Firm's Failure to File Papers Frustrates Bid for Back Rent

, New York Law Journal

   |0 Comments

A Manhattan landlord may have lost the chance to collect more than two years of back rent because its counsel failed to file a timely nonpayment proceeding against the tenant when instructed.

Housing Court Judge Arlene Hahn (See Profile) ruled on Jan. 14 in 383 Realty Corp. v. Young, 89487/11, that the suit was barred by the doctrine of laches because the landlord did not actually commence a proceeding until three and a half years after the tenant, Lisa Young, stopped paying her $1,200 per month rent.

The landlord, 383 Realty Corp., said that it believed that its longtime counsel, Pennisi Daniels & Norelli, had filed a proceeding against Young. (The firm is now called Daniels Norelli Scully & Cecere.)

In fact, Ephraim Bulow, 383 Realty's general counsel, said in an interview no such case had been filed. A paralegal at the firm who handled routine nonpayment cases told 383 Realty that a case had been filed and was moving forward, though with many delays. Eventually the paralegal claimed that 383 Realty had won a judgment against Young, but that it could not be enforced because Young had filed bankruptcy, and faxed Bulow a copy of the bankruptcy filing.

When Bulow looked up the case number in PACER, he found a different case, and it became clear to him that the paralegal had taken the filing from that case and pasted Young's name onto it.

Bulow then notified Fred Daniels, the partner who supervised the paralegal. When Daniels discovered that the paralegal had faked the case, he fired her and paid the rent that had accrued while the fake case was supposedly pending himself.

"He was really a stand-up guy in my view," Bulow said of Daniels, noting that the paralegal had been at the firm for 12 years and Daniels had no reason to distrust her. "I couldn't think of a more ethical way of handling it than what he did."

Daniels declined to comment.

383 Realty then hired Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., which finally did sue Young for nonpayment in November 2011. Because Daniels' payment was not actually a payment of rent, 383 Realty still sought the full accrued back rent from Young. Young asserted a defense of laches, arguing that the landlord had waited too long to file the suit.

Hahn's decision did not disclose the name of the Daniels firm, which was determined by the Law Journal using other sources.

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202641023719

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.