Rent Demand Signed by Attorney

Landlord cooperative corporation sued to evict several tenants for nonpayment of rent. Tenants asked the court to dismiss the cases, claiming that landlord's rent demand notices violated the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Landlord claimed that even if the notice violated the FDCPA, tenants weren't entitled to raise the issue in the nonpayment proceedings. The court ruled for tenants and dismissed the cases. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the FDCPA applied to attorneys involved in litigation to collect a debt. Since landlord's attorney, rather than landlord, had signed the three-day rent demand notices to tenants, these notices were ''communications'' under the federal law. The rent demand notices signed by the attorney therefore should have advised tenant-debtors that the sender was attempting to collect a debt and that any information gotten from tenant would be used for that purpose. The rent demand also should have given tenant 30 days to dispute the debt in writing. Since landlord's notices violated the federal law, it couldn't go forward with nonpayment cases based on the improper notices.

684 E. 189th St. HDFC v. Cotrone: NYLJ, p. 22, col. 6 (9/16/98) (Civ. Ct. Bronx; Schneider, J)