Additional protections in Housing Court are being enforced in order to aid self-represented parties. When opposing parties come to an agreement during a proceeding, they sign a Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation"), which is a binding agreement, so it is the judge's responsibility to ensure that the parties understand the Stipulation. 

Bill A3320A relates to stipulations in summary proceedings to recover possession of real property. Moving forward, a stipulation will not be approved by the court unless the court first verifies the following:

• All parties have been accurately and appropriately named;
• The authority of the signatory if a named party is not present;
• The unrepresented party understands he may try the case if he does not agree with the stipulation;
• An opposing party's attorney did not inappropriately give advice to the unrepresented party;
• Whether or not the unrepresented party agrees or contests any allegations in the petition or predicate notices;
• The unrepresented party understands the claims and defenses available to him and what his options may be in light of the claims and defenses, and, that the claims and defenses are adequately addressed in the stipulation;
• The unrepresented party agrees to the terms in the stipulation;
• The unrepresented party understands the consequences of either party's non-compliance with the stipulation; and
• An appropriate rent breakdown is included, if applicable. 

There has been a long standing dispute in the courts as to whether a family member can be evicted in an eviction proceeding (a/k/a, summary proceeding) or whether a protracted case was required in Supreme Court (a/k/a, ejectment proceeding). 

A summary proceeding is considered to be a "simple, expeditious and inexpensive means of regaining possession" of your property. Yes, it can take many months and thousands of dollars, but in contrast to an ejectment proceeding, that is fast and cheap. You can expect an ejectment proceeding to take years and to spend tens of thousands of dollars.

As you can see, whether a family member can be evicted in a traditional eviction proceeding is a big issue that can change the cost / benefit analysis of proceeding with the eviction proceeding in the first place. 

The answer to this long standing dispute was just provided by the appellate courts in Aloni v. Oliver when the courts ruled that a family member or romantic partner can be evicted just like everyone else in a traditional summary proceeding. 

The only exception to this general rule is that you cannot evict your spouse in a summary proceeding and must resort to an ejectment proceeding, unless there is an existing court decree to the contrary.

Are you ready to evict your family members who are taking advantage of you? 

Evicting a tenant – especially a residential tenant – in New York is a slow, cumbersome and extremely tenant-favorable process, especially when compared to analogous procedures in other states.

Governor Cuomo did nothing to impede the commencement of holdover proceedings… Nor does EO 202.28 suspend[] the landlords’ right to initiate a common law breach of contract action in the New York State Supreme Court to redress a tenant’s failure to perform its payment obligations under his or her lease.

Tenants will continue to accrue arrearages, which the landlord will be able to collect with interest once the Order has expired.

One who chooses to engage in a publicly regulated business… by so doing surrenders his right to unfettered discretion as to how to conduct same.

The expected costs of foreseeable future regulation are already presumed to be priced into the contracts formed under the prior regulation

New York landlords do not enjoy a constitutional right to realize a profit from their rental properties – let alone all the profits contemplated in each of their individual rental agreements.

If the tenant uses the security deposit to pay a month’s rent, and the tenancy ends before the deposit is fully replenished, the landlord can obtain a judgment for the amount expended in repairs.

To secure an eviction warrant from the housing courts, a New York landlord must serve the tenant a notice of nonreceipt of payment, and give the tenant one final chance to pay by making a demand of payment within 14 days. If the landlord is still owed payment after two weeks have passed, he may commence what is known as a summary proceeding by filing a petition in the civil court, returnable by the tenant within 10 days. If the tenant does not respond in ten days, the court may (but rarely does) issue an eviction warrant immediately. However, if the tenant does respond, however, a trial is set for eight days hence. The trial may be adjourned up to ten additional days if the parties so require in order to produce their witnesses. If, after trial, a judgment is entered for the landlord and the court issues a warrant for eviction, the Sheriff must give the tenant 14 days’ notice in writing prior to execution. There are the usual provisions for appeal and stays issue routinely so that non-defaulting tenants are not evicted before their cases are fully reviewed. But even if the evidence supports a judgment for the landlord, the housing court is not required to order the tenant’s immediate eviction. A tenant may obtain a stay of the issuance of the warrant for up to one year by showing that ‘it would occasion extreme hardship to the tenant or the tenant’s family if the stay were not granted’. Such stays are far from uncommon.