Rent Deposit Law Is Constitutional

December 1, 1998

LVT Number: 12822

Tenants sued the State of New York, seeking a declaration that the Rent Deposit Law, RPAPL sections 745(2) and 747-a, was unconstitutional. The court ruled against tenants. Except for the law's provision requiring an immediate trial if a tenant doesn't make subsequent payments after an initial rent deposit, none of the provisions of the 1997 law were unconstitutional on their face. It was possible, however, that valid challenges could be made to the law as applied in particular cases.

Tenants sued the State of New York, seeking a declaration that the Rent Deposit Law, RPAPL sections 745(2) and 747-a, was unconstitutional. The court ruled against tenants. Except for the law's provision requiring an immediate trial if a tenant doesn't make subsequent payments after an initial rent deposit, none of the provisions of the 1997 law were unconstitutional on their face. It was possible, however, that valid challenges could be made to the law as applied in particular cases. The court noted that at this point, over a year after the 1997 Rent Deposit Law went into effect, no specific cases involving the constitutionality of the application of the law had been decided by any courts.

Lang v. Pataki: NYLJ, P. 28, col. 3 (11/25/98) (Sup. Ct. NY; Lehner, J)

Topics

More like this