Landlord Can Evict Tenant Who Didn't Prove Hardship under TSHA

Landlord sued to evict tenant for nonpayment of rent. The case was settled with a two-attorney settlement agreement in July 2020, which gave landlord a money judgment for $20,761 for all rent due and owing through that date. Tenant agreed to pay this amount plus August 2020 rent by Aug. 31, 2020. The agreement further provided that, in the event of default, landlord could seek entry of a final judgment of possession against tenant subject to any defenses had under the Tenant Safe Harbor Act (TSHA).

In August 2022, landlord asked the court to proceed on the judgment of possession based on tenant's default. Tenant then claimed defenses under TSHA, and said that landlord had received ERAP funds for tenant totalling $20,326. The court ruled against tenant, finding that his Hardship Declaration didn't create a rebuttable presumption that tenant had experienced a financial hardship during the covered pandemic period because tenant only claimed he had a significant health risk. Tenant admitted that his income and expenses were unchanged since 2019, and the ERAP payment, by itself, didn't create a de facto presumption under TSHA that tenant had experienced a financial hardship during the covered period. Also, the proof required for ERAP assistance was different from that required under TSHA, which required a hearing and documentary evidence that tenant had experienced hardship. Tenant's testimony and documentation didn't prove financial hardship.

The court ruled for landlord, finding that tenant had breached the terms of the 2020 stipulation and granting landlord a judgment of possession with an eviction warrant to be issued forthwith. Execution on the warrant was stayed for five days to permit tenant to pay $34,632 in rent due through Dec. 31, 2022. The money judgment previously issued also remained in full force and effect. 

3220 Parc Inc. v. Gavin: Index No. L&T 025450/19, 2023 NY Slip Op 50082(U), 77 Misc.3d 1232(A)(Civ. Ct. Bronx; 2/6/23; Shahid, J)