|
As counsel to the
Queens League of United Tenants, a tenant attorney and tenant advocate,
I am writing to request a modification of CPLR 213(a). CPLR 213(a) is
the four-year rule which allows the landlord to destroy records after
four years from initial registration.
The reason for this
statute of limitations was to alleviate the landlord’s burden of
recordkeeping.
But how can it be a
burden on the landlord when the records are kept in the custody of the
New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR)? (These
records go back to April 1, 1984).
It is absurd to
impose a four-year rule on records that have been generated by the
landlord and filed with the DHCR. Why shouldn’t these records be made
available to use against the landlord if they can be used as admissions
against interest in a fraud action brought by a tenant against a
landlord? Why should this statute of limitations be used, as it is
today, as a rule barring evidence of this nature?
The impetus for
this modification has been the recent opinion of Thornton v. Barron
, 5 N.Y.3d 175 (2005) which has opened the door to actual fraud actions
by tenants and in such actions records on file at DHCR as to original
registrations will be vital evidence in demonstrating fraud.
Here also your
committee should note that a fraud action has a six-year statute of
limitations (CPLR 213). Also there is a separate further discovery
provision of two years from discovery [CPLR 203(g)].
Today it is an open
secret that fraud is rampant. Within the scope of this modest
modification which I am requesting, your committee could provide an
opportunity to bring effective reality back to the judicial forum.
I thank you for
your kind attention and consideration.
Respectfully yours,
Robert A. Katz
|
