord’s requested eviction to proceed. He also stated that tenants concerned with housing conditions should not withhold rent entirely, but instead should pay into the court as they seek to compel their landlord to make needed repairs.
Much of that explanation hinged on the court’s requirement to sit “in equity” on eviction matters — that is, to “treat all parties fairly and understands that there are issues, struggles and concerns underlying the straight-forward-appearing matters that are in pleadings. Housing providers and tenants equally share in these struggles and the Court attempts to be conscious of these concerns in adjudicating cases before it.”
With that “equity” focus in mind, Spader criticized both tenant and landlord. He criticized the former for not letting the property manager in to make necessary fixes, the latter for having “wholly disregarded LCI and an enforcement action brought by the State’s Attorney’s Office.”
The judge continued: “To avoid Court as a defendant and not respond to the City’s housing enforcement agency and then seek redress as a plaintiff on the very property at issue in the criminal matter is contrary to public policy and the integrity of not only the entire Court system but the obligations of a landlord to comply with basic health and housing regulations. Investing in rental property comes with it societal responsibilities to one’s tenants. While the remedies the Court can impose when sitting on a criminal matter are themselves limited to fines (and it would be beneficial if the remedies included some sort of moratorium on evicting tenants that had to deal with absentee landlordism), a landlord not only with a pending matter on the very property at issue in criminal court, but one that fails to appear to answer to those charges, lacks the clean hands to prevail in a housing matter while those questionable housing conditions are present.”
And so, the judge concluded, by a “fair preponderance of the evidence, the defendant has established that conditions are present that materially affect the occupants’ safety and wellbeing, from untreated mold issues, wiring issues and, most importantly, no evidence that working smoke and carbon monoxide detectors are in place in the basement.”
In that vein, he ruled that LCI shall conduct an inspection of the property on or before May 5, the landlord shall have access to the property during LCI’s inspection so it can make necessary repairs, the tenant shall allow access to the landlord during workday hours on May 15, 16, and 17, and LCI shall be allowed access to reinspect on May 18.
Before finishing his decision to turn down the eviction attempt, Spader issued a series of further orders related to the property’s repairs and upkeep.
“This finding, however, does not end this matter,” he wrote. “The Court does believe based on the text messages and history of this case, that the frustrations that the defendant experienced did result in her “giving up” and not allowing access for repairs to the plaintiff. While she testified that she wants to leave the apartment, it does not appear that she has not taken any real steps to look for any other location and by extension, is fine with living in this unsafe apartment if she doesn’t have to pay rent. She has to allow repairs for not only her safety, but the safety of her family and neighbors. She also cannot continue to reside in an unsafe apartment and unjustly prevent the plaintiff from making the premises habitable to reinstate the payment obligation.
“Despite this case being resolved, the Court has ongoing jurisdiction over the property as the defendant’s complaints are the basis of the criminal action pending against the LLC’s principal. One can’t just say no rent is due because of conditions and then not allow the conditions to be remedied, as that swings the equity pendulum back to the landlord. LCI also needs to complete its reinspection.”
See below for other recent stories about New Haven evictions:
• Landlord’s Court No-Show Debated In Eviction
• Lenox Landlord Prevents Sheffield Eviction
• Senior Dodges 50-Cent Eviction
• Landlord Prevails After Eviction-Paper Delivery Debate
• Sunset Ridge Becomes Eviction Central
• Eviction OK’d After Restaurant Shutters
• Eviction OK’d After“Lapse,” Rent Debate
• Mandy Leads Pack In Eviction Filings
• Eviction“Answers” Reveal Renters’ Struggles
• Eviction Suit Caps Tenant’s Tough Run
• Investor Skips Hello, Starts Evictions
• Eviction Deal Drops $1 Ruling Appeal
• Judge’s $1 Award Tests Eviction Rule
• Court Case Q: Which“Nuisances” Merit Eviction?
• “Or” Evictions OK’d
• Fair Rent: Dog’ll Cost You $150
• Rent Trumps Repairs In Elliot Street Eviction
• Though Sympathetic, Judge Blocks Eviction
• Family Feuds Fill Eviction Court
• Rent Help Winds Down. What’s Next?
• Eviction Withdrawn After Rent Catch-up
• Hill Landlord Prevails In“Lapse” Eviction
• Landlord Thwarted 2nd Time On Eviction
• Church Evicting Parishioner
• Hard-Luck Tenant Hustles To Stay Put
• Eviction Of Hospitalized Tenant, 74, Upheld
•Judge Pauses Eviction Amid Rent-Relief Qs
• Amid Rise In“Lapse-of-Time” Evictions, Tenant Wins 3‑Month Stay
• Leaky Ceiling, Rent Dispute Spark Eviction Case
