Bill S3169-2013

Makes warrant execution, not issuance, following judgment for petitioner in summary proceeding to recover possession of real property act which annuls relationship

Makes warrant execution (not issuance), following a judgment for the petitioner in summary proceeding to recover possession of real property, the act which cancels the agreement under which the person removed held the premises and annuls the landlord-tenant relationship; provides court not deprived of the power to vacate such warrant at any time (current law provides the court is not deprived of the power to vacate such warrant for good cause shown prior to warrant execution); provides petitioner may recover by action the reasonable value for the use and occupation to the time when the warrant was executed (rather than issued).

Details

Actions

  • Jan 8, 2014: REFERRED TO HOUSING, CONSTRUCTION AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
  • Jan 31, 2013: REFERRED TO HOUSING, CONSTRUCTION AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Memo

BILL NUMBER:S3169

TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the real property actions and proceedings law, in relation to the effect of issuance and execution of an eviction warrant

PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL: To provide tenants with a fair opportunity to satisfy judgments or contest a default before being evicted.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS: Amends Subdivision 3 of Section 749 of the Real Property Actions and proceedings Law to designate the execution of the warrant rather that its issuance as the act that cancels the tenancy agreement. Also gives the court discretion to vacate a warrant.

JUSTIFICATION: Tenants who have defaulted in answering a dispossess e.g., because they were out of town or ill when it was served often face an uphill battle in having the defaulting judgment and warrant vacated. Often their success or failure hinges solely upon the whims of the particular judge before whom they appear or upon whether they have an attorney who can prepare good motion papers and strenuously argue their case. The poor, the illiterate and the elderly often fall prey to the draconian effects of the statute since they are least knowledgeable concerning the law and being ill-equipped to articulately show that there is good cause to vacate the warrant. New York City Housing Authority v.Torres, 61 AD. 2d 681 (1978). By amending the statute to clearly confer upon the court jurisdiction in all cases until a warrant is executed, the bill would prevent many unnecessary evictions and hardships suffered by any tenants. Judges would still have the discretion as to whether to vacate the warrant on any particular case. Most important, tenants would have an opportunity to have their day in court in which they could explain why they should not be evicted - rather than be told by judges that the court has lost all jurisdiction be cause the court had issued a warrant of eviction.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None

EFFECTIVE DATE: This act shall take effect immediately, and shall apply to all causes of action on or after such date.


Text

STATE OF NEW YORK ________________________________________________________________________ 3169 2013-2014 Regular Sessions IN SENATE January 31, 2013 ___________
Introduced by Sen. KRUEGER -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Housing, Construction and Community Development AN ACT to amend the real property actions and proceedings law, in relation to the effect of issuance and execution of an eviction warrant THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM- BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Subdivision 3 of section 749 of the real property actions and proceedings law, as amended by chapter 192 of the laws of 1975, is amended to read as follows: 3. The [issuing] EXECUTION of a warrant for the removal of a tenant cancels the agreement under which the person removed held the premises, and annuls the relation of landlord and tenant[, but nothing contained herein shall deprive the court of the power to vacate such warrant for good cause shown prior to the execution thereof]. HOWEVER, THIS SUBDIVI- SION DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE COURT OF THE POWER TO VACATE SUCH WARRANT AT ANY TIME. Petitioner may recover by action any sum of money which was payable at the time when the special proceeding was commenced and the reasonable value of the use and occupation to the time when the warrant was [issued] EXECUTED, for any period of time with respect to which the agreement does not make any provision for payment of rent. S 2. This act shall take effect immediately and shall apply to all causes of action occurring on or after such date.

Comments

Open Legislation comments facilitate discussion of New York State legislation. All comments are subject to moderation. Comments deemed off-topic, commercial, campaign-related, self-promotional; or that contain profanity or hate speech; or that link to sites outside of the nysenate.gov domain are not permitted, and will not be published. Comment moderation is generally performed Monday through Friday.

By contributing or voting you agree to the Terms of Participation and verify you are over 13.

Discuss!

blog comments powered by Disqus