Sale of Eviction Data Causes 'Irreparable Harm,' Says Judge

[elderlytenant]

Haven’t read complete contents of the thread in detail yet.

The ruling maybe absurd on the face, but it is very fair. In the absence of a law forbidding and severely penalizing the use of incomplete and unconcluded eviction data for blacklisting purposes, only courts can dispense justice. And this judge has. May be the title of the article should have been:

Sale of Incomplete and Unconcluded Eviction Data Causes 'Irreparable Harm,' Says Judge

[TenantNet]

There's no absudity here and it follows well-settled law. The people who are reacting are doing only that: reacting. They aren't analyzing and they are unfortunately repeating a lie (that the LL is prevented from going into court).

What happened was that the court said the landlord can't forum shop ... that they can't go rushing to another court while the matter is still pending in this court. Of course when the matter is not pending in Supreme Court, they are not enjoined from commencing a proceeding in Housing Court.

In that manner, it's about as non-absurd and rational decision as you will find. In order to get injunctive relief, the petitioner (here, the tenant) must show irreparable harm absent the granting of the relief and likelyhood of success on the merits. The tenant did both.

More over, this decision follows similar relief granted in the Enonomakis case granted by Judge Feinman (that case was overturned, but for other reasons).

BTW, there was one additional post which I deleted and it was not from those who had already posted comments. (that poster is now on suspension).

I hope to be posting the decision later, along with some supplemental materials.

Another angle (and thanks to the person who suggested it) ... the decision provides essentially the same relief that commercial tenants have enjoyed for years with Yellowstone injunctions; nobody ever complains that landlords are precluded from accessing civil court when commercial tenants get Yellowstone injunctions. And there's a lot more at stake here when a person's home is involved.

And finally, the idea of preventing forum shopping is not new. For example, complaining about a landlord reducing a required service is within the jurisdiction of DHCR. You can't go to the courts for that (unless on appeal from a DHCR decision). If you want to start a case on a required service in Supreme or Civil Court, the LL would be correct to move for dismissal or lack of jurisdiction.

[super tenant]

Tenant Net is absolutly correct!

Shame on the others!

We all know that LL's look at Housing Court. And, in the case stated wherein a tenant withholds rent for repairs, gets a HUGE abatement, the "judgment" is for the LL. Furthermore, the entire case is not revealed, just that there was a "judgment" for the LL.

A similar thing happened to me and I entered a "settlement." Unfortunately, it was reported with 24 hours (by the courts) to the credit rating bureaus as a "judgment." Fortunately, I disputed it and two of three credit bureaus have deleted it from my report. I have always had excellent credit and great relationships with past landlords. To think I might be "blacklisted" was appalling to say the least.

Anyway, I believe Tenant Net is absolutely correct. I also am happy to hear there are reasonable judges out there

I understand frustrations with bad tenants and access to records. But, as I understand it, court records are public records and reveal the ENTIRE case. For a screening company to reveal ONLY if a tenant has been in Housing Court is an crazy! These agencies should be illegal! If a LL wants information, he/she should have to go through court records and be presented with the entire case -- not just a summary.

On behalf of all good tenants, Go Tenant Net!

[TenantNet]

Note: this is the decision in Weisent v. Subaqua. Note - it is not a final decision in the case on the merits. This is an OCR from a scanned copy of the decision and it's possible some errors might have crept in during the text recognition.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 12
-------------------------------------X
DAWN WEISENT,
Plaintiff,

-against -

SUBAQUA CORP.,
Defendent

DECISION/ORDER
Index No. 102108/07
Motion Seq. No. 001

-------------------------------------X
Barbara J. Kapnick, J.:

In this action, plaintiff Dawn Weisent seeks a judgment declaring that she is entitled to succeed to the rent stabilized tenancy of her deceased life partner, Raft Cooper, at 334 West 17th Street, Apt. 5E, New York, New York, because she is a "nontraditional remaining family member" within the meaning of Rent Stabilization Code
§ 2523.5 (b)(1)

In the alternative, plaintiff alleges that she is entitled to a lease in her own name because she signed at least three renewal leases as the co-tenant of Raft Cooper (i.e., in 1994, 1998 and 1999) and said renewals were accepted by the defendant-landlord Subaqua Corp.

Plaintiff now moves by Order to Show Cause for a preliminary injunction barring the defendant from commencing a summary eviction proceeding against her in the New York City Housing Court during the pendency of this action.

Although plaintiff does not diapute that the Housing Court is the preferred forum for resolving landlord-tenant disputes (see Post v. 120 West End Ave, Corp., 62 N.Y.2d 19 [1984], plaintiff arguea that she will suffer irreparable harm if defendant is permitted to proceed againat her in the Housing Court as a result of a routine, but little known practice by the Office of Court Administration ("OCA") .

For some reaaon, it appears that OCA sells Housing Court eviction case data electronically to companies known as "tenant screening bureaus" ("TSB")[FN#1] who, in turn, use thia data to prepare tenant screening reports which they then sell to other companies and to prospective landlords.

In White, et ano. v. First American Registry, Inc., 2007 WL 703926 (S.D.N.Y.), a class action brought against the nation's largest TSB, District Court Judge Lewis A. Kaplan observed that risk averse landlords are all too willing to use such 'consumer reports' as a 'blacklist', "refusing to rent to anyone whose name appears on it regardless of whether the existence of a litigation history in fact evidences characteristics that would make one an undesirable tenant."

The TSBs "have seized upon the ready and cheap availability of electronic recorda to create and market a product that can be, and probably is, used to victimize blameless individuals." Id. "The problem is compounded by the fact that the information available" from the Housing Court "is sketchy in the best of cases and inaccurate and incomplete in the worst." Id.; see also, Note, Tenant Screening Thirty Years Later: A Statutory Pxoposal to Protect Public Records, 116 Yale L.J. 1344 (April 2007).

Thus, regardless of whether or not a tenant prevails in the Housing Court, his or her name may appear on the 'blacklist', making "the finding of a rental apartment potentially very difficult if not impossible", particularly for a tenant of relatively modest means (Pultz v. Economakis, 8 Misc. 3d 1022 [A], *7 [Sup. Ct. , N.Y. Co. 20051 [Feinman, J.] , citinq DeCastro v. Bhokari, 201 A.D.2d 382 [lst Dep't 19941 ; see also, Pence v. Saq Freshpond, LLC, Supreme Court, Queens Co., Index No. 15421/06, September 13, 2006 [Agate, J.]) .

Therefore, based on the papers submitted and the oral argument held on the record on March 14, 2007, this Court finds that plaintiff has demonstrated she will suffer irreparable harm if the injunctive relief sought is not granted.[FN#2]

This Court further finds that plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and that the balance of equities lies in her favor. See, W.T. Grant Co . v, Srogi, 52 N.Y.2d 496 (1981).

Accordingly, the Order to Show Cause is granted, and defendant is hereby enjoined during the pendency of this action from commencing a summary eviction proceeding against the plaintiff in the Housing Court, on condition that plaintiff pay use and occupancy for the premises at the last rent stabilized amount of $523.38 per month, commencing on August 1, 2007 and continuing pendente lite without prejudice to either party.

Pursuant to the terms of the parties' Stipulation Extending Time to Answer, dated May 15, 2007, defendant shall serve an Answer within 20 days of service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.

Counsel shall appear for a preliminary conference in IA Part 12, 60 Centre Street, Room 341 on August 29, 2007 at, 9:30 a.m. This constitutes the decision and order of this Court.

D a t e : July 5, 2007
Barbara D. Kapnick J.S.C.

Footnotes

1 OCA does not provide court records to TSBs regarding cases pending in the Supreme Court.

2 Defendant argues that plaintiff’s request is moot because she was already named as a party to two prior proceedings and thus her name presumably already appears on the ‘blacklist’. However, it appears that the record of one case which dealt with a commercial premises, rather than a residential one, was or will be expunged pursuant to the terms of the settlement in the federal class action (White v. First American Registry. Inc., supra). In addition, it appears that plaintiff’s name does not appear on the ‘blacklist’ as a result of the other proceeding because she was sued therein as an undertenant and OCA electronically transfers to the TSBs the names of the primary tenants only.

[TenantNet]

And for those who can't get enough, here is the transcript of the oral arguments of the two attorneys in front of the court:

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK : CIVIL TERM : PART 12
---------------------------------------------------X
DAWN WEISENT,
Plaintiff,

-against-

SUBAQUA, CORP.,
Defendant

---------------------------------------------------X

MOTION 60 Centre Street
Index # 102108/07 New York, New York
March 14, 2007

B E F O R E :
HONORABLE BARBARA R. KAPNICK,
Justice

A P P E A R A N C E S :

FISHMAN & NEIL, LLP
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
305 Broadway
New York, New York 10007
BY: JAMES B. FISHMAN, ESQ.
212 897-5840

BLEKIN, BURDEN, WENIG & GOLDMAN, LLP
Attorneys for the Defendant
270 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10016
BY: EDWARD BAER, ESQ.

MARK L. BOWIN
Official Court Reporter


THE COURT: On the record.

You were here previously to argue the temporary restraining order, and I signed the order to show cause on February 21st, and it included a TRO enjoining the defendant from commencing a summary eviction proceeding against the plaintiff in Housing Court based upon the allegations of the notice to quit pending a hearing of this application.

Mr. Fishman went through a whole long thing about how, if tenants are named in Civil Court in any kind of action, then they get blacklisted.

I personally never heard of that, not being in the Civil Court. Apparently -- I have checked that out and apparently that seems to be done, which is a sad commentary. I'll leave it at that.

However, I don't control anything; certainly not that.

Mr. Baer says just because there was at least one other Housing Court, maybe two Housing Court proceedings that were commenced or were discontinued; Mr. Baer says just by the fact of having commenced that proceeding with the plaintiff named as the respondent there, she's already blacklisted.

If that's the case, what do you need to keep her here for? I know there's more, but that was the essence.

It's your motion. What do you want to add?

MR. FISHMAN: I'd like to respond to the movant's claim, which was obviously raised the first time in the opposition papers.

Before I do, I want to introduce my law student, Jennifer Addonizio.

One, with respect to the claim which was raised in the opposition papers, counsel refers to two cases.

As I've set forth in the reply, I assume you got this. We delivered this yesterday to chambers. I have an additional copy for you here.

THE COURT: I haven't gotten a reply.

MR. FISHMAN: We submitted a courtesy copy to the part yesterday.

MR. BAER: There was no provision for that. As far as I know, a reply shouldn't be accepted. I just received one yesterday late in the day.

THE COURT: I've gone through this, and you probably heard this the last time you were here --

MR. BAER: We did.

THE COURT: Mr. Baer, why don't you let me speak. You're the last motion on a short motion day. It's springtime out; please. There's heat here like it's zero degrees outside. Just take a break; take a step back.

The Rules of the Supreme Court of New York County specifically say that if there is no provision in an order to show cause for a reply, then no reply is really permitted, or to be served. That's what it says.

If you make an application for a reply and explain why -- which, of course, is always to oppose the opposition -- the Court will consider it.

George always gives me everything that's given to him. I didn't get it. I was in my chambers till nine o'clock last night. I didn't see it. My staff was up there; so I don't get where it went to. I don't know where it went to; I didn't read it.

It's an important issue. I will take it.

You're not entitled to a surreply.

You got it today?

MR. BAER: Yesterday. Late yesterday.

THE COURT: I'm sure, Mr. Baer, you had an opportunity to read it, and I will take it. Okay.

MR. FISHMAN: Thank you, Judge.

THE COURT: You have to make these applications because there are rules. Of course, no lawyer follows them because why would you follow anything that the Court says? Who cares about the Court. You just want to do what you --

MR. FISHMAN: Judge, it was my understanding from last time that because -- you specifically ordered the opposition to be served last week was so that we could reply prior to today, which we did.

THE COURT: That was incorrect. It was so maybe people would get them in somewhere near on time and I could read them.

Be that as it may, sir, I'm aware of the fact that one of these cases was reversed, but on a totally different ground.

MR. FISHMAN: Yes.

THE COURT: So it's irrelevant.

MR. FISHMAN: You're talking about the Pultz case, I understand. It was reversed recently in the Appellate Division, but not on the issue that we cited it for, which is the preliminary injunction granted by Justice Feinman based upon the exact grounds that we've asserted here.

That decision was based upon the DeCastro case in the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division's decision overturning Justice Soto's decision in the Pultz case has nothing to do with the blacklisting issue at all.

THE COURT: I understand that. I read that.

MR. FISHMAN: With respect to the mootness issue, though, counsel points to two prior cases which he says moots my client's claim that she is already blacklisted.

Well, just this morning I received a stipulation from the attorney for the landlord in one of those cases, 443 Greenwich against Weisent, acknowledging that that case was brought in error and consenting to the deletion of that case from any tenants' screening bureau database.

THE COURT: Are you telling me she was sued relating to a different building or an owner of this building?

MR. FISHMAN: My client's an artist. She rented studio space in a commercial building. It wasn't a Housing Court case. It was a non-Housing Court landlord-tenant case heard in Part 52. She had surrendered possession before they sued her. They acknowledge that in this stipulation.

This one will be expunged. This will not cause the plaintiff to be blacklisted.

I'd like to hand up this stipulation for the record, which I just received this morning.

THE COURT: Did you give a copy to Mr. Baer?

MR. FISHMAN: Yes.

The other case that counsel refers to is a case that was brought by Mr. Baer called Subaqua Corp. versus the Public Administrator, who was named as the respondent, because the tenant was deceased and he didn't leave a will so the Public Administrator was named.

My client was only named as an undertenant in that case and undertenants don't get picked up in this blacklist; only respondents do. Had she been sued as a respondent or heard she would be sued as a respondent, I would have brought this application last December; but I knew I didn't have to because of my knowledge of this process; undertenants don't get blacklisted, only the initial tenant, because there's no formatting in the computer fields for undertenants.

That's confirmed in our reply papers.

We did a search on the Web site of a tenant's screening bureau, something called Eviction Records Dot Com, and it shows no record for Dawn Weisent. So that case isn't blacklisting.

The bottom line, Judge, it's not moot. There is nothing, other than the case that Subaqua intends to bring, that will cause my client to be blacklisted.

THE COURT: It would seem to me, since you've been such a fighter in, you know, in this area of blacklisting, the knowledge that it exists has been around; why don't you bring some kind of class action or something, rather than taking every Civil Court action and bringing it to Supreme Court?

MR. FISHMAN: That's actually what I did do, Judge. I started three years ago with a class action called White versus First American Registry.

Attached as Exhibit G to the reply papers is the decision that Judge Kaplan issued in the Southern District just last week approving the settlement of that class action, which was against one of the largest tenants' screening bureaus in the country. It's called First American Registry, now known as First Advantage Saferent. They are the biggest tenant screening bureau in the country.

We sued them in a class action in the Southern District for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act based upon the claim that the reports they were issuing were incomplete, inaccurate and misleading. They weren't reporting the outcome of these cases; they weren't giving any of the details. The were simply saying: "Case filed" or "dismissed," without explaining what happened.

For example, in a nonpayment case, if a tenant owed $10,000 in rent, had horrible condition, withheld the rent and got a 90 percent rent abatement, it would say, "Judgment $1,000." It wouldn't say any of the conditions why the rent was withheld.

THE COURT: What about bringing something before OCA as to the fact they sell these lists and if they didn't do that, we would never get to the problem. I'm just wondering if you've ever gone to OCA and --

MR. FISHMAN: I've had meetings with Ron Younkins of OCA. People have had meetings with Judge Pfau. I understand there are meetings with the newly-elected President of the New York State Bar Association who called me this morning. I'm calling up Judge Pfau because this is outrageous.

OCA has the power to change this. However, I've been searching for three years now or more for a cause of action and I haven't found one. I've asked across the board, not only judges and lawyers, colleagues I know around the country; but other than a 1983 action for an Article 78 of some sort, I'm not aware even if those would be the appropriate vehicle to challenge this.

The method, I think, that is going to be successful, if any, is political. And that is if there are members of the Legislature who are very upset about this who have met with people from OCA, including Judge Pfau, who expressed displeasure.

If that's the solution, that's fine; I won't need a lawsuit. But in the meantime, until that happens, people like Dawn Weisent will be harmed.

I would ask your Honor to take a look at Judge Kaplan's order approving the settlement where he talks about these kinds of harm. He was very upset with the practices that are going on, which he attributed not just to the tenant screening bureau defendant but also to the Housing Court for enabling this process. That's in page 2 of Judge Kaplan's order, which is Exhibit Q to the reply.

So your Honor is absolutely right; this is a huge problem, but I don't think -- and counsel suggests that what we're doing here is we're going to open up a floodgate. I don't see that happening.

This has been something that has gradually come to the surface in the last few years. This is not the kind of thing that everybody has the ability to do or the interest in doing.

My client is particularly upset about the possibility that she could be rendered homeless as a result of the landlord's claim that they want to evict her, saying that she doesn't have a valid succession claim.

If they bring a Housing Court case and Housing Court cases -- as counsel well knows -- and I'm sure the Court knows -- can go on for quite a while. While it's pending, it will be reported to all these screening bureaus as a pending holdover case without a disposition. So even if she were to win, that wouldn't happen till way down the road and she can't rent an apartment.

THE COURT: Can't somebody let them know that she's brought a lawsuit against her landlord in Supreme Court; that it can go on for a while?

MR. FISHMAN: These records are not sold by OCA, certainly not in the form Housing Court records are sold. Supreme Court records are available in the clerk's office or on the computer, but they're not sold. These records are sold to people all over the country who never set foot in New York City Housing Court who have no idea of volume or kinds of cases. Even things like rent stabilization are completely foreign to people in the Midwest and California who simply say: "You're a bad tenant because you were sued;" because in most of the country, you don't have rent regulations.

THE COURT: Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

THE COURT: On the record.

MR. FISHMAN: There are even tenant screening bureaus out there -- there's one called Bad Tenants Dot Com. There's one called Eviction Records Dot Com, even though only about 10 percent or less of all of the eviction cases that are brought even result in eviction, yet everybody is accused of having been evicted. That's the harm.

THE COURT: I get the point.

Anything else?

MR. FISHMAN: Counsel has attempted to attack our likelihood of success claim on the merits by bringing in affidavits from two of my client's neighbors who are shareholders in this co-op.

Neither one of them -- and they say they haven't seen the plaintiff around, basically. Neither one of them says that they're ever even inside the apartment.

How can they say with any certainty at all that she doesn't live there? That's a fact issue which has to be heard either by a court or jury.

By this stage, it doesn't diminish her likelihood of success on the merits claim. Even if it did, the defendant does not address at all, in fact completely ignores our second argument for the tenancy here, which is that she signed three leases. There are three leases in the file that she signed with Mr. Cooper while he was alive which give her tenancy rights.

Those leases were accepted by the landlord on three separate occasions, and under the Rent Stabilization Code, the landlord is not allowed to change the terms and conditions of a subsequent lease.

If a subsequent lease didn't have her name on it, that's not the plaintiff's problem; that's the landlord's problem.

So even if she fails completely on her succession claim, she has a right to this apartment as a tenant. As I said, that was not even addressed in the opposition papers.

THE COURT: Okay. Why don't we let Mr. Baer speak. Mr. Baer.

MR. BAER: Your Honor, I'm not here to defend screening bureaus. I don't represent OCA. I don't represent the courthouse, Judge Fisher; I don't represent any of those people.

I represent an owner of an apartment who is entitled to an expeditious determination of their claim that Miss Weisent does not have any right to be in this apartment. That is a Housing Law case.

This is not a case and it is not alleged that we're doing anything wrong; that we're trying to blacklist her. That's not being said. It's not said that we claim that she owes a debt that she doesn't owe and we're trying to blacken her record. We didn't do any of those things. All right.

She is in an apartment to which we do not believe she has any entitlement. She's a licensee whose license expired, and we'd like to litigate our claim in the forum that the Legislature and Appellate Division decided can hear this dispute.

The Appellate Division, that counsel for the plaintiff relies upon, says: If you have a case where complete relief cannot be obtained in the Housing Court, then you can go to Supreme Court.

Judge, you and I know that that's always been the law. This is a licensee case with a succession claim as a defense, and with this lease signing thing also.

Well, if she's a tenant, then our case will get dismissed. If she's a successor, our case will get dismissed.

But this client -- this landlord has done nothing wrong. And whether or not plaintiff gets blacklisted is not our issue.

Why should we have to litigate our garden variety succession case in this Court? It changes everything.

THE COURT: Oh, you don't like being here?

MR. BAER: I love it, Judge. For me, it would be great. I could just hear the cash registers running and running and running if we had every case in this court and not in that court for full-fledged discovery and compliance orders, all that stuff, you know; I could do all that.

THE COURT: I hear both of you, and you're not arguing something that I don't know.

MR. BAER: I know you know all this.

THE COURT: I've read these cases. We've all made these decisions.

There is something Mr. Fishman's raised that I found -- and I know, Mr. Baer, your client didn't do it and you didn't do it; it was very disturbing to me.

I made a phone call to someone to see if that could possibly be right. Not that I thought he came in and he told me he spent three years fighting against something that didn't exist; I wasn't suggesting that. But I did speak to Judge Fisher and I was flabbergasted that this is going on; and I was really flabbergasted that OCA's doing this and getting away with this kind of a thing. It's disturbing, and it's very uncomfortable; and I think it could be very bad publicity for the court system if it ever got out.

I'm not doing it. You're not doing it. Judge Fisher herself is not doing it. But there is no dispute that it's being done.

And so the fact that it's the first time I've heard about it in three years suggests to me that everybody is not on the bandwagon. But there are some lawyers -- I understand Mr. Fishman is the leader in this area -- who have some clients who are really, really concerned about this issue and have brought that to him.

That's what I said; you're trying to turn us into a civil court, like we have nothing to do and they should all move here. That's not what we're trying to do.

I'd be more than happy to have it litigated across the street because I don't need this case, and there's no reason on legal terms that it has to come here. But there is almost, like, a public policy issue that I find horribly offensive that this is happening to tenants.

And she may not be entitled to the apartment; you may be right on the merits. But it's not a hundred percent clear to me; otherwise we would never litigate cases. And I have the ability -- it's hard sometimes -- to force lawyers to move very quickly on cases.

Don't say no. Well, you know what -- Mr. Baer, you know, you just told me that your firm will be very successful in defending their client because you'll make a lot of money, but I'm not trying to make you money. I'm sure your firm does fine enough. You don't need me or this client to deal with it.

But I am very concerned, and I mean you could both keep arguing, but you're arguing -- I get your point; I get your point. And I know the cases and I know what they say, and I know that while we have jurisdiction, it's suggested that it goes there.

But it does not say that the judge never can exercise any discretion in any particular case and keep it here.

And if you had sat here for the past 15 years every time I had a motion that said: Well, you could send it to Civil Court, even if it's a DJ action, I said: Really, it's not a DJ action; just use the words different so you can get here; there's no reason. But no one ever brought this fact to my attention and, personally, I am concerned.

So I will review your papers. I didn't read the reply. I will review it. I will review the case, as you said, and I will issue a decision.

In the meantime, the TRO is continued until I issue the decision; and I will read it. But I understand both your points. I don't really see --

What else are you going to tell me? Do I get the point? I get the point. So let me read it over again, and I will issue a decision.

We will notify both of you. But the TRO remains in effect.

Thank you very much.

* * *

Certified to be a true and accurate
transcript of my stenographic notes

________________________
MARK L. BOWIN
Official Court Reporter

[cestmoi123]

Thanks for posting the text here, as well as the oral argument. It seems to me that, if the plaintiff wants to force the landlord to litigate in the Supreme Court (which is presumably slower and more expensive than Housing Court) in order to avoid the risk of being blacklisted even if she wins the case, then plaintiff should be willing to put up a bond for both the increased legal costs that the landlord faces and the difference between the current rent ($523, wow!) and what the landlord could get if she lost the case, over whatever the relative delay here is. If she's chosen this venue (for very valid reasons), she should be willing to cover the incremental costs that she's imposing on the defendant, should she not prevail (although it looks like she likely will prevail).

Then again, I believe that our legal system should feature loser pays, so maybe I'm still thinking like a libertarian.

[TenantNet]

This is getting more ridiculous and officially annoying. Why are you botherng with this nonsense? You're somehow mixing up some notion of fairness (twisted as it seems) with legal procedure and precedents. And I can guarantee that the LL is not hurting from legal fees. More likely, it's a burden for the tenant.

First, legal fees pursuant to a lease with a legal fees provision go to the prevailing party, after a hearing. Generally the "American System" is that each party pays its legal expenses unless stated otherwise in a lease or contract.

If the LL didn't want to litigate, he would give the tenant a succession lease and there would be no court case.

If the LL had gone to housing court and won, then the tenant would likely be liable for the LL's legal fees. That's the way it works.

The reason the tenant chose Supreme Court is that she's seeking a declaratory ruling, which is not available in Housing Court.

[dirae]

Chimera wrote:

Economakis has nothing to do with the "irreparable harm" of being placed on a black list. May I ask why you are referring me to it?

From Judge Feinman's decision in the Economakis case:

Furthermore, plaintiffs demonstrate sufficient irreparable injury if the injunction is denied and summary proceedings are commenced in Housing Court. Plaintiffs argue that there are now various credit agencies whose primary business is to report to landlord subscribers, the names of all tenants who have appeared in the computer indices of Housing Court, no matter whether they were the petitioner or respondent, and without regard to whether they were successful in their proceedings. This "blacklist" potentially makes the finding of a rental apartment potentially very difficult if not impossible (Ord. to Show Cause, Ex. J [articles]; see also, DeCastro v Bhokari, 201 AD2d 382 [1st Dept. 1994] [noting the irreparable damage that would ensue were negative information released to credit reporting agencies]). As plaintiffs are tenants of relatively modest means, the possibility of winding up on a blacklist should they ultimately lose, would be devastating

Even tenants who have won their cases are affected should they decide to move, anywhere, at a later date. The only information furnished is that the tenant has been in Housing Court, setting up a no-win situation. Most landlords aren't going to be interested in the details, they'll toss the application in the trash and move on to the next one.