Tag Archives: nonpayment

Current Issues in Affordable Housing in New York City

Posted on by
Reply

New York City Bar

I will be moderating a panel on Rent Freezes, the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA), and Nonpayment at this in-person New York City Bar program on May 7th. The registration link is here and the full program description is below:

Description:

This program will provide an inside perspective on the future of affordable housing in New York City.  Seasoned practitioners from the private and public sectors will discuss the role of the city, state and federal governments, in conjunction with for-profit developers and not-for-profit organizations, in building and preserving affordable housing. Participants will learn about the statutory, regulatory and business considerations underlying critical topics in affordable housing.

Three expert panels will present on the following:

    • Rent Freezes, the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA), and Nonpayment
    • The Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA)
    • Case Study – Office to Residential Conversions

The detailed agenda for the day follows.

9:00 am – 9:05 am        Introduction & Program Overview

Farhana H. Choudhury, Associate Counsel/Chief of Staff for Legal at NYSHCR

Julia A. Solo, Senior Vice President & Counsel at Federated National Land

9:05 am – 10:05 am       Panel 1: Rent Freezes, the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA), and Nonpayment

This panel will focus on the impacts of the HSTPA that have limited rent increases for things like apartment and major capital improvements, the Mamdani administration’s proposal for an extended rent freeze, and post-pandemic rent collection challenges.

Organizers:

Farhana Hassan Choudhury, Associate Counsel/Chief of Staff for Legal

Andrew M. Darcy, Pro Bono Counsel at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP

Moderator:

David Reiss, Professor, Cornell Law School

Panelists: 

Doug Apple, CEO, 1811 Consulting

Rafael Cestero, CEO, Community Preservation Corporation (CPC)

Tim Collins, Partner, Collins Dobkin & Miller LLP

Rob Ehrlich, Partner, Lazarus Karp Ehrlich McCourt, LLP

Topics will Include

    • Trends in Court
    • Long-Term Sustainability & Expectations Over the Next 5-10 Years
    • Potential Solutions
    • Public Commission

Question & Answer Session Conclusions

10:05 am – 10:15 am    Break

10:15 am – 11:15 am     Panel 2: The Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA)

This panel will discuss the current status of the Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA).  In December 2025, COPA passed the City Council but was vetoed by outgoing Mayor Adams on his last day in office. Mayor Mamdani and new City Council Speaker Menin did not attempt a veto override when the new City Council was seated in January, and the bill which passed City Council in December is effectively dead for the time being, although many advocates and politicians, including Mayor Mamdani, have vowed to continue the fight for COPA. It’s not clear where COPA will stand in May, but this panel will examine the history and advocacy behind COPA, its operation in Washington, DC and San Francisco, and potential constitutional challenges to the law.

Organizers:

Gerrald Ellis, Deputy General Counsel, Paths Development

Alexandra Hohauser, Associate at Nixon Peabody LLP

Moderator:

Gerrald Ellis, Deputy General Counsel, Paths Development

Panelists:

Erica F. Buckley, Partner, Nixon Peabody LLP

Arielle Hersh, Director of Policy and New Projects, UHAB

Topics will Include

    • Overview of COPA, as proposed, in NYC
    • Current status of COPA in NYC
    • Discussion of the main sticking points in even getting COPA passed
    • Discussion of COPA in Washington, DC and San Francisco
    • Potential constitutional challenges

Question & Answer Session  Conclusions

11:15 am – 11:25 am     Break

11:25 am – 12:25 pm     Panel 3: Office to Residential Conversions that include Affordable Housing

This panel will discuss the challenges and benefits to office-to-residential conversions in New York City, including land use considerations, challenges in design, the unique considerations of financing, the 467-m tax incentive and case studies.

Organizers:

Daniel M. Bernstein, Member and Leader of the Tax Incentives and Affordable Housing Department at Rosenberg and Estis, P.C.

Zachary L. Nathanson, Senior Associate Attorney at Adler & Stachenfeld LLP

Moderator:

Daniel M. Bernstein, Member and Leader of the Tax Incentives and Affordable Housing Department at Rosenberg and Estis, P.C.

Panelists: 

John Cetra, FAIA, Co-Founder, CetraRuddy Architecture D.P.C.

Tricia Dietz, Assistant Commissioner for Housing Incentives, NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development

Alexander Tendler, Vice President at Vanbarton Group

Daniel Weisen, Senior Director at Eldridge Capital Management

Topics will Include

    • Land Use Considerations
    • Partial Conversions
    • Design Considerations in the Conversion Process
    • 467-m: Eligibility Considerations
    • 467-m: Applying for Tax Exemption Benefits
    • Lender Considerations
    • Case Studies

Question & Answer Session Conclusions

12:25 pm – 12:30 pm     Closing Remarks

Farhana H. Choudhury, Associate Counsel/Chief of Staff for Legal at NYSHCR

Julia A. Solo, Senior Vice President & Counsel at Federated National Land

Big Eviction Data

Posted on by

photo by Tim Patterson

The Eviction Lab, run by Princeton University Professor Matthew Desmond (of Evicted fame) has recently released its Methodology Report and related resources. The introduction to the report opens,

In recent years, renters’ housing costs have far outpaced their incomes, driving a nationwide affordability crisis. Current data from the American Housing Survey show that most poor renting families spend at least 50 percent of their income on housing costs. Under these conditions, 1 millions of Americans today are at risk of losing their homes through eviction.

An eviction occurs when a landlord forcibly expels a tenant from a residence. While the majority of evictions are attributed to nonpayment of rent, landlords may evict tenants for a variety of other reasons, including property damage, nuisance complaints, or lease violations. A formal eviction occurs when a landlord carries out an eviction through the court system. Conversely, an informal eviction occurs when a landlord executes an eviction without initiating a legal process. For example, a landlord may offer a buyout or perform an illegal lock-out. Until recently, little was known about the prevalence, causes, and consequences of eviction.

The Eviction Lab at Princeton University has collected, cleaned, geocoded, aggregated, and publicized all recorded court-ordered evictions that occurred between 2000 and 2016 in the United States. This data set consists of 82,935,981 million court records related to eviction cases in the United States between 2000 and 2016, gleaned from multiple sources. It is the most comprehensive data set of evictions in America to date.

These data allow us to estimate the national prevalence of court-ordered eviction, and to compare eviction rates among states, counties, cities, and neighborhoods. We can observe eviction trends over time and across geography, and researchers can link these data to other sources of information. (2)

In sum, the Eviction Lab has created “the most comprehensive data set of evictions in America.” (41) This data set is obviously of great importance and will lead to important research about what it means to be poor in the United States. The Eviction Lab website has a user-friendly mapping function among other resources for researchers and policymakers.

What Is Constructive Eviction?

Posted on by

broken-window-960188_1280

Realtor.com quoted me in What Is a Constructive Eviction? A Rental Gone Very, Very Wrong. It opens,

Most renters have certainly heard of eviction—the dreaded process in which a landlord kicks out a tenant for not paying rent or some other major infraction. But what is a constructive eviction?

That’s a whole different ballgame, where a landlord essentially “evicts” a tenant by not fixing an uninhabitable rental. And while “constructive” may sound like a positive word, it’s not. It means the landlord is failing to fulfill his legal duty.

Constructive eviction is rare, but tenants who face this dire scenario should know their rights, and how to fight back.

How Constructive Evictions Work

“A common way landlords attempt to force out tenants would be by failing to provide heat in the winter,” says Brooklyn Law School professor David Reiss. Other ways a landlord could run into constructive eviction territory include turning off the water supply or failing to clean up flaking lead paint or toxic mold.

Constructive evictions are uncommon, because most landlords will usually help tenants with an issue. Or, if they are reluctant at first, they’ll eventually reach a compromise with a tenant through the court system, says Boston attorney Robert Pellegrini.

As such, tenants should attempt to work through any problems with the landlord first. That said, if a property owner won’t budge and the living environment puts a renter in harm’s way, a tenant can pursue a constructive eviction claim.

How To File A Constructive Eviction Claim

Unfortunately, tenants can’t file a constructive eviction claim if their floors creak or if their walls are painted a hideous shade of avocado green.

“More minor conditions like peeling (nonlead) paint, stuck windows, and drafty doors would be weak bases for a claim,” says Reiss.

Pellegrini agrees, adding, “The standards are very high for this, because you’re basically asking the court to conclude that the landlord essentially evicted you when he hasn’t.”

Here are five things a tenant must demonstrate to an attorney to prove a constructive eviction:

  1. Your landlord owed you (the tenant) a duty, such as providing heat in the winter or a residence free from toxic mold.
  2. The landlord neglected the duty.
  3. The apartment became uninhabitable as a result of the neglect.
  4. You gave the landlord notice of the neglect and time to take care of it.
  5. You left the apartment within a reasonable amount of time after the landlord’s failure to fix the issue.

Foreclosures & Credit Card Debt

Posted on by

Credit Cards

Paul S. Calem, Julapa Jagtiani and William W. Lang have posted Foreclosure Delay and Consumer Credit Performance to SSRN. Effectively, it argues that long foreclosure delays may have reduced the credit card default rate because homeowners in default were able to pay down their credit card debt while living for free in their homes. The abstract reads,

The deep housing market recession from 2008 through 2010 was characterized by a steep rise in the number of foreclosures and lengthening foreclosure timelines. The average length of time from the onset of delinquency through the end of the foreclosure process also expanded significantly, averaging up to three years in some states. Most individuals undergoing foreclosure were experiencing serious financial stress. However, the extended foreclosure timelines enabled mortgage defaulters to live in their homes without making mortgage payments until the end of the foreclosure process, thus providing temporary income and liquidity benefits from lower housing costs. This paper investigates the impact of extended foreclosure timelines on borrower performance with credit card debt. Our results indicate that a longer period of nonpayment of mortgage expenses results in higher cure rates on delinquent credit cards and reduced credit card balances. Foreclosure process delays may have mitigated the impact of the economic downturn on credit card default.

The authors conclude,

our findings indicate that households do not consume all the benefits from temporary relief from housing expenses; instead, they use that temporary relief to cure delinquent credit card debt and reduce their credit card balances. Interestingly, we find that payment relief from loan modifications has a similar impact to payment relief from longer foreclosure timelines; both are associated with curing card delinquency and reducing card balances.

These households, however, are likely to become delinquent on their credit cards again within six quarters following the end of the foreclosure process. Thus, the results suggest that there may be added risk for nonmortgage lenders when foreclosures are completed and households must incur the transaction costs of moving and incur significant housing expenses once again. This implies an additional dimension of risk to credit card lenders that has not been observed previously. (23)

I am not sure what to make of these findings for borrowers, regulators, credit card lenders or mortgage lenders. Would a utility-maximizing borrower run up their credit card debt while in foreclosure? Should states seek to change foreclosure timelines to change consumer or lender behavior? Should profit-maximizing credit card lenders seek to further limit borrowing upon a mortgage default?  What should profit-maximizing mortgage lenders do? I have lots of questions but no good answers yet.