Eviction Law Challenge Pending
Pataki Appeal Means Law Stays in Effect
by Kenny Schaeffer

Tenant groups' challenge to the 1997 mandatory rent-deposit law has been assigned to a new judge after the state appealed a court order stopping enforcement of the law.

The case was reassigned to State Supreme Court Judge Edward Lehner in December after lawyers for Gov. George Pataki and landlords involved in the case objected to its original assignment to Judge Emily Jane Goodman. They did not object until after Judge Goodman had heard a brief initial argument and decided to prevent the new law from going into effect until the courts had heard fuller arguments from all sides (Tenant/Inquilino, Dec. '97).

Judge Goodman's order halting enforcement of the law was automatically undone when the Governor filed an appeal, leaving the law in effect. However, a few judges have declined to apply it in individual cases, calling it an unconstitutional denial of tenants' rights to due process of law and equal protection, and an improper intrusion by the state legislature into judges' power.

Judge Lehner heard arguments by Legal Aid and Legal Services lawyers that the law is unconstitutional on December 19. He is expected to decide on whether to grant a preliminary injunction against it in mid-January.

Several additional tenants were allowed to join the lawsuit after it was initially filed, to present examples of the kind of situations which will force Housing Court to deny justice under the new law. One of them, Luz Rosario, claims that she paid all of the rent with money orders. Her owner disputes this, and since it takes more than 30 days to trace money orders, Ms. Rosario was not ready for trial within 30 days.

The "mandatory eviction" law, signed by Governor Pataki on June 20 as part of the weakening of rent and eviction protections imposed by the Republican-controlled State Senate, went into effect on October 20.

It contains two main provisions. One section states that Housing Court judges can no longer sign an "order to show cause" preventing a scheduled eviction unless the tenant can deposit the full amount of the judgment into court. Under the previous law, judges heard about 150,000 requests every year to grant brief stays of eviction when the tenant could show that they either didn't owe the money, or needed a few more days to get the money together.

The other provision requires judges to order tenants evicted when a case is more than 30 days old or has been adjourned twice, unless the tenant can deposit into court the amount claimed by the landlord after the case begins. Tenants whose income has been interrupted for any reason, or who are being charged a illegal rent that they cannot afford, face prompt eviction under this law, with no chance to present defenses such as hazardous conditions in the apartment. It has been estimated that these two provisions will lead to as many as 40,000 or 50,000 additional families being evicted every year.