4
FEATURE STORY
Good Cause Eviction A Summary and Analysis Alexander Lycoyannis Member
R&E EXCLUSIVE FEATURE STORY by Alexander Lycoyannis January 31, 2022
The New York State Legislature is currently considering the “Good Cause Eviction” bill (GCE), a sweeping proposal that would apply to virtually all free-market housing accommodations in New York State except for (1) apartments already subject to rent regulation, and (2) owner-occupied buildings with fewer than four units (together with other very narrow exceptions). The bill would create, in effect, nearly universal rent control, and would essentially eliminate free-market residential apartments and fixed-term leases in New York State. GCE provides that unless an owner establishes one of several specified grounds for removal, “[n] o landlord shall remove a tenant from any housing accommodation, or attempt such removal or exclusion from possession, notwithstanding that the tenant has no written lease or that the lease or other rental agreement has expired or otherwise terminated. . .” In other words, the default position in any landlordtenant dispute would be that unless the owner can affirmatively establish “good cause” to evict -- with lease expiration not constituting good cause -- the tenant would be entitled to remain in possession forever. And, even where “good cause” appears to exist, the bill’s language ensures that the resulting litigation to recover possession would be timeconsuming and expensive -- especially in light of the fact that recent legislation affords many New York City
tenants the right to counsel in eviction proceedings (with similar legislation being considered at the state level). For example, the nonpayment of rent is a “good cause” to seek eviction. On its face, the concept is simple and straightforward enough. However, this basis is modified by the requirement that the unpaid rent not be the result of an “unreasonable” rent increase. What, exactly, is an “unreasonable” rent increase? The bill’s language is silent. The bill declares that a rent increase above 3% or 150% of CPI, whichever is greater, is presumptively unreasonable, but notably does not provide that a rent increase below those amounts is presumptively reasonable. Thus, the bill permits a tenant to challenge even a 1% or 2% rent increase (or less) as “unreasonable,” which would, in turn, force the owner to spend time and resources justifying any such increase before it could hope to obtain a judgment for the rent owed. And if the rent increase is greater than 3% or 150% of CPI, the owner would bear a heavy burden to overcome the presumption of unreasonableness. Moreover, even if the owner successfully runs the “unreasonableness” gauntlet, the tenant remains free to challenge any rent increase as having been imposed “for the purpose of circumventing the intent
