Because New York is such a "great mosaic," you can expect to encounter people from all walks of life with varying degrees of proficiency with the "mother tongue."
Each and every day, attorneys are in litigation with tenants who lack fluency in English. If a summary proceeding, like a nonpayment or holdover proceeding, is started against such a tenant, must the pleadings be translated as an accommodation to the recipient (in order to avoid challenges to the service effort or to the proceeding's maintenance)?
According to a Judge of the New York County Civil Court, that question can be answered with a resounding no.
In 240 West 37 LLC v. Star NY Fashion, Inc. , the commercial tenant allegedly violated the lease's insurance coverage requirements. In an interesting fall-back position, the tenant's counsel challenged the court's jurisdiction on the grounds that the individual who had received the notice of petition and petition (on behalf of the corporate tenant) was not fluent in English and "did not know what was handed to her."
Here's how the Judge disposed of that argument:
Certain types of notices, and pleadings in consumer collection cases require pleadings to be in English and Spanish [N.Y.C.C.A. § 401 [d]. The Respondent does not cite any law or rule that has the same requirement for Chinese, whether in a plenary or summary proceeding. I have found no such law or rule. As noted in a case from Illinois, discussing the matter of NUEZ V. DIAZ, 101 Misc2d 399, 421 NYS2d 770, "There is a relative dearth of published opinions defining the contours of "suitable discretion," but it is clear that the amount of discretion necessary to satisfy the rule is rather low." [FLOWERS v. KLATICK, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 2005814 (N.D.Ill.)] The Respondent has elected to do business in the City of New York, where English is the predominate language. The petition was signed on October 9, 2007, the answer is dated October 18, evincing an almost spontaneous response. Under such circumstances, the Respondent cannot be said to have prejudiced.
As to the dispute's merits, since the court was of the opinion that the tenant had failed to secure the required amount of liability coverage (only $1Mill rather $2Mill was provided to the landlord), and no timely cure of that default was effected, summary judgment was awarded in the owner's favor.
Of course, the decision suggests that the outcome "might" have been different had the tenant failed to respond to the pleadings. Interesting, no?
(By the way, the tenant should expect the Notice of Eviction to be in English.)
To view a copy of the Civil Court's decision, please use this link: 240 West 37 LLC v. Star NY Fashion, Inc.