By Eileen O’Toole, Esq.
The city’s Housing Courts continue to decide ongoing challenges to automatic stays of eviction proceedings that result when tenants file for assistance through the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP). A number of decisions contain thoughtful discussion of whether the continuation of an ERAP stay would result in inequity, fraud, or absurd or futile results.
In Barker v. Cruz, LVT #32087, a Bronx case, the landlord of a two-family home sued to evict a tenant when the tenant’s lease expired and claimed that the unit was needed for family use. The tenant pointed out that he had filed an ERAP application before the landlord started the holdover proceeding and that the case therefore must be stayed. The court granted the landlord’s request to lift the ERAP stay, finding that a landlord must be allowed to at least commence a proceeding where the stay could be challenged in order to provide due process.
In 178 Broadway Realty Corp. v. Charles, LVT #32086, a Kings County landlord sued to evict an unregulated tenant after the tenant’s lease expired. The court placed the case on hold through its ERAP Administrative Calendar when the tenant filed an application for rental assistance. The court granted the landlord’s request to vacate the ERAP stay since the landlord stated it wouldn’t accept ERAP payments on the tenant’s behalf, which it was permitted to do under the law. If the landlord accepted ERAP money, it would have to agree to a continued 12-month tenancy even though the unregulated tenancy had expired. And, while the tenant planned to claim that he was rent stabilized in defense, so far he hadn’t proved that his tenancy must continue when his lease ended. Compare Eight-17 Associates v. LP v. Cameron, LVT #32092, where a Manhattan court continued the ERAP stay for an occupant who made a “colorable claim” of succession rights.
In another Brooklyn case involving unregulated tenants in a two-family home, Joute v. Hinds, LVT #32088, an eviction warrant had been issued in early 2020 but the COVID-19 pandemic delayed execution on the warrant. Further delay resulted when the tenants filed a Hardship Declaration in 2021. And, when the eviction moratorium was lifted in January 2022, the tenants filed an ERAP application. The court granted the landlord’s request to lift the automatic stay, holding that, to allow individuals in an unregulated tenancy the benefit of the ERAP stay provision would “be futile and would lead to an absurd result, not contemplated by the statute.” Notably, the landlord didn't seek use or occupancy in the original petition and, in fact, waived past arrears and future use and occupancy in the 2019 settlement of the case.
However, in Mason v. Reyes, LVT #32089, another Kings County court continued the delay of a 2020 nonpayment proceeding based on the tenant’s recent ERAP filing. While the landlord argued that the tenant’s ERAP application was filed in bad faith, the court noted that the landlord didn’t start a holdover proceeding to terminate this month-to-month tenancy but had instead started a nonpayment proceeding against the tenant. So, the eviction proceeding was stayed pending the outcome of eligibility to be determined by the ERAP program. See also Gurevitch v. Robinson, LVT #32091.
In a newsworthy decision on another recurring issue, the Appellate Division, First Dept. has upheld DHCR “explanatory addenda” rulings that high-rent/high-income deregulation orders issued pre-HSTPA while corresponding rent-stabilized leases remained in effect at the time the deregulation orders were issued became unenforceable if those rent-stabilized leases expired after June 13, 2019, because high-rent deregulation at that point had been repealed. See Matter of 160 E. 84th St. Assoc. LLC v. DHCR, LVT #32073.
