# Bernstein v. Fernandez

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · March 28, 1991 · 649 A.2d 1064

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9717870

## Case

- **Full name:** Howard BERNSTEIN and Maxine Bernstein, T/A H & M Enterprises, Appellants, v. Daysi P. FERNANDEZ, Appellee; Daysi P. FERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. Howard BERNSTEIN and Maxine Bernstein, T/A H & M Enterprises, Appellees
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** March 28, 1991
- **Citations:** 649 A.2d 1064; 1991 D.C. App. LEXIS 359; 1991 WL 638820
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Rogers
- **Judges:** Rogers, Belson, Terry
- **Cited by:** 77 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9717870

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that the tenant’s “evidence of the problems themselves was enough” for the factfinder to “find that the apartment’s ‘as is’ value was zero, thereby allowing a complete abatement of rent”
- holding that evidence of persistent and extreme problems with decaying ceilings and rodent infestation sufficed to allow the jury to find an “as is” value of zero

## Opinion text

ROGERS, Chief Judge,
concurring:
I join the majority opinion and write separately only to make clear that I do not read the majority to conclude that a nuisance claim may never be brought by a tenant against a landlord, but rather, that on the facts of this case, Fernandez failed to meet her burden of proof. See majority opinion at 1073-1074. The Maryland eases cited by the majority are not dispositive. In Little v. Union Trust Co., 45 Md.App. 178, 185 , 412 A.2d 1251, 1255 (1980), the Court of Special Appeals held that a cause of action for public nuisance was not available. In State ex rel. Bohon v. Feldstein, 207 Md. 20, 33 , 113 A.2d 100, 106 , the Court of Appeals held open the possibility of a nuisance claim where the landlord “demise[d] premises which are ... in themselves a nuisance....” Our decision in District of Columbia v. Fowler, 497 A.2d 456 (D.C.1985), addressed only the requirement of prior notice before the District may be held liable for maintaining a nuisance as a result of defective conditions in streets and highways. Moreover, as the majority acknowledges, see majority opinion at 1073 n. 9, a nuisance cause of action has generally been recognized under certain circumstances. *1076 See R. Schoshinski, American Law of Landlord and Tenant § 3.9 (1980 & 1990 Supp.) (and cases cited) (nuisance cause of action may be available where claim is based on conduct in “areas of premises over which the landlord has retained control”).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9717870. Public record. Not legal advice.