Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Notre Dame Leasing, LLC v. Rosario, 2 N.Y. 459 (2004)

Citation
Notre Dame Leasing, LLC v. Rosario, 2 N.Y. 459 (2004)
Parent Document
Notre Dame Leasing, LLC v. Rosario, 2 N.Y. 459 (2004)
Jurisdiction
New York (state)
Effective Date
2004-05-11

Other Sections in This Document (40)

Full Text

1,347 chars
The tenant’s interpretation of section 143-b (5) not only conflicts with the complex statutory scheme but also ignores the Spiegel Law’s history and purpose. According to amicus Legal Aid Society, at the time the Spiegel Law was enacted, public welfare department payments covered a tenant’s entire rent. In *466promulgating Social Services Law § 143-b the Legislature intended to end the State’s “subsidizing slumlords who abuse and exploit welfare tenants, but nevertheless receive guaranteed monthly rent checks . . . from the Dept, of Welfare” (Letter to Honorable Robert MacCrate from Assemblyman Samuel A. Spiegel, dated Apr. 6, 1962, Bill Jacket, L 1962, ch 997, at 61). In the words of section 143-b’s sponsor, the Legislature sought to “attack[ ] the ‘jugular vein’ of the slumlord by temporarily withholding payments of rent until hazardous and dangerous violations are cleared” {id. at 62).2 Elsewhere, Assemblyman Spiegel explained that, under the proposed law, “it would be a good defense in any action for non-payment of rent that there are dangerous or hazardous violations on a building and that public funds should not be permitted to be used to further the continuance of any building which is substandard” (Statement by Assemblyman Samuel A. Spiegel, dated Mar. 31, 1962, Bill Jacket, L 1962, ch 997, at 58-59 [emphasis added]).