Stuy Town woman gets partial rent abatement for construction noise

The new Stuyvesant Town management office, now complete, was a source of torment to one woman at 276 First Avenue, who lived directly above the months-long construction. (Pictured) Workers on the roof in April as seen from 272 First Avenue

The new Stuyvesant Town management office, now complete, was a source of torment to one woman at 276 First Avenue, who lived directly above the months-long construction. (Pictured) Workers on the roof in April as seen from 272 First Avenue

By Sabina Mollot

When construction was underway on Stuyvesant Town’s new management office, for residents in the building housing it and the others closest to it, this of course meant months of constant noise and a lack of access to the walkway and playground between the buildings. Afterwards, CWCapital provided the impacted residents with $200 gift cards to local establishments as a way of thanking them for their patience.

But for one resident, the daily jackhammering and other noise that would start as early as 7:30 a.m. as well as the debris that would fly into her windows was so unbearable that she started withholding rent.

Naturally, she ended up getting taken to court, where a judge decided that she was in fact entitled to a partial abatement.

The resident, Caryn Chow, lives on the second floor of 276 First Avenue, which was so close to the construction that when it was ongoing, she said she could feel the walls vibrate. Considering that she’s a happiness coach and communication strategist who works from home, this meant making calls or doing other work-related tasks for long was impossible. Her daily routine of meditation was also of course disrupted.

“They’d start as early as 7:30 and the building is shaking,” said Chow, in a recent interview with Town & Village. “They said, ‘We’re in compliance,’ and they did prove that,” she added, of when she called management to complain. But, meanwhile, for her, the noise had become her new alarm clock, and an effective one at that. “They ousted me out of my apartment. I’m used to hearing sirens, but this was making everything shake and it was like being up against your ear.”


Like some neighbors, Chow also mourned the loss of seemingly healthy trees that were removed from the First Avenue Loop as part of the construction work.

“They chopped down all the trees; the cherry tree that used to greet me every day is gone,” she said.

Complaining to management, she added, didn’t get her very far. Some calls just went unanswered. At one point, CompassRock responded by offering her free access to the Oval Study library, but that ended up not working out as a substitute office space for Chow since no one’s allowed to talk on the phone in there. Additionally, since she was at home less, she was using her cell phone more and eating out more, which, she noted, added to her expenses.

Caryn Chow

Caryn Chow

Eventually, a fed up Chow started taking video footage and audio recordings on her phone of the construction work outside her window. She also took photos of the soot and debris that would accumulate on her windowsills and when the windows were open and fly inside the apartment, coating various kitchen appliances. “God knows what’s in that soot,” she said. Fortunately for her, the recordings wound up coming in handy later when management tried to evict her after three months of nonpayment.

It was in May of last year when she began her one-woman rent strike. This was after four months after work on the management office.

“In August I got an eviction notice,” said Chow.

In court, Chow argued that she felt the terms of her lease were not being respected, particularly the warranty of habitability.

Ultimately, she wound up getting a 30 percent rent abatement for the months she was impacted — and a stay on her eviction to give her some time to pay back the rest.

Chow admitted she would have liked to get more of an abatement, having tried for 80 percent.

In his decision, Housing Court Judge Jack Stoller explained the reason she didn’t get a higher abatement was that her arguments had mainly been about her inability to work from home during the months of construction.

“The warranty of habitability concerns functions which a residence is expected to provide,” Stoller wrote, adding that Chow’s lease “provides that the subject premises shall only be used as a place to live.”

Still, Chow said she’s satisfied with the outcome of the fight. “My goal is to help others if I can,” Chow, who once worked as a paralegal, said. She also made it a point to note that in the 24 years since she moved to Stuyvesant Town, this was her first major problem.

“I’m a peaceful person,” Chow said. “I meditate. I do a lot of yoga. I can take a lot. But in April, it started to affect me. I said, ‘I can’t wake up like this every day, being disturbed.’ I couldn’t even live there. When you start to disrupt my peace, that’s not acceptable.”

Chow’s attorney, Steven Rosen, noted that while noise is an issue for all New Yorkers, his client’s was particularly extreme.

“There’s construction in New York, there’s noise in New York wherever you are, so courts are generally hesitant to give rent abatements for ordinary noise,” said Rosen. But this project, he added, was “really, seriously disruptive, so the judge sided with Caryn.”

A spokesperson for CWCapital declined to comment on the situation.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Stuy Town woman gets partial rent abatement for construction noise

  1. Kudos to Ms. Chow! This rotten excuse for a “management” has turned PCVST into a living hell for so many tenants and wreaked so much destruction on the property in order to make a quick buck. I think the Empire State Building went up faster and with less disruption than that ugly bunker they built for themselves. And Garodnick and the TA were NOT supportive of the tenants during any of this.

  2. Congratulations to the lady who won a rebate for all the toxic noise and filth permeating her apartment and making it unlivable for so long. So how come the TA didn’t bring a class action lawsuit on behalf of all the tenants who were similarly affected? Isn’t that what the TA is for? Where was Councilman Garodnick on all this? Aren’t Stuyvesant Town and PCV tenants his constituents? It was obviously a meritorious case.

    • I’m replying to myself here (first signs, etc.) having said what I said above, I have to wonder where the TA would get the money to fight a lawsuit against CWC unless the attorneys did the representation pro bono. My understanding is that the TA gets $35 per head per year from its membership and I doubt that there is a very large membership. Unfortunately, most of the tenants here now are market rate or students and probably aren’t even aware that we have a Tenants Association. I think Councilman Garodnick could have rattled his sabre a bit about the excessive noise and dirt that tenants had to endure. Just my 2 cents’ worth.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s