October 2024 Insights
By Eileen O’Toole, Esq., Contributing Editor
New York’s Good Cause Eviction Law (GCEL), enacted on April 20, 2024, with notice provisions later becoming effective on Aug. 18, has quickly become the subject of disputes in housing court.
In QN St. Albans Holdings LLC v. Sands (LVT #33414), an eviction proceeding commenced in March 2024, the court point out that the court case was started before the GCEL took effect in April and therefore the new law didn’t apply to the case. As a result, the court denied the tenant’s motion to dismiss based on landlord’s claimed failure to plead that it had good cause to evict the tenant. Landlord was permitted to terminate the unregulated tenancy without good cause.
On the other hand, in Doc Realty Mgt. Inc. v. Morales (LVT #33417), the court found that the GCEL applied to an eviction proceeding commenced after April 20, 2024, even though the termination notice it was based on was served before the new law’s effective date. Since landlord had failed to argue in its court petition that any GCEL exemption applied, the case was dismissed.
In 1719 Gates LLC v. Torres (LVT #33424), the owner sued to evict an unregulated tenant in a holdover after serving a 90-day termination notice. The tenancy was terminated rather than renewed based on nonpayment of rent, and the issue became complicated. While the GCEL unquestionably applied to the case, the court found that the nonpayment exemption couldn’t apply for the holdover proceeding. The court said that the landlord had to commence a nonpayment proceeding instead. And since tenant’s lease had expired, landlord would first have to offer tenant a renewal lease before proceeding to evict on nonpayment grounds.
Unique issues were presented in some other recent cases.
New York’s City Council has filed a notice of appeal involving the mayor’s veto of the City Council’s expansion of the CityFHEPS voucher program. In Vincent v. Adams (LVT #33423), the court denied the City Council’s Article 78 petition to compel the Mayor’s Office to implement the City Fighting Homelessness and Eviction Prevention Supplement (CityFHEPS) Reform Laws, which expanded the rent voucher program. The court found that the subject of the new law was already under the authority of the DSS, and that the City Council’s new law therefore was preempted.
A co-op board was penalized in United States v. Rutherford Tenants Corp. (LVT #33425), a federal court discrimination action for failing to provide a reasonable accommodation to a shareholder tenant who kept parrots as emotional support animals. The co-op had started an eviction proceeding against the tenant based on other residents’ noise complaints. In a Consent Order, the board agreed to pay tenant $165,000 and buy her apartment at more than market value.
In 178 East 70th Street LLC v. Woodward (LVT #33427), the court awarded attorney’s fees to a self-represented nonattorney tenant who successfully defended himself in an eviction proceeding where he claimed succession rights to a rent-stabilized apartment.
Commencing eviction proceedings against tenants for nonpayment of rent has become increasingly problematic where there is no lease in effect. The case of Lichter Real Estate No. One, LLC v. Schrader (LVT #33426) highlights an alternative remedy of commencing an action seeking payment of “use and occupancy” for rent payment periods in question.
In G-Max Mgmt. v. State of New York (LVT #33422), a group of property owners has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a federal court denial of the owners’ challenge to certain provisions of the HSTPA. Owners claim that these rent stabilization provisions violate the Takings Clause of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court held a so-called “long conference” in October to decide what cases it will consider during the 2024–2025 term and, at press time, had not announced whether this case would be on the docket.