Non-Residential Tenant Harassment Law Makes 'Self-Help' Eviction Even Riskier for NYC Commercial Landlords
Jesse B. Schneider of Davis & Gilbert writes: If attorneys were already hesitant to advise commercial landlord clients to exercise peaceable self-help, legislation enacted Sept. 26, 2016 by New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio may have just ended any lasting uncertainly. But courts are still struggling with how and when to enforce the new statute.
July 24, 2017 at 12:36 PM
5 minute read
While recognized under New York's common law and found in most, if not all, commercial leases, the peaceable “self-help” eviction remedy allowing landlords to re-enter the premises upon either (1) a default in payment of rent or (2) abandonment of the premises is seldom utilized. This stems from the court's long-standing reluctance to allow a landlord to evict a tenant before adjudication of a tenant's rights. Moreover, landlords that wrongfully eject commercial tenants “by force” are subject to statutes that provide for treble damages. See §853 of the New York State Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (the RPAPL). As a result, attorneys are reluctant to advise their commercial landlord clients to exercise self-help eviction remedies even when available by contract. This is typically sound advice unless it is absolutely clear that a tenant has abandoned its space with no intent on ever returning.
Harassment Statute
If attorneys were already hesitant to advise commercial landlord clients to exercise peaceable self-help, legislation enacted Sept. 26, 2016 by New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio may have just ended any lasting uncertainly. A new statute, entitled the “Non-Residential Tenant Harassment” Law (codified as Chapter 9 to Title 22 of the New York City Administrative Code) now prohibits commercial landlords from engaging in what is referred to as “commercial tenant harassment.” What does that mean, you ask? Good question. Courts do not know yet either and are still struggling with how and when to enforce the new statute.
Commercial tenant harassment is defined as any act or omission that: (1) is intended to cause a commercial tenant to vacate property, or to waive any rights under a lease, and (2) includes one or more of the following:
• Using force against or making express or implied threats that force will be used against a tenant;
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUS Supreme Court Justices Pass on Landlord Challenge to NY Rent Stabilization
2 minute readEstablishing the Prevailing Party; Failure To Comply With LLC Law; Takings Claim: This Week in Scott Mollen's Realty Law Digest
Landlord Retaliation; Good Cause Eviction Law; Brokerage Commissions: This Week in Scott Mollen's Realty Law Digest
Decision of the Day: Landlord Cannot Serve Eviction Warrant on 13-Year-Old
Trending Stories
- 1NY High Court Returns Fired Priest's Discrimination Claim to State Agency
- 2Digging Deep to Mitigate Risk in Lithium Mine Venture Wins GM Legal Department of the Year Award
- 3Reminder: Court Rules and Statutes Apply to Pendente Lite Custody Decisions
- 4Consumer Cleared to Proceed With Claims Against CVS 'Non-Drowsy' Medication, Judge Says
- 5Ex-Schnader Partner Nears Settlement in Misappropriated Comp Class Action
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250