Testimony of Donna Chiu, Esq

COMMENTS

2015 RG 041

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF TITLE 19 OF THE RULES OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK: APPLICATIONS AND RENEWAL APPLICATIONS FOR SENIOR CITIZEN OR DISABLED RENT INCREASE EXEMPTIONS

PRESENTED TO:

THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

PRESENTED BY:

MICHAEL GRINTHAL SUPERVISING ATTORNEY MFY LEGAL SERVICES, INC.

SEPTEMBER 21, 2015 ______MFY LEGAL SERVICES, INC., 299 Broadway, New York, NY 10007 212-417-3700 www.mfy.org

I. Introduction

MFY Legal Services, Inc. envisions a society in which no one is denied justice because he or she cannot afford an attorney. To make this vision a reality, for more than 50 years MFY has provided free legal assistance to residents of New York City on over a wide range of civil legal issues, prioritizing services to vulnerable and under-served populations, while simultaneously working to end the root causes of inequities through impact litigation, law reform and policy advocacy. We provide advice and representation to more than 10,000 New Yorkers each year, including more than 3,600 tenants. Each year, MFY serves more than 2,000 New Yorkers who are at least 60 years old. When they turn to MFY for help, older New Yorkers are often facing eviction, foreclosure, other housing-related problems, loss of benefits or inability to access them.

MFY plays a key role in preserving affordable housing options for seniors by preventing evictions, and combating the lack of accessibility and discrimination that older New Yorkers and New Yorkers who have disabilities face on a daily basis. MFY’s recommendations and testimony are based on our experience preserving existing, affordable housing for older New Yorkers and combating rights violations.

II. MFY’s Clients’ Experiences

MFY serves scores of New York City renters who are elderly or disabled and who are facing eviction from their homes because their SCRIE or DRIE has terminated after failure to timely renew. Many of these tenants’ failure to timely renew their benefits occurred because of circumstances beyond their control, yet would not be covered by the narrow exceptions to policy permitted in the proposed rule.

In the past, DOF has exercised its discretion in individually considering every request for an exception to policy. While we support the codification of exceptions in order to clarify and strengthen participants’ rights, our experience shows that the proposed exceptions are too narrow, and will actually make it more difficult for many deserving tenants to keep their SCRIE or DRIE.

Specifically, the proposed rule does not permit exceptions to policy when a tenant has been temporarily absent from home without being hospitalized. Such

2 temporary absences may include nursing home stays, relocations to be cared for by relatives, absences due to work, school, or incarceration, or interruptions caused by litigation with their landlords.

For example, Mr. T, a disabled tenant living on a fixed SSI income, was unable to timely renew his DRIE when he was incarcerated and then improperly evicted by his landlord. Mr. T has lived in the same rent controlled apartment for his entire life. In 2009, he was arrested and incarcerated. In his absence, he was evicted by his landlord. After he was released from incarceration, a Housing Court judge ruled that his eviction was improper and violated his constitutional right to due process because he was not permitted to defend himself in court. The Housing Court ruled that he must be allowed to return to his home. However, aggressive litigation and delaying tactics by his landlord meant that the Court’s order was not fulfilled and Mr. T could not move back into his apartment until nearly two years later. Despite a court ruling that his tenancy was never terminated, Mr. T has been prevented from renewing his DRIE since 2009, and now must apply anew, facing a potential rent increase that may exceed his fixed income.

While Mr. T’s circumstances may seem unusual, tenants’ absence due to incarceration is in fact so common that it is codified in the Rent Stabilization Code as an exception to the primary residence requirement, and New York State law provides that incarceration does not change a person’s place of legal residence. [Statistics showing that disabled people are disproportionately likely to have contact with criminal justice system?] Nevertheless, an incarcerated tenant will be unable to timely return their SCRIE or DRIE renewal to the Department of Finance (DOF), and upon their return home must apply anew as though their apartment had not been their residence all along.

MFY also frequently encounters tenants who must relocate to nursing homes or to a relative’s care for months at time. They are not hospitalized and so would not meet the criteria for “good cause” under proposed paragraph (d)(1), and their conditions are not permanent and so may not meet the definition of “disability” under proposed paragraph (d)(2). Nevertheless, their conditions and physical absence from their homes (and often from the city or state) make it difficult or impossible for them to timely renew their benefits. They are not eligible for an exception to policy under the proposed rule.

Further, the proposed rule does not provide for the consideration of other reasonable grounds on an individual basis. It therefore threatens to remove DOF’s discretion to consider the entirety of participants’ circumstances on a case- by-case basis.

III. Recommendations

3 MFY strongly suggests that, in addition to the exceptions contained in the proposed rule, DOF’s exceptions to policy should include circumstances in which a tenant is unable to timely renew their benefit because of a physical absence stemming from

 active military duty;  incarceration;  enrollment as a full-time student requiring temporary relocation from the housing accommodation;  court order not involving any term or provision of the lease;  employment requiring temporary relocation from the housing accommodation;  medical treatment, including but not limited to hospitalization, temporary residence in a rehabilitation or nursing care facility, or care by a family member or friend at that person’s home; or  other reasonable grounds that shall be determined by the DOF upon application.

These exceptions, which are similar to those contained in the Rent Stabilization Code at 9 NYCRR § 2523.5(b)(2), reflect the City and State’s strong public policy that people should not face loss of their homes due to work, education, health, or criminal justice circumstances. That policy is even more compelling for low-income senior citizens and people with disabilites.

IV. Conclusion

MFY strongly urges DOF to expand the list of codified exceptions to policy as detailed above. A broad list is necessary to allow disabled and elderly tenants to continue to take full advantage of the DRIE and SCRIE programs.