Tenants Can't Stop Enforcement of Rent Deposit Law

Facts: Tenants and tenant organizations sued the New York State and the New York City Housing Court, claiming that the rent deposit provisions of the Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1997 put tenants at risk of wrongful eviction and were unconstitutional. They claimed the rent deposit laws denied tenants due process and equal protection under the law. Tenants asked the court to permit a class action on behalf of all tenants and to bar enforcement of the law while their case was pending. Court: The court ruled against tenants on their request to treat the case as a class-action suit and an injunction against enforcement of the rent deposit law while the case was pending. The court found that most of the rent deposit law provisions were constitutional. But the court ruled that the portion of the rent deposit law that requires the housing courts to schedule an immediate trial at landlord's request if tenant who has made an initial rent deposit didn't make a subsequent rent deposit was unconstitutional. The court said that the law, as written, improperly deprived the court of the authority to delay a case under any circumstances. The court also found that the portion of the rent deposit law that states that if tenant doesn't make a rent deposit within five days after a judgment in landlord's favor, the court can't delay the issuance or execution of an eviction warrant may be unconstitutional under some circumstances, such as when a tenant is ill or a landlord improperly claims an agreement was violated.

Lang v. Pataki: NYLJ, p. 30, col. 6 (4/2/98) (Sup. Ct. NY; Lehner, J)