Despite Owing $14K In Back Rent & Legal Fees, Court Allows Renter To Regain Possession Of Rent-Controlled Apartment One Month After Being Booted Upon Lump-Sum Payment Of Arrears; Uneasy Judge: Ruling "Forces [NY] Landlords To Serve As De Facto No-Interest Lenders To Low-Income Tenants"

In New York City, the New York Law Journal reports:

• A Bronx Housing Court judge's decision to return a disabled tenant to his apartment after he was evicted for nonpayment was upheld by an appellate court.
  
  The Appellate Division, First Department, said Civil Court Judge Javier Vargas had "providently exercised" his discretion, noting that Ronald Pickett had lived in the apartment for 30 years, and a month after being evicted, paid the rent arrears plus the landlord's attorney's fees, totaling $14,000.(1)
  
  But Justice David Saxe, in a concurrence, said the legal standard for reversing an eviction was too lax and "forces landlords to serve as de facto no-interest lenders to low-income tenants."
  
  A warrant of eviction was initially awarded to Pickett's landlord, Lafayette Boynton Housing, in October 2011 when his rent was $5,200 in arrears.
  
  Pickett, with the help of The Legal Aid Society, was able to obtain seven stays of eviction over a two-year period, on the promise of curing the arrears.
  
  However, new arrears had accrued by the time those promised payments were made, "so the landlord was still not made whole by those eventual payments, and the cycle of extensions and only partial payments continued," Saxe wrote.
  
  The Bronx Housing Court declined to give Pickett another stay and he was evicted in September 2013.
  
  An emergency grant from the City's Department of Human Resources allowed Pickett, who lives on Social Security, to pay the rent and attorneys fees. Vargas then granted Pickett's motion to restore the unit to him a month later.
  
  Saxe, noting that the state's Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law does not expressly allow a court to vacate a warrant of eviction after the eviction has taken place, said such relief should be granted only where "incorrect assumptions or findings were made in issuing the warrant of eviction that undermines the basis for its issuance in the first place," rather than merely "for good cause."
  
  "It is shameful that we are relying on the private property owners who happen to rent apartments to such tenants, requiring them to cover the shortfall for months, or even years, rather than, as a society, making sure that elderly and disabled low-income tenants have access to the necessary funds in a timely manner so they can stay current on their rent," Saxe said.
  
  The majority's ruling in Lafayette Boynton Hsg. Corp. v. Pickett, 56887/11 was joined by Justices Angela Mazzarelli, Rolando Acosta and Rosalyn Richter.

Source: Court's Return of Disabled Tenant to Apartment Upheld.

----------------------------

(1) According to the majority:

• "[T]he Civil Court may, in appropriate circumstances, vacate the warrant of eviction and restore the tenant to possession even after the warrant has been executed" (Brusco, 84 NY2d at 682; see also Harvey 1390 LLC v Bodenheim, 96 AD3d 664, 664 [1st Dept 2012]).
  
  Here, the Civil Court providently exercised its discretion, as the record shows that the long-term, disabled tenant "did not sit idly by[,]" but instead made appreciable payments towards his rental arrears and "engaged in good faith efforts to secure emergency rental assistance to cover the arrears" (Harvey, 96 AD3d at 665; see also Parkchester, 271 AD2d at 273-274).
  
  Moreover, the tenant has paid the rental arrears for the unit and the landlord's costs for the underlying proceeding (see Parkchester, 271 AD2d at 273), and the record shows that the delays in payment were, to a certain extent, attributable to others, including the landlord (see 2246 Holding Corp. v Nolasco, 52 AD3d 377, 378 [1st Dept 2008]).