Eviction Law Faces Test
By Kenny Schaeffer

One year after the 1997 law restricting Housing Court judges’ power to halt evictions went into effect, the lawsuit challenging it is coming up for a hearing, on October 16 before Justice Edward Lehner of state Supreme Court.

Legal Aid Society attorneys representing Met Council, the City-Wide Task Force on Housing Court, and other tenant advocates argue that the law denies tenants due process and equal protection, and unconstitutionally interferes with the independence of the judicial branch by dictating the outcome of cases regardless of the interests of justice. For example, under the contested law, if a tenant is in court on a Monday scheduled to be evicted the next day and can demonstrate that she was wrongfully denied child support or public benefits but that the problem has been resolved and the money will be available on Wednesday, the judge is powerless to stop the eviction. If tenants are contesting the rent demanded on grounds such as illegal overcharge or hazardous conditions, they must pay the deposit or their defenses will never be heard.

The law, section 747-a of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, was included in the major weakening of rent and eviction laws imposed by George Pataki and his Republican allies in Albany in June 1997. Another provision of the new law, section 745(2), provides that tenants will have no right to be heard unless they are able to deposit all ongoing rent if a case is more than 30 days old or had been adjourned twice not at the landlord’s request.

By providing that tenants face certain eviction unless they can immediately deposit into court the full amount claimed, section 747-a could see the amount of evictions double from its current level of 25,000 families a year. The law was so extreme that when it went into effect on Oct. 20, 1997, the Rent Stabilization Association advised landlords to use it sparingly, lest the courts or the legislature overturn it. Met Council organized a spirited demonstration at Housing Court that day, and for several months landlord attorneys rarely used it.

Over recent months, however, judges are invoking the law more and more and refusing to sign orders stopping evictions, particularly against the 90% of tenants who face eviction proceedings without an attorney. According to Angelita Anderson, director of the City-Wide Task Force on Housing Court, evictions are up significantly, although statistics may not be released until the end of the year. Despite the widely touted reorganization of Housing Court earlier this year, unrepresented tenants still face enormous pressure to enter into agreements which expose them to eviction under the new law.