Comments
burnshimself t1_itl7l1s wrote
Yep. You can’t afford to live in New York and pay down law school debt if you are making $85k working for legal aid. What you’re left with is people who truly feel a compelling draw to the job (which many do!) and the financial means to take it on (usually financial support from family or spouse), and the dumbest attorneys incapable of getting a job paying any better.
Ice_Like_Winnipeg t1_itlhnxc wrote
A lot of those people are expecting to qualify for pslf, but it’s still a tough ask to commit yourself to ten years of really emotionally difficult work
IsayNigel t1_itmywkc wrote
The DOE has entered the chat
OverlordXenu t1_itm74xw wrote
i have two friends working for the public defenders of a specific boro, and they make like $74k. a friend of mine just moved to boston and was telling me the public service jobs there are $60-80k. it's bleak.
also the public defenders in nyc don't have enough budget to hire all the lawyers they need. the money literally isn't there.
soyeahiknow t1_itnzgkb wrote
Also you encounter the professional tenant freeloader and then you wonder why the hell you are getting paid peanuts to help someone game the system
[deleted] t1_itlh99w wrote
[deleted]
mastermind_loco t1_itli1uk wrote
Yes, PLSF is a really great program with no flaws or issues at all. /s
sagenumen t1_itlnml7 wrote
What's your point?
KaiDaiz t1_itlphar wrote
Most ppl on PLSF end up not getting remaining balance forgiven after 10 yrs due to wrong loan, wrong payment plan, job not qualify, etc...and govt at whim can cancel program at anytime. Look at the number of actual loans forgiven by PLSF each year...its minuscular.
Also PLSF at best save you from paying the interest on the loan and some of the principle that you already would have paid off a good amount even on the income based payments for a lot of work and hopefulness it works successfully vs. get a high paying job in private law practice that pays off loan in a few yrs
[deleted] t1_itlw96b wrote
[deleted]
TheGhostofJoeGibbs t1_itmlqaj wrote
The reason there's a PSLF waiver right now is because of how hard it has been to qualify to get paid out.
[deleted] t1_itlvrih wrote
[deleted]
Daddy_Macron t1_itm1ib7 wrote
Look at the PLSF rates during the last Republican President. They hate the program and find every reason possible to deny applicants their rightful forgiveness money. You're playing a dangerous game that it'll be a Democratic President in the White House when it's your turn.
[deleted] t1_itmqsi5 wrote
[deleted]
Daddy_Macron t1_itmry1x wrote
> I mean, there are set rules to follow and if you follow them, they can’t deny you.
Lol. Ok. Do you think 98.5% of people were fucking up their applications or was the Republican Administration looking for the nitpickiest of reasons to deny people. Considering how many people applying for them were lawyers, I doubt it was due to sloppiness.
>The earliest time in which borrowers could receive forgiveness under the program was after October 1, 2017. The Department of Education reported that 2,215 borrowers had the remainder of their respective student loans forgiven under the program as of April 30, 2020 for a denial rate of 98.5%
[deleted] t1_itnu0g0 wrote
[deleted]
LikesBallsDeep t1_itlwnep wrote
PSLF is mostly a scam. GF was a doctor that was promised PSLF for working at a hospital with underprivileged patients. 9 years into it they kicked her out for 'making too much money' one year.
grizybaer t1_itm2cw3 wrote
Lots of doctors in my circles making 300k+ and qualifying for PSLF. Income has nothing to do it with it.
LikesBallsDeep t1_itmggr5 wrote
This was several years ago. Rules changed recently to be a lot more lenient because only 7000 people had managed to get relief previously.
Maybe she was incorrectly kicked off and could have fought it.
But by that point she was so sick of paying federal loans at the insane rate when she could refinance to private at 2% interest that she just did that.
Yeah, under the new guidelines and knowing student loan forgiveness was coming, maybe thing should have been different. In 2019, she just got slapped in the face that after working toward this for almost a decade and accruing interest at the high Federal rate she wasn't going to get it and just gave up.
[deleted] t1_itlx2ih wrote
[deleted]
LikesBallsDeep t1_itlxppv wrote
Meh, she'll get by. But being in your late 30s and still paying student loans sucks.
You keep saying PSLF as if it's some great solution, but I'm giving you an example of why professionals don't want to go through the shit required to get PSLF.
You just don't want to hear it. Fine, but then suck it the fuck up when you wonder why you can't get a doctors appointment or anyone to represent you in court.
LOL, who do you think is losing here? The professionals will be fine. You'll be left crying you can't get their service for free and facing the consequences.
What makes you think it's OK to basically scam the few intelligent, hard working people that are giving up more money to work for underserved communities like you want, by fucking them over? And could you maybe imagine some longer term consequences of PSLF getting this reputation, maybe on future professionals deciding whether to pursue it?
[deleted] t1_itlz9ys wrote
[deleted]
LikesBallsDeep t1_itmgobo wrote
Lol, you may be a lawyer, but economics still escapes you.
Nobody's in a position to be picky about taking those that want the job vs those that want the deal, when even both groups combined aren't anywhere near meeting the demand.
[deleted] t1_itmr7u6 wrote
[deleted]
OverlordXenu t1_itm799e wrote
going to med school can cost like a million dollars. the payments on that can make $300k look like $40k.
elizabeth-cooper t1_itlhxol wrote
Public Service Loan Forgiveness
arwedgorella t1_itlh3cy wrote
This. I did a law school clinic at Legal Aid Housing and they are hiring but nobody is applying due to the low pay and insane workload. Each lawyer there has a caseload of 50-80 clients at any given time. With that many clients at once, it’s extremely difficult to give your full attention to every one of your clients. It’s an important job, but unfortunately the pay is too low to attract many attorneys, many of whom are 6 figures in debt.
mrpotatoe3044 t1_itm369i wrote
This isn't true. Legal Aid jobs are quite competitive in NYC.
[deleted] t1_itlhb77 wrote
[deleted]
KaiDaiz t1_itli50o wrote
Or work in private sector and pay off loan faster. After 10 yrs making income based payments and if paperwork goes through successfully- you practically paid off or near the principle by then anyway
DoctorK16 t1_itms4gx wrote
I’d have to agree with you. It’s simply not worth it financially to work for places like legal aid unless you have money already. When it comes to paying back student loans, forget about it. It’s really a shame because if these places paid more (it’s not like they don’t have the money) they wouldn’t have to have attorneys with 60 cases at a time.
[deleted] t1_itlwub1 wrote
[deleted]
KaiDaiz t1_itlz4f3 wrote
IBR wont be that low unless they doing min wage job and expecting no wage increase entire 10 yrs. Use this calculator. Say 60k job with some growth single with 220k student loan. Look how under IBR the balance paid in the 10 yrs already exceeds the principle.
https://studentloanhero.com/calculators/student-loan-income-based-repayment-calculator/
[deleted] t1_itm03rw wrote
[deleted]
KaiDaiz t1_itm1555 wrote
Fine didn't notice the 25 yr calculations from that calculator. Regardless wont be 200-250 a month as you state. Using avg public defender salary in nyc of 80k and your 220k debt in this calculator.
https://www.studentloanplanner.com/public-service-loan-forgiveness-pslf-calculator/
So to save 225k -still a lot of checks you have to meet and what ifs to successfully last the entire 10 yrs for loan to be forgiven. Congress can easily can program if they want during budget negotiations. Which did came up during last tax cut debate. You want to hinge all that uncertainty by working at a job that offer less pay, limited networking, limited options of switching jobs and career opportunity for 10 yrs?
Especially the early years of career that will define your earning potential for rest of career. Factor all that, saving that 225k not worth it for many.
mrpotatoe3044 t1_itm3b8d wrote
Any "canning" can't be retroactive since PSLF is literally written in the promissory note of these loans.
KaiDaiz t1_itm412n wrote
Still a lot of uncertainty and career tradeoffs ...can easily see why ppl don't see PSLF that compelling.
If you dead set on being a public defender or working for employer that qualifies for 10 yr go ahead. Not many be willing to work with that limitation.
mrpotatoe3044 t1_itm4n57 wrote
For sure that's a genuine con of PSLF, you have to be public interest for at least 10 years, just not the possibility of PSLF getting scrapped midway through- they'd have to be grandfathered in still.
[deleted] t1_itmql0e wrote
[deleted]
LikesBallsDeep t1_itlwua0 wrote
You're entitled to your opinion, but clearly the lawyers themselves, presumably a decently intelligent bunch, are deciding it is not a good deal.
Or do you think they just haven't heard of PSLF?
[deleted] t1_itlxfgt wrote
[deleted]
LikesBallsDeep t1_itly8za wrote
Right..
> it’s supposed to be for people who want to work these jobs, but it wouldn’t be financially possible to without it
Except a lot of the time you end up fucked and not getting it anyway, so you risk putting yourself in a financially impossible situation 8 years into it. Does that sound like a great offer?
b1argg t1_itrsebj wrote
Yeah Trump's DoE started fighting applicants
Woodstock815 t1_itly92z wrote
Adding to this- I work for a private NYC law firm that assists with local aid agencies to provide pro bono representation and help “fill the gaps” with workload. There just are not enough attorneys to handle all of these cases. In addition, there are so many different types of covid-related representation that are needed these days- not just housing - in the past year, we have helped with housing, immigration, credit issues, tax deficiencies, business-related issues, employment issues, just to name a few - most or all of which are at least in part related to the pandemic. Need to free or low cost legal services has exploded. Promising free representation (which I fully support!) does nothing of you don’t have the attorneys to supply it.
danuser8 t1_ito7j8t wrote
> Right now legal aid doesn't pay enough to attract many attorneys.
Unfortunately, same applies to city jobs in general. It’s scary to think with all the talent being lost, what will be the fate and future functionality of these city agencies
movingtobay2019 t1_itoh9hk wrote
There wasn't much talent to begin with in city agencies. How many top tier talents do you know that willingly go work for city agencies?
Top software engineers go to FAANG. Top law school grads go into big law. Top business school grads go into banking and consulting.
[deleted] t1_itle5bi wrote
[deleted]
grandzu t1_itljajh wrote
NYC council loves making new laws without any thought to cost, implementation, or enforcement.
They think just making the law solves all the problems.
cuteman t1_itmreit wrote
That's all governments.
Promises and "doing something" are cheap, who is going to pay, how and low term sustainability is something else entirely.
WickhamAkimbo t1_itpwa8a wrote
This is the typical cop-out answer from New Yorkers. "It's bad everywhere!" No, it's not. Some cities across the world do a way better job. Stop making excuses.
sventhewalrus t1_itlph5q wrote
Progressives (and I am one) love to declare "XYZ is a right!" and then do little to supply XYZ. "Right to an eviction attorney!" and then there are no attorneys. "Housing is a human right! ... but no, not housing here, that would change the neighborhood character. There are thousands of vacant houses in West Virginia, go live there."
KaiDaiz t1_itlqify wrote
Recently pushed laws by progressives and dems do suck imo. Good intention but horrible execution, ill thought out and plenty of unforeseen consequences.
Add to your above examples- right to speedy trial by x days but do nothing to address staffing of DA offices that are already backlog to make deadlines set by speedy trial reform possible or properly account for unforeseen catastrophic delays like a pandemic.
2019 rent reforms that limit amount of repairs/updates costs that can be recoup by owners is another.
Ban on background checks in employment that lead to higher employment requirements & higher rejections of minorities to avoid asking about criminal past
Good cause eviction proposal - leads to more housing discrimination especially for families and minorities plus , higher requirements for renting. Also will drive market to create smaller housing options bc no reason to build 2BR/3RB over a studio/1BR bc the faster the tenant moves out the faster they can raise rent under proposal. The larger the unit, more likely tenant with families stay longer limiting rent increase potential.
Proposal ban on background checks for renting - see how well ban on background check working out great in the workplace.
Universal pre-k - sounds great but no plans to fund program outside of expiring grants.
Would like to add electrification of heating and gas ban- which will lead to the cost and liability of heating pass to tenants, higher cost to maintain existing gas equipment which leads to phasing out but cost be pass onto tenants once again.
List goes on.ppl that create/propose these laws don't look beyond the few trees and fail to see the forest.
cuteman t1_itmrk6p wrote
As we say in the private world.... Ideas are a dime a dozen... Execution is everything
WickhamAkimbo t1_itpwgsa wrote
Good intentions are absolutely worthless when it comes to policymaking.
movingtobay2019 t1_itmm9id wrote
>List goes on.ppl that create these laws don't look beyond the few trees and fail to see the forest.
That would require actually thinking.
jacobjr23 t1_itmesa2 wrote
Government guaranteed education loans as well
NetQuarterLatte t1_itlrdkc wrote
Doing little or nothing would be an improvement to what they currently do.
When those people gain any power, they actually enact laws and policies to make the problems worse (housing, jail conditions, mental health, homelessness, education, .....)
It's a disgrace to call those people progressive. They only want the appearance of being progressive. In reality, they are setting our society backwards.
That's why I call them fake-progressives and put "progressive" between quotes when referring to them.
sventhewalrus t1_itls97q wrote
Fauxgressive and fauxcialist are also good terms to use
TheAJx t1_itlwphl wrote
Yes, a lot of progressives are finding out that backing slogans requires a lot of money, money that often isn't there or can't be prioritized toward their pet projects.
Perhaps leveraging some of the market forces to this benefit would reduce the need for these costs. Perhaps if we opened up construction for new housing, rent increases would slow and evictions could go down naturally? If only.
WickhamAkimbo t1_itpwpd2 wrote
It's not just that they need money, they need effectively an infinite amount. So many times where their policies begin to fail and they claim that it just needs to be scaled up even more.
OverlordXenu t1_itm8dno wrote
i seriously doubt that anyone who says "housing is a human right" is saying "not here". NIMBY's don't believe that. And YIMBY's that whine and bloviate over building housing for the top end of the market but it's ok because there are 5 tax abated low-income apartments (btw those tax abatements expire and those apartments become market rate after like 10 years most of the time) are just as bad.
the "housing is a human right" crowd generally propose building more public housing, and expropriating buildings from landlords (happened in the 70s, creating HDFC co-ops, probably the only actually affordable middle class housing in nyc outside of, idk, co-op city or stuytown's regulated apartments).
like, what do you think is better, man? no right to an attorney and you can't get one? vs. a right to an attorney and you eventually will, you're just fucked in the mean time? come on, what is this bullshit post, you think people would be better off without their legal rights even if they can't use them instantly?
sventhewalrus t1_itmgrml wrote
lotta words here buddy, but have I got the gist of it that you think it is "bullshit" of me to say "people should follow through on their rhetoric"?
AceofJax89 t1_itlgl65 wrote
Someone still has to pay those attorneys, currently the city pays much less than the landlords do. Law school ain't cheap. working with landlords is typically more pleasant, and it pays more for practicing the same area of law.
Just as prestige doesn't pay the rent, neither does virtue.
Misommar1246 t1_itlwvi9 wrote
Lots of people around me are whining that people shouldn’t be evicted 3 years after a pandemic - so they think folks should just be allowed to squat for free, fuck the landlords and all that. And now that the chicken are coming to roost they’re arguing that well lawyers should help the tenants for free I guess. Services of both landlords and lawyers should just be free apparently because some people’s “rights” come before yours.
movingtobay2019 t1_itm2ezz wrote
Everything is free to the progressives. Someone else always picks up the tabs don't you know?
OverlordXenu t1_itm7ow0 wrote
yeah you're right, man, people who literally cannot afford a lawyer should just be tossed to the wolves.
typical landlord, they want the benefit of a lawyer and they want the person they're suing not to have one.
Misommar1246 t1_itmg4qe wrote
These people haven’t paid rent for 3 years, anyone who claims they can’t afford a lawyer is bullshitting at this point. I wager they can afford one more than you or I can.
juic333 t1_itmfin0 wrote
The person suing can pay for a lawyer just like the landlord.
OverlordXenu t1_itow73b wrote
point is people can't afford it, genius
AceofJax89 t1_itnaqxu wrote
Eventually, if you don't like you landlord you should move. The market is hard for everyone. You may have a right to housing, but you don't have the right to live In a pertucular house.
OverlordXenu t1_itm7s1p wrote
man, anyone who can pass the bar can make enough money without needing to work for landlords. that's a choice.
jmacks88 t1_itmwggo wrote
Good luck paying off law school loans working for the city.
[deleted] t1_itnah3t wrote
[removed]
OverlordXenu t1_itontst wrote
i have multiple friends doing this right now? $74k is not poverty wages.
jmacks88 t1_itq16y4 wrote
Who said poverty? Try living in NYC and paying off a, likely, 6 or high 5 figure loan. Most normal people would much rather work for a customer who pays better for the same service.
OverlordXenu t1_itspg6m wrote
i… have multiple friends… doing this right now… they can afford their loans and a 1 bedroom and their lives.
jmacks88 t1_itspxv7 wrote
A 1 br is not sustainable for a family. Sounds like your friends are young and single with little to no dependents. Not so easy when you have kids and/or multiple people depending on your support. I guarantee they grow up and get smacked by reality.
[deleted] t1_ittiywg wrote
[removed]
jmacks88 t1_itvuil2 wrote
One would think it’s pretty obvious that when referring to people with jobs, a lot of them have children. Sounds like you’re some ignorant 25 year old whose barely entered the real world. Try reality for a few more years before getting back to me.
[deleted] t1_itwrd4h wrote
[removed]
AceofJax89 t1_itna7mg wrote
That's not true, the attorneys working for legal aid will probably make 60-70k a year starting, quickly pop up to 100k maybe, then slowly build to 140ish? That may seem like big money to those in need, but with 300k+ in loans for some, it isn't feasible. Attorney's at big firms that work for large corporations make 215k to start and make 400k+ after a few years, then seven figures as an equity partner. That is a hard path though.
You can't give everyone a right to something then not find it.
OverlordXenu t1_itonw06 wrote
well, good thing there's public service forgiveness loans…
AceofJax89 t1_itoolul wrote
The PSLF program has been a shitshow, it can be good, but it's still not a big enough difference $$$ wise for many.
$$$ is just one issue too, generally, these are not fun cases for lawyers to deal with. Many clients aren't the exploited underclass, and many times the Landlord is simply in the right.
chivxs t1_itlarg6 wrote
They’re burnt out and overworked.
LikesBallsDeep t1_itlwioh wrote
This probably comes as a big surprise to a lot of idealistic people on Reddit, but there basic economics of supply and demand still reigns supreme.
Law school and passing the bar is neither cheap nor easy. There's a limited supply of lawyers, and of those, few put in the time and money to become lawyers to live in poverty while donating their skills and time for free or the peanuts legal aid pays.
You can pass all the laws about people's 'right' to the services of a highly skilled professional all you want, but without a realistic plan of how and where you'll get that much supply of the highly skilled labor, it's moot.
Mortigi t1_itnctk4 wrote
Attorneys should do this pro bono - it’s a bar requirement
LikesBallsDeep t1_itnkhmp wrote
The bar requires lawyers to work for free? What?
ConstitutionalCarrot t1_itluhpu wrote
I worked opposite these guys for years. They tried to engage in some collective bargaining a few years ago but what they can squeeze out from the city is never going to be enough for the work load.
Tenancy rights are only getting more complicated, so it’s really not the kind of job you can hire right out of law school for, except those are the only applicants legal aid can afford to hire.
Their main tact is to bury LL attnys in paperwork - they shared work product, always throw in legal fee claims for themselves, frivolous dismissal motions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (in housing court!) - but it backfired because LL attnys can just drop the case without prejudice, started hiring law school graduates just to respond to papers for half the salary of legal aid, etc.
Sea_Sand_3622 t1_itlysba wrote
Story one Brooklyn landlord told me ten years ago , that a squatter who jumped into the empty bed of an old rent controlled tenant who had dementia that their legal aid defense was that the 35 year old female squatter had a romantic relationship with the 80 year demented female tenant. Then the legal aid lawyer changed it to .. oops … sorry judge …. They actually have a mother daughter type relationship even though the lawyer and squatter couldn’t tell the court which nursing home the old lady was put into. Took a year for the marshal to come to throw her out .
SenorJuansie t1_itm5j49 wrote
> one landlord told me ten years ago
sure, there's no one more reliable than a landlord trying to recover a rent controlled apartment that he can gut and rent for $7500/mo.
Sea_Sand_3622 t1_itm6bzo wrote
Yeah you’re right …. Why would any responsible property manager not completely renovate an apartment that has seen no improvements in 60+ years ? It makes no sense at all.
OverlordXenu t1_itm8q61 wrote
you see, they were actually supposed to be maintained and updated over those 60 years, but scum landlords routinely refuse to provide even basic maintenance for the apartment. the landlord's own illegal neglect should not enable them to deregulate an apartment.
Sea_Sand_3622 t1_itmft1n wrote
You just don’t get it , “basic “?
Install a bathroom while the $250/ tenant is still living there.
This apartment was probably in 1940 shit condition because it’s from 1940!!! if not 1920 !!!!
The wiring was 60+ years old , no closets , the kitchen cabinets are wood falling apart. The apartment is completely painted with lead paint.
Lucky the whole house wasn’t burnt down in the 1960s and 1970s. Or worse , the city could of foreclosed on it and they would of been running it until it caved in the 1980s and then demolished it and sold to a politically connected developer.
of_patrol_bot t1_itmfu59 wrote
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
KaiDaiz t1_itn3vos wrote
They were prob maintained to the code 60 yrs ago or whenever tenant signed original lease that's reflective in the rent. Most of the modern codes and required updates don't go into effect until you do renovations. Till then, its only repair as needed if violate something not replace.
SenorJuansie t1_itm6vr7 wrote
i don't understand your clap back.
i've done dozens of succession cases, and in every single one the landlord claims the successor is a johnny come lately or a scammer, etc. landlords are full of shit.
Sea_Sand_3622 t1_itm8nzs wrote
My friend on the upper west side , she was rent stabilized and when the building went coop in the late 1980s , she bought her apartment at the insider price . The older rent controlled husband and wife in the apartment directly below hers did not buy , they stayed at the cheap rent controlled rent . The husband dies in @1996, the wife gets sick in 2002, and moves to New Jersey to live with her daughter, but her grandson jumps into her now empty bed. The managing agent for the original still owner of the apartment take the grandmother to court for non primary. The grandmother via a free legal aid lawyer that the grandson found initially claims he’s in the apartment to help out the grandmother. She’s in outpatient rehab in nj and will be back living in the apartment soon. Then they change the story and he claims succession rights saying he’s been in the apartment for three years , living there and helping his grandmother, there was a trial , he had almost no paper trail to the apartment. 5 residents , including my friend testified that they never saw him and his grandmother together . He had a free legal aid lawyer or some kind of community center low fee cheap lawyer.
You tell me who are the gamers of the system and who represents them for free. A complete waste of court time for this scammer. My friend was a bit reluctant to testify but the grandson was a complete ahole. Everyone in the building hated him. He asked people to testify for him and no one knew who he was. They all knew the grandmother. He was responsible for her leaving to get her bed empty. He was a deadbeat .
soyeahiknow t1_ito0cc6 wrote
Did he lose?
ConstitutionalCarrot t1_itnfi1p wrote
Succession claims are the tenant’s burden to prove precisely because the landlord would not have enough information to know whether the relative has stayed with the tenant long enough to be entitled to succeed. Even if the tenant has a valid claim, they apparently never sought to be named as a co-tenant on the lease, despite claiming to have lived there for 2 years.
SenorJuansie t1_itpqmeb wrote
c'mon now. no landlord would ever willingly add a non spouse to an rs lease for a valuable apartment.
ConstitutionalCarrot t1_itpxnsp wrote
Why not? They get someone else on the hook for the rent and tenancy obligations and it’s not like if they get rid of the prime tenant they can drastically increase the rent if it is a rent stabilized apartment. They’d either have to spend $$$ litigating the successor’s claim or time and $$ finding a new tenant who would be sbj to the same RGB increases anyway.
Again, it would not matter if the LL rejected the request to add the relative because it is the successor’s burden to prove they asked. If they cannot meet that extremely low bar, set by statute, then maybe they are the ones full of shit.
SenorJuansie t1_itm5dn3 wrote
lol, show me a landlord's petition that doesn't include a claim for legal fees.
also
> it backfired because LL attnys can just drop the case without prejudice
that's not backfiring; and you can't just drop w/o prejudice if tenant has answered. i've had plenty of repairs cases that have carried on long after the landlord's nonpay cause of action had evaporated.
ConstitutionalCarrot t1_itm6qh0 wrote
My firm represented non-for profit landlords, we drafted our own petitions and did not seek legal fees, the leases we drafted never had legal fee clauses, and so the reciprocal fee provision under RPL 234 never was actionable. But that’s just my point they don’t look at the papers and just use their form motions, throwing in everything under the sun.
Most of the time legal aid would make pre-answer dismissal motions, (dismissal after an answer is treated as summary judgment, which is a higher burden). Even if they agreed in multiple stips to submit answers by a date certain, they would resist filing an answer (even just a general denial) literally until the judge transfers the case to the trial part to preserve their right to a pre-answer dismissal.
If the tenant has asserted a counter-claim it’s not dismissal as of right, but an overworked legal aid attorney would just stip to discontinue without prejudice to any remaining balance and reserve their right to claim repairs in the future and advise the tenant to call 311. Better than keeping the possessory judgment alive on the off chance tenant misses a payment by the next court appearance. In an HP case for repairs started by the tenant, sure, the LL can’t discontinue, but it’s because the tenant is the plaintiff.
Legal aid’s impetus is just to draw out the case so their client remains in possession for longer. Then they complain about how many cases are clogging the docket as if they have no control over the situation.
SenorJuansie t1_itm7sgm wrote
> the leases we drafted never had legal fee clauses, and so the reciprocal fee provision under RPL 234 never was actionable. But that’s just my point they don’t look at the papers and just use their form motions
okay, you're right. that's sloppy. although if there's an RS issue and the possibility of overcharge, you can get fees, as you know.
> resist filing an answer
i've never seen or done this. usually the tenant has already answered pro se, so it's irrelevant. what agency would do this?
ConstitutionalCarrot t1_itm8r0s wrote
Overcharge can entitle a tenant to recovery of treble damages, but whether and to what extent a tenant’s attorney would be entitled to a cut of those enhanced damages would depend on the retainer agreement. Also, legal fees, late fees, etc. are not technically part of the rent overcharge calculation and should be severed to a plenary action.
Even if a tenant files a pro se answer, once they get an attorney, the attorney can move for leave to file an amended answer, saying that the tenant did not know all their rights at the time they filed pro se. They have to attach the proposed amended answer to that motion, but once the motion is granted they can “forget” to then file that answer until the eve of trial.
You’d also be surprised how many people aren’t willing to stand on line half a day to file that initial answer when they know they can show up after a default is entered against them and do a stip or get a 1st adjournment to seek counsel.
SenorJuansie t1_itmawm2 wrote
> they can “forget” to then file that answer until the eve of trial.
well...i dunno how bad that is. i've defenitely done this, and i've had LL side opponents do the same thing in HP actions or supreme court. I wouldn't really call that prejudicial. and i don't think it has anything to do with how seriously a dispositive motion will be taken.
SenorJuansie t1_itmad8j wrote
> but whether and to what extent a tenant’s attorney would be entitled to a cut of those enhanced damages would depend on the retainer agreement.
That has nothing to do with whether you assert a claim for attorney's fees, and a free lawyer is equally entitled to assert a claim for fees as anyone else. i'm sure you know the case law that says that.
i'll tell you my insider experience: i've only once gone far enough to do a fees hearing after winning trial rather than bargaining away fees at an earlier junction. i then settled by waiving the fees in exchange for T getting a few months free. higher ups at my agency approved this. if i had taken the fees, they would have gone to my agency 100%.
ConstitutionalCarrot t1_itmbl7u wrote
Maybe I didn’t my understand why you brought up overcharge claims then, because I’m not saying they can never seek legal fees, but that they don’t do their due diligence on whether they would actually be able to recover legal fees under the RPL before stating a claim.
It is just another delay tactic - they don’t have to reserve their right to seek it to be able to recover at or even after trial, the individual attorney won’t benefit from it, as you point out, and they agency doesn’t usually consider it worth their time to pursue unless it’s a very involved case, since they just get paid from the municipality and will never go under like a private firm would.
SenorJuansie t1_itmccaj wrote
> and will never go under like a private firm would.
i understand landlord's outrage over this. the LL firms had a lean system in housing court based on pro se opponents and zero substantive litigation occuring.
but i'm not sympathetic to it at all. i don't agree that most tenant's side litigation is frivolous, and as for delay, that is the standard for defendant-side litigation since the beginning of time. And i've done plenty of affirmative cases against the usual players in the landlord's bar (in private practice), and they can delay and waste my client's money as good as any defense lawyer.
ConstitutionalCarrot t1_itmf4l0 wrote
Sure, and all this is why I left L&T practice, but then legal aid still doesn’t have a leg to stand on to complain that they are overworked and underpaid when they could prioritize those cases where real defenses exist on the facts, against actual slumlords who are breaking the law.
They are incentivized to take this tact as to all cases, however, as they are in a position that benefits uniquely from delay since it allows their client to remain in possession without paying legal fees and often without paying rent.
When LL attnys delay it prejudices their clients who are actually paying legal fees, such that the cost of litigation is weighed against the benefit of proceeding with a frivolous case.
Ultimately, and this is what I would always discuss with the legal aid attorneys outside of court, the system benefits the attorneys on both sides. Legal aid just likes to take a bit more umbrage, in my experience.
SenorJuansie t1_itmbmz2 wrote
and to clarify, by 'repairs case' i mean nonpays where i alleged conditions in the apartment; not an hp action
Mortigi t1_itndrjg wrote
Do you mean to infer that these attorneys want to be paid more?
mopping24 t1_itn5wso wrote
I am one of those attorneys. The issue isn't so much the salaries of me and my colleagues, but rather that hiring hasn't caught up with the eligible demand. The city opened this program to full citywide access during the throws of the Pandemic and there are simply not enough attorneys to take all the cases. Accordingly, we use some discretion about what cases we take on. In some cases, the matter can resolved with some basic legal advice rather than full representation. I should mention that my employer only operates in Brooklyn and Staten Island.
soyeahiknow t1_itnzu4n wrote
Do you get any where you know the tenant is just gaming the system? What do you do in those cases?
mopping24 t1_itod2le wrote
What do you mean by "gaming the system?"
soyeahiknow t1_itqjvaq wrote
Pay 1st month rent. Then after 30 days, stop paying. Will submit complaints to DOB and HPD for made up living conditions. Dragging out the court case in order to get a larger cash for keys settlement. Rent out the apartment on airbnb or to other people and pocket the rent.
mopping24 t1_itr9pif wrote
We would never take a case where the tenant was renting out a rent-stabilized apartment on airbnb, and they would probably be overincome anyway. Buyouts only really happen in rent-stabilized apartments, and making cases take longer typically only reduces the amount landlords are willing to pay. All these issues are more complicated in practice, but the larger mission is to stop homelessness where possible.
soyeahiknow t1_itrlebi wrote
Oh I was talking more about free market apartments.
rgrip33 t1_itlrylm wrote
Maybe lawmakers should have considered what “right to counsel” would actually mean before implementation. We don’t have a fleet of robot attorneys ready to represent tenants.
This was bound for failure because they assumed that the right to counsel in criminal court would just translate to housing court - meanwhile, the two practices are extremely different.
DutchmanNY t1_itpl4he wrote
The know exactly what it meant. Making the hardworking cater to the lazy is the backbone of their decision making.
rgrip33 t1_itqb5yt wrote
Nope, GFY. Tenants deserve attorneys if all the landlords have them, but the implementation was not thoughtful
TeamMisha t1_itlnqje wrote
We're seeing the problem with legal aid systems play out in the UK. Barristers went on strike over shit pay and not getting paid properly for the hours of pretrial research and prep they did. The courts cannot function without these folks unless you want to dismiss every case due to the defendants not having representation. Pay them better, attract and retain staff, its not that hard. Having legal aid well staffed ALSO benefits victims since it means less delays waiting for a defendant to be assigned a lawyer if they need one.
movingtobay2019 t1_itm36rh wrote
>Pay them better, attract and retain staff, its not that hard
Yes it is hard. It's one thing to say "pay them better". It's another to actually find the money to pay them better. Where you going to get that money?
This is what happens when feels meet fiscal reality.
TeamMisha t1_itmkeg8 wrote
Dunno, that's the legislatures job. They can't make programs in a vacuum without budget, it is up to them. Obvi no one wants to be the unpopular one to raise taxes, but sometimes you have no choice if you can't shift money around.
movingtobay2019 t1_itmm30z wrote
Don't disagree but the problem is budget for housing attorneys is pretty low on the list for not just politicians but really the taxpayers.
If you ask 100 people on the street random for their top 3 concerns, I doubt anyone would say "budget for housing attorneys"
OverlordXenu t1_itm9fwn wrote
> Where you going to get that money?
IDK, maybe the nypd? maybe force NYPD settlements to come out of their budget? their budget this year is literally over $10billion, and they do fuck all.
movingtobay2019 t1_itmkase wrote
Regardless of your feelings for the NYPD, no city / state agency is going to willingly let their budget get cut.
So yea, you aren't just going to "pay them better".
OverlordXenu t1_itow4d4 wrote
damn, crazy, i didn't realize the nypd decided the city's budget.
Mortigi t1_itndwjs wrote
Landlord should be required to cover all tenants legal fees. Problem solved.
movingtobay2019 t1_itne7f8 wrote
You missed an /s
haymonaintcallyet t1_itny3ws wrote
Anyone facing eviction 3 years after the pandemic needs to get their shit together ffs.
DutchmanNY t1_itplct1 wrote
Whoa! , I think you need to calm down there buddy. Personal responsibility is taboo in these parts.
giggity2 t1_itoyzc6 wrote
The whole thing is messed up beyond belief. Our tenant did not pay rent for 2 years and this situation has become so stressful we have decided to sell. Yet, after several eviction notices the tenant continues to squat and is threatening to countersue for unintelligible reasons (buying time). And so, we have to wait for a court date which is another indefinite period of time. So for the past 3 years, this house is held up payingi taxes all because one tenant has enacted the eviction process. We have literally offered him money to move out but he refuses.
Mind you the tenant is one of 3 tenants in the building (The other 2 have left for over a year now) and has been with us for 20 years. Because of hard times we are okay with giving him as much time as he needs to pay rent, however it is 2+ years now. And we are in need of money now ourselves so we are trying to sell this house. The cycle IS complicated anyone who says otherwise is not in the cycle.
HayPlaceAPlaceforHay t1_itpiew9 wrote
Believe it or not, most lawyers don’t want to work for pennies or trust the city enough to actually get paid the pennies they were promised
visitor987 t1_itlqezn wrote
Its a state not NYC election year so NYC doesnt really care.
Plus NYC is broke about half the rich families who NYC used get most of its tax revue from have moved out of state leaving a hole in the NYC budget.
[deleted] t1_itmds77 wrote
[removed]
MathDeacon t1_itph5pk wrote
There are way too many of these "tenant" attorneys orgs who get stuck taking cases not involving "tenants" (fired supers who just won't leave, alleged squatters) so of course it's going to create a gap. the law was entitled to help protect tenants from eviction not just any person from eviction
jgalt5042 t1_itnv4vy wrote
Where are the evictions? Where is the development? This cycle isn’t complicated. Get rid of zoning, rent control, and let people build.
N2Gen t1_itnvgxr wrote
Who was stupid enough to believe that promise tho?
[deleted] t1_itlmlvu wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_itm9oyi wrote
[removed]
NetQuarterLatte t1_itl2kgo wrote
Fake-progressives are not interested in housing as a fundamental human right. They are only pretending that they care.
What they actually want about "housing" is using it as a wedge to perpetuate two classes: tenants versus landlords. They profit on the tension and the division. So it's not a problem they actually want to solve. They actually desire to make the problem worse, and have been effectively enacting laws to that purpose.
To truly solve housing, renters should have a path towards home ownership, so that tenants never have to deal with a landlord again, and can boost wealth accumulation over time:
- Getting a mortgage should easier (stop requiring insane credit scores)
- Making the downpayment should be easier (requiring a lot less than 20%, for example)
- Transaction fees should be cheaper (broker fees/property transfer taxes/etc should all be reduced)
Edit: The homeownership rate in NYC is at 53%, which is lower than then 65% national average. Boosting homeownership rates is a very effective way to decrease wealth inequality.
supremeMilo t1_itl9lql wrote
I am a progressive and I think having a roof over your head is a fundamental right, but not paying your lease and squatting and taking advantage of pro tenant laws is not a fundamental human right.
NetQuarterLatte t1_itlannx wrote
I'm with you.
A society in which people enter and honor their agreements in good faith can be a much more progressive society.
The fake-progressives have it completely backwards.
Misommar1246 t1_itl6jho wrote
I don’t know, we kind of fucked up when we made it easier for tenants to get home ownership and it all came crashing down in 2008.
NetQuarterLatte t1_itl8ep1 wrote
>I don’t know, we kind of fucked up when we made it easier for tenants to get home ownership and it all came crashing down in 2008.
Home ownership in NYC didn't even get close to 60% leading to 2008. High home ownership rate was absolutely not the issue with 2008.
Chart with home ownership rate per year: https://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/homeownership-rates-new-york
Misommar1246 t1_itl8rg1 wrote
Ownership itself wasn’t the problem, relaxing the conditions such as credit score requirements were though. It caused a lot of people who realistically couldn’t afford homes to sign up for one.
NetQuarterLatte t1_itlab0j wrote
>Ownership itself wasn’t the problem, relaxing the conditions such as credit score requirements were though. It caused a lot of people who realistically couldn’t afford homes to sign up for one.
Even in the peak of the great financial crisis, NYC had less than 29,000 delinquent mortgages/foreclosures.
That shouldn't be the reason why people need to be handcuffed into a lease agreement with their landlord.
tuberosum t1_itlrlb8 wrote
The fault lies entirely in the banks and rating agencies that sold those mortgages as parts of CDOs that had been rated AAA when, in fact they definitely weren't.
The fact that the banks could make more money selling those CDOs than the profits from the actual mortgages led to banks being far more willing to issue loans to people who couldn't demonstrate a sufficient ability to pay. Who cares, after all, it's not the mortgage that'll make money for the bank!
And with banks playing fast and loose with mortgages, it allowed an influx of a lot of money into the market which ended up bringing up the prices of housing stock. Since, if money is cheap and available to the buyers, the sellers would have to be fools not to increase their prices.
And when the bank's irresponsibility finally caught up to them, the whole system fell like a house of cards.
How this would have played out in a normal world without commercial banks being investment banks as well: bank would issue mortgages, and since they rely on the return of those mortgages to finance their profits, they make sure that those receiving the mortgages have the ability to pay. Some foreclosures still happen since shit happens, but the banking system in it's entirety chugs along as per usual.
LittleWind_ OP t1_itl75ep wrote
I don’t disagree that owning a home should be an easier option, but a lower down payment necessarily means a riskier loan for banks and higher monthly payments for the borrower. Banks will use a higher standard for lending in that case, including use of credit score, not a lower one.
A bigger issue is that we have a shortage of housing stock. Corporate owners have no incentive to sell to renters because they have a captured customer base, and NIMBYism (in varied forms) has ensured that the shortage won’t be alleviated any time soon.
If we view housing as a human right (I know many don’t), it necessarily has to be affordable and that will create a dichotomy between landlords, who are in it for profit, and tenants.
NetQuarterLatte t1_itl8z39 wrote
>A bigger issue is that we have a shortage of housing stock. Corporate owners have no incentive to sell to renters because they have a captured customer base, and NIMBYism (in varied forms) has ensured that the shortage won’t be alleviated any time soon.
Absolutely.
NIMBY needs to end.
And the politicians who pretend to be "pro-tenant", but who are actually NIMBY, need to be exposed.
lll_lll_lll t1_itlnk0a wrote
If housing is a human right, this begs the question: where, and how nice? Is it a human right to live in my exact favorite neighborhood in the world? Do I get a 2 bedroom if I want extra space? Will someone help furnish it?
Who pays for it all?
KaiDaiz t1_itl76yv wrote
Should raise the millionaire tax to start at 2M properties and make it easier to refinance without tax for loans under 2M. 1M properties are actually avg units in most markets here.
NetQuarterLatte t1_itl7ve9 wrote
>Should raise the millionaire tax to start at 2M properties and make it easier to refinance without tax for loans under 2M. 1M properties are actually avg units in most markets here.
I think we should make the following:
If you don't own any home, and you're currently renting in NYC (primary residency), then eliminate or greatly reduce those taxes.
If you already own multiple properties (maybe with some exception for families who are upgrading into a bigger home and may temporarily "own" two homes in the same year) or are buying via an LCC, you don't get any tax discount. Or even pay some extra.
ripstep1 t1_itl744b wrote
If buying becomes easier than prices will simply rise.
Also last time mortgage standards dropped people were complaining about lower Manhattan.
Dolos2279 t1_itl7a5x wrote
>Getting a mortgage should easier (stop requiring insane credit scores)
>Making the downpayment should be easier
Didn't end so well last time these types of requirements were eliminated. Owning an apartment or house has far more costs associated than just the monthly payment and you need to be pretty financially stable to cover these costs. For example, I had to pay 15k out of pocket earlier this year for repairs on my apartment building as part of a loss assessment.
NetQuarterLatte t1_itl9d5j wrote
>Didn't end so well last time these types of requirements were eliminated.
Not in NYC. NYC's home ownership didn't even get close to the 60% leading to 2008.
The real world excesses in 2008 were greedy landlords who were leveraging mortgages and buying multiple properties, funded by rents.
CactusBoyScout t1_itlidga wrote
Wouldn’t making it easier to buy a home just result in higher purchasing prices as more people compete over the same number of available units?
lll_lll_lll t1_itlnaea wrote
Yes, this is exactly why college is so expensive right now. Guaranteed federal loans without any default option was supposed to make the barrier to entry easier, but instead just added a zero onto the cost.
NetQuarterLatte t1_itlsr3i wrote
>Yes, this is exactly why college is so expensive right now. Guaranteed federal loans without any default option was supposed to make the barrier to entry easier, but instead just added a zero onto the cost.
College has became more expensive because it's a cartel of trophy diplomas.
Unlike housing, the physical limitation of a classroom size should practically not exist anymore.
With the multiplicative benefits of technology, the same lecturer could be teaching a class of thousands of students.
But instead of costs going down, it has actually went up.
Classes that require physical presence (such as labs) can scale a lot too. They mostly sit empty, whereas they could have lab sessions every waking hour of the week, with of gains of scale reducing the costs of education.
The rising costs of textbooks is another blatant broken market problem. Printing textbooks should be as cheap as ever now.
lll_lll_lll t1_itmj6b2 wrote
You are describing things that should have a downward pressure on price, all else being equal. This makes no sense as an explanation to rising costs.
Do you not accept the idea that universal access to loans has increased demand?
NetQuarterLatte t1_itlklwm wrote
>Wouldn’t making it easier to buy a home just result in higher purchasing prices as more people compete over the same number of available units?
If a tenant moves away from a lease into their recently acquired unit, no.
Because the change in supply will be basically neutral.
kmkkllk3 t1_itl36df wrote
Right now legal aid doesn't pay enough to attract many attorneys. Even people who want to help can't afford to take a job like this unless they want to face eviction themselves.