Housing Court in New York City is failing renters and housing providers. It’s time for something better.
So far this year there have been a little more than 106,000 court cases filed in New York City. Perhaps most surprising is that almost 90% of these court filings are not seeking eviction; 89,000 of those cases were an attempt to collect rent after months of nonpayment.
Housing Court was created to provide an efficient way to resolve disputes between renters and housing providers. Nonpayment cases are typically filed after two months of missed rental payments. Practically speaking, it seems reasonable to expect a nonpayment case to be resolved within a few months.
But often the first court date available is several months away. Adjournments are freely given after that, and if a trial is necessary, add another year. That costs thousands of dollars in lawyer fees for the city, the state, renters, legal nonprofits, and for housing providers.
At the end of this long and costly process, tenants end up accumulating more rent arrears then they had when the process started. In some instances, the accumulated arrears make it harder for them to get assistance from the government, which would have been available to them at the start of the process. It makes little sense.
We believe there is a better way to deal with nonpayment of rent.
Our organization, the Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP), is proposing a new pathway forward. Borrowing from ideas already implemented in Philadelphia, Maryland, Indiana, Hawaii and New Jersey, we are proposing the creation of an eviction diversion program.
Both the housing provider and the renter would have to agree to this new voluntary program. If a tenant falls a few months behind on rent, the housing provider would serve them a standard rent demand notice, which would be accompanied by a document detailing the option for the tenant to enter into mediation with an independent counselor.
The counselor would be a certified financial planner, CPA, or licensed attorney randomly selected by the city. Ideally, the cost for this alternative route would be far less than the legal fees and other expenses associated with going to Housing Court.
Under our proposal, the tenant would have 14 days to decide if they wanted to enter into this alternative program. If they do opt in, the tenant would have to provide documentation and consult with their counselor within 30 days from the initial notice.
The independent counselor would certify the amount of rent arrears, the tenant’s ability to pay those arrears, and whether they qualify for government rental assistance, such as a “one-shot deal” to cover arrears or a fast-tracked pathway to get voucher assistance for the tenant.
If the mediator determines that the tenant is not eligible for government assistance, or if the tenant or housing provider wants to opt out of this option for any reason, then the case would proceed to Housing Court like any other non-payment proceeding.
If implemented correctly, we believe an eviction diversion program would provide hard working New York renters with targeted relief and spare them the indignity of having to make multiple trips to Housing Court and the anxiety of having their housing issues unresolved for years. This would allow more time for the court to adjudicate other disputes, like a tenant seeking repairs in a building, or a housing provider trying to remove a renter who is making violent threats to other tenants.
Another advantage of a well-run diversion program would be better quality housing. Massive rent arrears put older buildings at risk of deterioration. An internal CHIP survey estimated that 93,500 rent-stabilized renters are more than three months behind on rent and have accumulated $1.25 billion in arrears. That is money that could be used for maintenance, repairs, and mandatory energy efficiency upgrades.
It’s also important to note that most nonpayment cases do not end up with tenants being displaced, which is a good thing. Physical evictions are always a last resort for housing providers and can have devastating financial impacts on the renters involved. But enduring a long court process also takes its toll on renters, forcing them to miss work, or losing out on time with their family.
Keeping renters in quality apartments shouldn’t be controversial. A diversion program would get housing providers and renters the help they need faster, keep them out of Housing Court, and improve the quality of housing. It’s time for New York to implement smarter solutions, based on the success other states have seen, for the benefit of both renters and their housing providers.
Martin is executive director of the Community Housing Improvement Program.
A better way than Housing Court: N.Y. should try using an eviction diversion program
6
1
25.11.2023
Housing Court in New York City is failing renters and housing providers. It’s time for something better.
So far this year there have been a little more than 106,000 court cases filed in New York City. Perhaps most surprising is that almost 90% of these court filings are not seeking eviction; 89,000 of those cases were an attempt to collect rent after months of nonpayment.
Housing Court was created to provide an efficient way to resolve disputes between renters and housing providers. Nonpayment cases are typically filed after two months of missed rental payments. Practically speaking, it seems reasonable to expect a nonpayment case to be resolved within a few months.
But often the first court date available is several months away. Adjournments are freely given after that, and if a trial is necessary, add another year. That costs thousands of dollars in lawyer fees for the city, the state, renters, legal nonprofits, and for housing providers.
At the end of this long and costly process, tenants end up accumulating more rent arrears then they had when the process started. In some instances, the accumulated arrears make it harder for them to get assistance from the government, which........
© NY Daily News
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
