http://nytimes.com/2005/04/24/realestate/24home.htmlApril 24, 2005
Tenant Privacy And Landlords
By JAY ROMANO
A RULING by a New York State Supreme Court justice that an existing tenant is not automatically required to give a landlord his or her Social Security number has led to uncertainty among lawyers who represent landlords, tenants and even co-op boards in New York.
In a 17-page ruling on Feb. 28 rejecting a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a tenant who was threatened with eviction if she failed to give her Social Security number to her landlord, Justice Diane A. Lebedeff of State Supreme Court in Manhattan also said that the landlord's claim to be entitled to the Social Security number as a condition of renewing the lease was deceptive.
Justice Lebedeff said in her ruling that the question was whether, in a relationship between two private citizens - a landlord and a tenant - the state's consumer protection law protected the tenant's Social Security number from disclosure as confidential information.
"A Social Security number is prima facie privileged information," the justice wrote, adding that "while the privilege must give way as required by statute, regulation or court order, in ordinary circumstances, the person who holds the Social Security number appears to be free to decline disclosure."
James B. Fishman, the Manhattan lawyer who represented the tenant, Ariana Meyerson, said the ruling clearly establishes that a landlord cannot demand a tenant's Social Security number unless there is an independent legal basis for requesting it.
Mr. Fishman said that the lawsuit was brought after his client, a tenant at 232 Elizabeth Street in Manhattan, received a notice from her landlord demanding her Social Security number and date of birth as a condition of renewing her rent-stabilized lease. Mr. Fishman noted that while the city's Administrative Code permits landlords to inquire about occupants, it does not authorize landlords to demand Social Security numbers.
Unable to determine why the landlord wanted the information, and concerned that releasing it could subject her to identity theft, Ms. Meyerson sued under the state's consumer practices statute.
Justice Lebedeff ruled that to the extent that the landlord made receiving the tenant's private information a condition of renewing the lease, the landlord's actions were "clearly deceptive," because the courts have held that a tenant's "mere nonresponse to a demand notice alone" is insufficient grounds for eviction. In addition, the justice ruled that the city's Administrative Code "does not authorize a demand for Social Security numbers of apartment occupants."
Eric Kahan, the lawyer who represented the landlord, Prime Realty Services, said that the case will now proceed to trial.
"The judge did not say that a landlord can never get this information," he said. "In fact, landlords have an obligation to get Social Security numbers when they are establishing security deposit accounts for tenants." (The judge noted that the landlord in this case did not have the number.)
Dov Treiman, editor of The Housing Court Reporter, said that landlords can almost certainly get Social Security numbers at the inception of a tenancy or even sooner - to comply with the security deposit requirements and to perform credit checks on prospective tenants.
Steven Shore, a Manhattan co-op lawyer, recently included information about the case in a newsletter to clients. "The scope of this decision is not clear," he said, adding that the ruling could apply to co-ops that request confidential information from shareholders.
"At a minimum, however, if a tenant declines to provide a Social Security number, a landlord or board should seek legal counsel before any further action is taken."
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
4/25:
Sorry: it is a long decision and I forgot to review the post before I left. It exceeds TN's limit, so I've broken it up, below.
A showing of 'deception' is needed for claims under GBL 349 & here it is that her LL refused to renew her RS lease without her SS#, claiming he had a legal right to demand it. This is a frequent tactic used by LLs at renewal time: they include a dozen extra riders above and beyond the two allowed (window guards & lead paint). Yes, LLs can ask, no more than once a year, for the NAMES and relationship to tenant of all occupants, but nothing else: no salary, no SS#.
Why sue in Supreme Court instead of waiting to be sued for eviction by LL in HC? to avoid the blacklist & HC judges, for two...
<small>[ April 25, 2005, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]</small>