At one time or another, all of us have paid our rent or maintenance late. While these lapses typically result in the imposition of a late fee when that charge is authorized by the lease and is reasonable in nature, tardiness -- when repetitive and unjustifiable -- can result in a tenancy's termination.
Commonly known as a "chronic non-pay" or, more aptly, a "chronic rent delinquency holdover proceeding," this kind of summary proceeding is usually filed when a tenant has demonstrated a prolonged pattern of late rent payments.
Courts have considerable latitude in structuring a resolution of these kinds of cases (particularly when the forfeiture of a long-term regulated tenancy is at issue), and can direct that the tenant be given a probationary period within which the tenant would be required to remit the rent on a timely basis or suffer an eviction. Before granting this relief, courts will weigh such factors as the:
- length of the tenancy;
- rent-payment history;
- circumstances and severity of the rent defaults; and
- tenant's financial status and other indicia of credit-worthiness.*
When a court determines that imposing a probationary period would be futile, or, when a tenant violates the conditions of such an arrangement, the tenant's eviction is an inevitable reality.
By way of example, in 1675 Realty LLC v. Castillo, the landlord was compelled to file six nonpayment proceedings against its tenant over the course of 38 months. And, in each instance, the tenant presented no bona fide basis for its default. As a result, the Appellate Term, First Department, concluded that in the absence of any justification for the tenant's conduct, relief was appropriately awarded in the landlord's favor and the tenant evicted from the subject residential space.
In yet another case, 255 E. 10th St., LLC v. Durante, the tenant repeatedly failed to remit timely rent payments, even during the course of the probationary period that had been imposed by the court. Faced with the tenant's noncompliance, the Appellate Term, First Department, concluded that "a stay of execution of the warrant of eviction was unwarranted."
Finally, in Riverton Assoc. v. Garland, the landlord's filing of nine nonpayment proceedings over the course of decade -- and the absence of any bona fide defenses to those rent-collection cases -- triggered a tenant's removal from a Manhattan apartment.
Wouldn't it have been easier to pay the rent?
For a copy of the Appellate Term's decision in 1675 Realty LLC v. Castillo, please click on the following link:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2005/2005_50683.htm
For a copy of the Appellate Term's decision in 255 E. 10th St., LLC v. Durante, please click on the following link:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_51888.htm
For a copy of the Appellate Term's decision in Riverton Assoc. v. Garland, please click on the following link:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_51982.htm
----------------
*326-330 East 35th Street Assoc. v. Sofizade, 191 Misc2d 329 (Appellate Term, 1st Dept, 2002)