Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment in New Jersey

Background

“New Jersey courts have long recognized that a residential lease contains an implied warranty of habitability and an implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, pursuant to which a landlord owes a tenant a duty of warranting that the leased property is fit for that purpose at the inception of the term and will remain so during the entire term.” (See Narcisse v. Middlesex Mgmt., No. A-2344-10T2, at *6 (App. Div. Nov. 14, 2011).)

“[I]t [is] implied that he has further agreed to repair damage to vital facilities caused by ordinary wear and tear during said term." (See id.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“A covenant of quiet enjoyment is a representation by the grantor that the grantee and his assigns will quietly enjoy possession of the premises, free from any claim or actions by other persons." (See Spiegle v. Seaman (1978) 160 N.J. Super. 471, 482.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“We review a grant of summary judgment using the same standard that governs the trial judge's decision.” (See Kalim v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., No. A-4811-18, at *10 (App. Div. Mar. 4, 2021).)

“Under that standard, summary judgment will be granted when the competent evidential materials submitted by the parties, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law." (See id.)

"An issue of material fact is genuine only if, considering the burden of persuasion at trial, the evidence submitted by the parties on the motion, together with all legitimate inferences therefrom favoring the non-moving party, would require submission of the issue to the trier of fact.” (See id.)

“We owe no special deference to the motion judge's legal analysis.” (See id.)

The Court’s Decisions

“In Reste Realty Corp. v. Cooper, 53 N.J. 444 , 456-457 (1969), the court stated that where there is a covenant of quiet enjoyment, whether expressed or implied, which is breached substantially by the landlord, the doctrine of constructive eviction is available as a remedy for the tenant; and that any act or omission of the landlord or anyone acting under his authority which renders the premises substantially unsuitable for the purpose for which they are leased, or which seriously interferes with the beneficial enjoyment of the premises, is a breach of that covenant and constitutes a constructive eviction of the tenant.” (See Gottdiener v. Mailhot (1981) 179 N.J. Super. 286, 290-91.)

As such it is well settled that “failure to maintain the property or to otherwise abide by the covenant of quiet enjoyment constitutes a constructive eviction.” (See Narcisse v. Middlesex Mgmt., No. A-2344-10T2, at *7 (App. Div. Nov. 14, 2011).)