"A world newspaper of conscience" alongside Le Monde Diplomatique and the U.K. Guardian. — Danny Schechter
Victory for Tenants as Harassment Bill Passes
By Bennett BaumerFebruary 28, 2008 | Posted in IndyBlog | Email this article
Yesterday the New York City Council unanimously passed Intro 627-A, a bill that gives tenants the right to sue landlords for harassment. The bill was cosponsored by Speaker Christine Quinn among 34 other council members. The harassment bill is a big victory for tenants under the gun to move out of affordable rent-regulated apartments that landlords could charge exorbitant rates.
The landlord lobby – the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) and Rent Stabilization Association had waged a concentrated campaign against the bill. The landlord lobby’s central line of attack was to argue that Intro 627-A would clog the courts with tenant initiated frivolous lawsuits. In opposing the pro-tenant legislation, real estate attorney Adam Leitman Bailey commented that Intro 627-A would cause “thousands of lawsuits, millions of dollars in legal fees.” (see: http://ny.therealdeal.com/articles/turning-up-the-volume-on-landlord-tenant-bill)
Here’s how the New York Sun set the scene when the harassment bill was introduced in the Fall of 2007. (http://www.maketheroad.org/article.php?ID=419)
Casting herself as a tenant rights advocate at the risk of alienating political kingmakers in the real estate community is a delicate balancing act for the speaker of the City Council, Christine Quinn.
Ms. Quinn, who is expected to run for mayor in 2009, introduced a bill yesterday that would allow tenants to take their landlords to Housing Court for harassment, opening the floodgates to a wave of new lawsuits. Cheering tenants crowded the steps of City Hall for the announcement, which was quickly denounced by real estate industry leaders.
But in a sign that Ms. Quinn may be able to appease both sides, those who said they oppose the tenant bill indicated that they would not punish the speaker over a single issue.
“Obviously, people will look at this who own rental apartment buildings, and they won’t be happy,” the president of the Real Estate Board of New York, Steven Spinola, said. “But on a lot of other issues, she’s been terrific and very strong.”
Mr. Spinola said he planned to talk to Ms. Quinn about making changes to the bill but wouldn’t say what he would propose amending. He predicated that the bill would clog up the courts and create nuisance lawsuits.
“This is going in the opposite direction of tort reform,” he said.
Earlier this week, advocates heard rumblings from the Housing and Buildings committee (where the bill sat in committee since October 2007) that some Queens and Brooklyn members were buying the frivolous suit claims. Committee members Leroy Comrie (D-Queens) and Thomas White Jr. (D-Queens) led the fight against Intro 627-A and prior to yesterday’s vote, had sponsored a water downed version of the bill that allowed landlords to sue tenants for harassment. (http://www.nysun.com/article/68273)
City-Wide Task Force on Housing Court Executive Director Louise Seeley testified at a committee hearing against the frivolous lawsuit claim.
“Emptying long-standing tenants from buildings is a business plan,” Seeley said. “Tenants do not have the time and money to spend the day in housing court [over frivolous cases].”
She also noted that 98 percent of housing court cases are filed by landlords – many on dubious grounds in an attempt to evict rent-stabilized tenants and jack up prices.
Committee chair Erik Dilan (D-Brooklyn) also seemed receptive to the frivolous lawsuit claims and was insisting on a clause in the bill that required tenants to report the harassment to the City before filing a housing court claim. The bill provides fines of between $1,000 and $5,000 for each apartment where harassment has occurred and makes harassment a class “C” housing code violation. When tenants sue landlords for repairs in housing court or go on rent strike due to poor conditions, they are not required to report their complaints to the City. (Though reporting complaints bolsters court cases because the City’s housing agency will record any code violations).
Advocates and tenants feared the bill would not make it out of committee or be voted down before the full City Council. But more rational heads prevailed and Speaker Quinn flexed her muscle by a show of unanimous support. Mayor Bloomberg is expected to sign it into law.
9 Responses to “Victory for Tenants as Harassment Bill Passes”
February 29th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
The law is an example of political pandering.
It is unconstitutional.
So, assuming for the moment, the Mayor signs it — which he likely won’t — the courts would likely strike it down.
February 29th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Care to elaborate on why its “unconstitutional?” Because the city’s housing agency supports the bill, Mayor Bloomberg is widely expected to sign the bill into law.
February 29th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
This bill, although better than a landlord backed alternative, still does not address the reality that a landlord guilty of a possible lethal harassment (e.g. heat deprivation causing a death by freezing or by electrical heater or oven started fire) can only be fined a pittance. Ms. Quinn, in fact a develop- er favorite, had no choice other than to support this bill. I would imagine that she would also bravely support a (theoretical)resolution that would oppose making Donald Trump’s birthday a national holiday. Quinn wants to be mayor. Tenants are best off supporting (now long shot but rising in the polls) mayoral candidate City Councilman Tony Avella (D.-Queens), one of the strong-est tenants rights advocates in the Council. Tom Weiss, Publisher - UP FRONT News
March 1st, 2008 at 5:03 am
I’m in favor of this bill. Although, as pointed out above, if a landlord’s harrassment causes the death of a tenant , the landlord should go to jail, not just be fined.
My landlord has brought a suit against me—-unjustly—-to try to get me out so he can collect more rent. The stress of the threat of losing my home of decades , coupled with the financial burden of the lawyers’ bills, is seriously affecting my health. I’m a senior citizen.
How is the landlord held resonsible for the very real negative impact on tenants of THEIR frivoulous actions?
March 1st, 2008 at 5:15 am
For starters, if a landlord commits a criminal act (i.e. kills a tenant, or is found to be criminally negligent), then the penal code kicks in. Weiss misses this nuance of the law - civil penalties vs. criminal acts. The harassment bill is for all the tenants who are harassed, but not killed. That’s a lot of friggin’ tenants. This means the vast majority of tenants who are not victims of a crime, but violations of the civil code (i.e. repeated violations of the Building and Maintenance Code, RPL [Real Property Law] and the rent laws).
Lola - this bill, if enacted prior to your case could have been a DEFENSE. The landlord says you owe money or begins a holdover proceeding. You say, bullshit, this is about economics - the landlord is harassing me out of my apartment. You give evidence that meets the parameters of the harassment bill. You prove harassment. You stay in your apartment and the landlord pays your legal fees and gets a civil fine. Case closed and precedent set.
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Dear Sir / Madam:
Congratulations! I am very glad for your victory, I know you had much opposition on this issue. I am writing to add a twist. Building tenants are not the only people who get harrased by building landlords, I am a shareholder in an illegal Co-op building (according to the AGs office the landlord must give up control of the board after five (5) years, in my particular building the conversion took place in 1982 the landlord refuses to give up control) and controls the purse strings so that the building does not get even the most basic of maintenance unless a judge orders him to do so.
This particular family converted their residential building to a co-op and I quote “…by converting we will abolish the rent stabilized apartments in the building and by making it a co-op corporation we will not have to give a reason for rejecting blacks, hispanics, people with children and people with dogs” because there was a deadline on this conversion he was forced to sell to blacks and hispanics to reach the necessary percentage for the conversion.
However, this not only hindered the rent stabilized people, but it also hindered the blacks and hispanics that were “allowed to purchase shares”.
After the landlord received the money from their banks he refused to make repairs to their apartments plagued with mold and mildew caused by concealed water leaks behind the walls or above their ceiling, because he never wanted them in his building to begin with.
The majority simply walked away from their apartments because they were fed up by living under those dangerous conditions. The apartment reverted back to the bank and then he refused to allow anyone to buy these apartments because after selling them for close to $200,000.00 he was buying them back from the bank for $ 7,000.00 and starting over with the scam.
The second twist to this story he allows caucasians to sell to blacks and hispanics because he doesn’t want the caucasians to lose on their investment and then he starts the above procedure to take over the apartment. He won’t allow blacks or hispanics to sell, the matter is blatant discrimination. He allows caucasians to rent once they move on to greener pastures. However, he will block and refuse to allow blacks or hispanics to rent their apartments, again putting them in a financial vice grip and they eventually walk away. Again he follows his above scam and buys the apartments from the bank.
For those of us who decide to fight back he retaliates and sends the building employees who he uses as his “bully efforcers” to intimidate and harass tenants or shareholders by force and violence to get them out.
For those of us who have called the police on this harassment the police just tell you it is not our problem, take it to tenant /landlord court even when there has been physical force they won’t make an arrest, am I missing something?
My interest is in expanding and broading your victory bill to include harassment to shareholders, can this be done?
Sincerely,
Mr. Shareholder
P.s. I found that over 65% of the co-ops are in litigation for landlord or board of director improprieties.
March 4th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Proposed Int. No. 627-A
By Council Members Garodnick, Mark-Viverito, The Speaker (Council Member Quinn), James, Comrie, Mendez, Jackson, Lappin, Gerson, Palma, Liu, Brewer, Yassky, Dickens, Recchia Jr., Gioia, DeBlasio, Eugene, Addabbo Jr., Gentile, Gonzalez, Koppell, Monserrate, Sanders Jr., Sears, Stewart, Martinez, Arroyo, Foster, Vann, Baez, Mealy, Avella, Barron, White Jr., Gennaro and The Public Advocate (Ms. Gotbaum).
A Local Law
To amend the administrative code of the city of New York in relation to the duty of an owner to refrain from harassment of tenants and remedies for the breach of such duty.
Be it enacted by the Council as follows:
Section 1. Subdivision a of section 27-2004 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended by adding a new paragraph 48 to read as follows:
48. Except where otherwise provided, the term “harassment” shall mean any act or omission by or on behalf of an owner that (i) causes or is intended to cause any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of a dwelling unit to vacate such dwelling unit or to surrender or waive any rights in relation to such occupancy, and (ii) includes one or more of the following:
a. using force against, or making express or implied threats that force will be used against, any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling unit;
b. repeated interruptions or discontinuances of essential services, or an interruption or discontinuance of an essential service for an extended duration or of such significance as to substantially impair the habitability of such dwelling unit;
c. failing to comply with the provisions of subdivision c of section 27-2140 of this chapter;
d. commencing repeated baseless or frivolous court proceedings against any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling unit;
e. removing the possessions of any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling unit;
f. removing the door at the entrance to an occupied dwelling unit; removing, plugging or otherwise rendering the lock on such entrance door inoperable; or changing the lock on such entrance door without supplying a key to the new lock to the persons lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling unit; or
g. other repeated acts or omissions of such significance as to substantially interfere with or disturb the comfort, repose, peace or quiet of any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling unit and that cause or are intended to cause any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of a dwelling unit to vacate such dwelling unit or to surrender or waive any rights in relation to such occupancy.
§2. Section 27-2005 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended by adding a new subdivision d to read as follows:
d. The owner of a dwelling shall not harass any tenants or persons lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling as set forth in paragraph 48 of subdivision a of section 27-2004 of this chapter.
§3. Subdivision h of section 27-2115 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended by numbering the existing section as paragraph 1 and by adding a new paragraph 2 to read as follows:
(h)(1) Should the department fail to issue a notice of violation upon the request of a tenant or group of tenants within thirty days of the date of such request, or if there is a notice of violation outstanding respecting the premises in which the tenant or group of tenants resides, or, if there is a claim of harassment pursuant to subdivision d of section 27-2005 of this chapter, the tenant or any group of tenants, may individually or jointly apply to the housing part for an order directing the owner and the department to appear before the court. Such order shall be issued at the discretion of the court for good cause shown, and shall be served as the court may direct. If the court finds a condition constituting a violation exists, it shall direct the owner to correct the violation and, upon failure to do so within the time set for certifying the correction of such violation pursuant to subdivision (c) of this section, it shall impose a penalty in accordance with subdivision (a) of this section. Nothing in this section shall preclude any person from seeking relief pursuant to any other applicable provision of law.
(2) (i) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph one of this subdivision, where one or more allegations of harassment pursuant to subparagraphs b, c and g of paragraph 48 of subdivision a of section 27-2004 of this chapter is made, to the extent that any such allegation is based on physical conditions of a dwelling or dwelling unit, such allegation must be based at least in part on one or more violations of record issued by the department or any other agency. Where any allegation of harassment is based on more than one physical condition, the existence of at least one violation of record with respect to any such physical condition shall be deemed sufficient to meet the requirements of this paragraph.
(ii) The provisions of subparagraph i of this paragraph shall apply to any counterclaim or defense presented by a tenant in any proceeding in the housing part of the civil court if such counterclaim or defense is based on one or more allegations of harassment. In the event there is no violation of record with respect to at least one physical condition alleged by such tenant such counterclaim or defense shall be dismissed without prejudice.
§4. Section 27-2115 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended by adding new subdivisions m and n to read as follows:
(m) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a violation of subdivision d of section 27-2005 of this code shall be a class c immediately hazardous violation and a penalty shall be imposed in accordance with this section, provided, however, that such violation shall not be deemed a continuing class c violation of record beyond the time that the conduct constituting such violation occurred.
(2) If a court of competent jurisdiction finds that conduct in violation of subdivision d of section 27-2005 of this chapter has occurred, it may determine that a class c violation existed at the time that such conduct occurred. Notwithstanding the foregoing, such court may also issue an order restraining the owner of the property from violating such subdivision and direct the owner to ensure that no further violation occurs, in accordance with section 27-2121 of this chapter. Such court shall impose a civil penalty in an amount not less than one thousand dollars and not more than five thousand dollars for each dwelling unit in which a tenant or any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such unit has been the subject of such violation, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate. It shall be an affirmative defense to an allegation by a tenant of the kind described in subparagraphs b, c and g of paragraph forty-eight of subdivision a of section 27-2004 of this chapter that (i) such condition or service interruption was not intended to cause any lawful occupant to vacate a dwelling unit or waive or surrender any rights in relation to such occupancy, and (ii) the owner acted in good faith in a reasonable manner to promptly correct such condition or service interruption, including providing notice to all affected lawful occupants of such efforts, where appropriate.
(3) An owner may seek an order by the court enjoining a tenant from initiating any further judicial proceedings against such owner pursuant to this section claiming harassment without prior leave of the court if (i) within a ten-year period such tenant has initiated two judicial proceedings pursuant to this section against such owner claiming harassment that have been dismissed on the merits and (ii) a third or subsequent proceeding initiated by such tenant against such owner pursuant to this section claiming harassment during such ten-year period is determined at the time of its adjudication to be frivolous. Except for an order on consent such order may be sought by such owner simultaneously with the adjudication of such third or subsequent judicial proceeding.
(4) Where the court determines that a claim of harassment by a tenant against an owner is so lacking in merit as to be frivolous, the court may award attorneys fees to such owner in an amount to be determined by the court.
(5) Nothing in paragraphs three or four of this subdivision shall be construed to affect or limit any other claims or rights of the parties.
n. The provisions of subdivision d of section 27-2005 of this chapter, subdivision m of this section and subdivision b of section 27-2120 of this chapter shall not apply where a shareholder of record on a proprietary lease for a dwelling unit, the owner of record of a dwelling unit owned as a condominium, or those lawfully entitled to reside with such shareholder or record owner, resides in the dwelling unit for which the proprietary lease authorizes residency or in such condominium unit, as is applicable, or to private dwellings.
§5. Section 27-2120 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended by renumbering the first paragraph as subdivision a, and adding a new subdivision b to read as follows:
a. The department may institute an action in a court of competent jurisdiction for an order requiring the owner of property or other responsible person to abate or correct any violation of this code, or to comply with an order or notice of the department, or for such other relief as may be appropriate to secure continuing compliance with this code. An action for injunctive relief hereunder may be brought in addition to other sanctions and remedies for violations of the code, or may be joined with any action for such other sanctions and remedies except criminal prosecution.
b. Any tenant, or person or group of persons lawfully entitled to occupancy may individually or jointly apply to the housing part of the civil court for an order restraining the owner of the property from engaging in harassment. Except for an order on consent, such order may be granted upon or subsequent to a determination that a violation of subdivision d of section 27-2005 of this chapter has occurred.
§6. If any sentence, paragraph, section or part of this local law shall be adjudged invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction such judgment shall not impair or invalidate the remainder thereof but shall be confined to that part deemed invalid.
§7. This local law shall take effect immediately.
JH/KS
02.27.08 3:42 p.m.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
This bill is extremely important: harassment against tenants is simply unacceptable. Lets hope it becomes law quickly.
February 28th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
This is a good win for tenants and finally gives renters a recourse of action to deal with landlord harassment. For any tenant or group of tenants (Ohebshalom tenants) who tried going to the DHCR to resolve harassment complaints, this new bill is a godsend. The DHCR rarely even gave tenants a hearing to discuss just the merits of a harassment complaint, let alone did the DHCR make any rulings against landlords. The one thing about the DHCR - the punishment for landlords is harsh - apartments become rent control and there are rent freezes for years.