•  
  •  
 
Brooklyn Law Review

Grace Vetromile

Abstract

This note explores how landlords use housing court as a debt collection tool, impacting the rights of tenants and their ability to fairly adjudicate claims in summary eviction proceedings. Disparities in the number of evictions that are filed, as compared to evictions that are ultimately executed, indicate that landlords do not always use eviction proceedings to kick out a tenant, but rather as a method of debt collection. Using these proceedings in this manner affects a tenant’s ability to defend against eviction, even when the tenant has meritorious claims that their landlord did not provide a habitable apartment. This note argues that landlords are able to co-opt these eviction proceedings to use the court to obtain rental debt, which exacerbates the already asymmetrical power dynamic between the landlord and tenant. To solve this problem, this note proposes several solutions. First, it argues that because landlords use eviction proceedings as debt collection tools, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act should apply. Second, it proposes a procedural requirement that landlords maintain a habitable apartment as a prerequisite to filing for eviction. Third, it suggests that prefiling alternatives to housing court can prevent this form of co-opting by moving rent disputes entirely out of housing court. Finally, in line with existing scholarship, it recognizes that access to counsel is vital. These changes will help alleviate the asymmetrical power dynamic that currently exists in housing court by allowing tenants to more fairly adjudicate claims against their landlord and prevent landlords from using the state as their debt collection tool.

Download

Share

COinS