While precision and exactitude should be the goal in landlord-tenant proceedings, the reality is that mistakes happen. (In fact, if you really think about, the latter tend to abound.)
More often than not, judges will forgive inconsequential errors or omissions made by litigants or their counsel and will usually allow court papers to be amended to correct errors or deficiencies. Many correctly believe there is little point to elevating form over substance, particularly if a case can be started anew days or weeks later.*
Yet, if certain members of the New York State Assembly have their way, the flexibility courts have to allow amendments may be constrained considerably, particularly when it comes to nonpayment cases. (But first, allow us to give you a little context.)
Under existing caselaw, a demand of the rent need only cite an "approximate good faith sum." Exactitude is usually not required.**
However, a proposed bill (A5120) would bring any malleability to an end. Here's what the law would provide:
FALSE NON-PAYMENT OF RENT CLAIMS. IF THE COURT FINDS THAT THE AMOUNT REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER IS GREATER THAN THE AMOUNT DUE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH A PREVIOUS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT CONCERNING RENT PAYMENTS, THE COURT SHALL FINE THE PETITIONER ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND DISMISS THE PROCEEDINGS.
We believe that the language of this law is completely unworkable and will foster needless expense and delay that would be harmful to both landlords and tenants.
What is a "false" nonpayment claim? (Beats us! The term is not defined.)
Will the law encompass only "intentional" misrepresentations as to the sums sought to be recovered? (It does not currently provide that carve-out.)
And, pray tell, how does one go about proving a landlord intentionally sought to collect monies it knowingly believed it wasn't entitled to? (We think it is highly unlikely that landlords will ever concede, in open court or in a sworn affidavit, that cases were brought to collect sums that they did not think were due or payable.)
What of miscalculations or innocent errors? If a litigant's rent demand is off by a nickel, does that trigger the statute's penalties and "poison" an entire case?
And, what of any balance rightfully due to the landlord? Should a monetary penalty be imposed and an entire case dismissed, simply because a landlord sought a nickel more than what s/he was ultimately entitled to collect?
Obviously, A5120 is an unworkable piece of legislation. We are hopeful that rational minds will prevail and that the bill never sees the light of day.
To download the entire text of the proposed legislation, please use the following link: http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A05120&sh=t
----------------------------
* Without some demonstrable prejudice, we do not see how public policy or judicial economy is furthered by denying litigants the opportunity to have disputes heard on the merits. Cases should not "won" or "lost" on the basis of some typo or other ministerial error.
** See, e.g., Kerman Equities v. Swett, N.Y.L.J., 2/7/96, p. 29, col. 1 (App.Term, 2nd and 11th Judicial Districts) ("A three-day notice demanding payment of rent must inform the tenant of the particular period for which rent is due and the approximate sum of rent owed for that period ....").