Eva Allen, Petitioner-Landlord v. 259 (2026)

Petitioner commenced this nonpayment proceeding in May 2026 seeking to recover rental arrears in the amount of $4,400.00 for the period of February 2026 through May 2026. According to the Petition, respondent's monthly rent is $1,100.

Respondent disputed the amount of the arrears claimed by petitioner, maintaining that she paid rent through May 2026.

A trial was held on July 16, 2026. Petitioner appeared with counsel. Respondent appeared pro se.

Trial Testimony

Petitioner testified that the parties entered into a month-to-month oral rental agreement approximately five years ago pursuant to which respondent rented the subject basement apartment. Petitioner acknowledged that the subject premises is a basement apartment. According to petitioner, respondent regularly paid her rent until February 2026. Petitioner testified that in January 2026, she informed respondent that respondent would no longer be able to rent the apartment after April 2026 because petitioner needed the apartment for her daughter, who was returning home. Petitioner maintains that respondent thereafter stopped speaking to her and ceased paying rent beginning in February 2026. Petitioner further acknowledged that throughout the parties' approximately five-year landlord-tenant relationship she never provided respondent with written receipts for the payment of rent. Petitioner also did not provide a rental ledger or payment records at trial.

Petitioner maintains that respondent's monthly rent is $1,100 and moved to amend the amount due through July 2026. Petitioner testified that $6,600 in rental arrears in now due and owing for the period of February 2026 through July 2026.

Respondent testified that she moved into the premises approximately five years ago. She testified that she repeatedly requested receipts for her rental payments, but petitioner refused to provide them because petitioner knew that respondent resided in an illegal basement apartment. Respondent further testified that, in an effort to keep track of her payments, she prepared her own receipts each month. The Court advised respondent that these self-generated documents did not constitute proof that petitioner actually received the payments and declined to admit them as evidence of payment.

Respondent testified that she withdrew money from her bank account each month to pay petitioner in cash. Respondent did not, however, introduce bank statements or other financial records corroborating those withdrawals. Nevertheless, respondent unequivocally maintained that she paid petitioner rent through May 2026 and that the only rent remaining unpaid was for June and July 2026.

Respondent's husband, Irving Parkes also testified. He testified that he observed his wife leave their apartment each month with money in her hand and walk upstairs to petitioner's residence for the purpose of paying rent. Mr. Parkes acknowledged that he did not personally observe respondent hand money to petitioner. He testified, however, that respondent did not return to their apartment with the money.

Conclusions of Law

Rent Receipts

Real Property Law § 235-e(a) provides that upon receipt of rent for residential premises paid in cash, or by any instrument other than the personal check of the tenant, the landlord or an authorized agent receiving the rent must provide the tenant with a written receipt identifying the date and amount paid, the premises and period for which payment was made, and the signature and title of the person receiving the rent. Where the payment is personally transmitted to the landlord or the landlord's agent, the receipt must be issued immediately (RPL § 235-e(c)). The statute further requires the landlord to maintain a record of all cash receipts for rent for at least three years (RPL § 235-e(b)).

Petitioner acknowledged at trial that respondent had been her tenant for approximately five years and had regularly paid rent prior to the parties' present dispute. Petitioner further acknowledged that she never provided respondent with rent receipts during the tenancy. Thus, to the extent respondent paid rent in cash, petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of RPL § 235-e (See Sharp v Norwood, 223 AD2d 6, 643 NYS2d 39 [1st Dept 1996]) (landlord's admitted failure to issue rent receipts constituted a clear violation of RPL § 235-e).

The statute does not prescribe a specific penalty for a landlord's failure to comply with its rent-receipt requirements. Courts have therefore considered the effect of noncompliance in light of the particular circumstances and evidence presented. Where a tenant admits that rent remains unpaid, courts have declined to treat the landlord's failure to comply with the statute as relieving the tenant of the admitted obligation (See Lawler v Caufield, 66 Misc 3d 312, 114 NYS3d 621 [Watertown City Ct 2019]). Similarly, courts have declined to impose a forfeiture where the evidence otherwise established the tenant's default (See Robinson v Robles, 28 Misc 3d 868, 906 NYS2d 844 [Rochester City Ct 2010]; or where a tenant does not dispute amount claimed by the landlord (Reed v Ragsdale, 695 NYS2d 240 [Just Ct Village of Newark 1999]).

A different consideration arises, however, where payment itself is genuinely disputed. In Palmieri v Hernandez, 127 Misc 2d 369, 485 NYS2d 915 [Mount Vernon City Ct 1984], this Court considered contradictory testimony concerning the payment of rent where the landlord had failed to comply with RPL § 235-e and held that, under those circumstances, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the tenant (See also Brinkman v Cahill, 143 Misc 2d 1048, 543 NYS2d 636 [Arcadia Just Ct 1989]).

The reasoning of Palmieri was subsequently followed in Mayflower Props., LLC v Pacheco, 64 Misc 3d 1216(A), 2019 NY Slip Op 51180(U) [Civ Ct. New York Co. 2019], where the court resolved disputed issues concerning rental payments in favor of the tenant based upon the landlord's failure to provide the statutorily required receipts (See also Gummerson v Strecker, 8 Misc 3d 1030(A), 806 NYS2d 445 [Auburn City Ct 2005]) (recognizing a rebuttable presumption in favor of the tenant as to payment of rent where the landlord failed to provide receipts).

Here, the evidence concerning the rent claimed for February through May 2026 is directly contradictory. Petitioner testified that respondent stopped paying rent beginning in February 2026. Respondent testified that she continued to pay petitioner $1,100 in cash each month through May 2026. The Court recognizes that respondent's proof of payment was not independently documented. Respondent did not introduce bank statements substantiating the cash withdrawals to which she testified, and although her husband observed her leave the apartment with money and proceed upstairs to petitioner's residence, he did not personally witness petitioner receive the money.

Nevertheless, petitioner bears the burden of establishing the rental arrears for which she seeks recovery. Petitioner admittedly failed throughout the tenancy to provide respondent with receipts memorializing her cash rental payments. Moreover, RPL § 235-e(b) required petitioner to maintain a record of cash rent receipts for at least three years. No such record was produced at trial. The significance of petitioner's statutory noncompliance is particularly apparent under the circumstances presented here. The records and receipts required by RPL § 235-e would have contemporaneously documented whether respondent made the disputed payments and the rental periods to which those payments applied. Their absence leaves the Court with conflicting testimony concerning whether the rent for February through May 2026 was paid.

The Court does not construe RPL § 235-e as imposing an automatic forfeiture of rent for petitioner's noncompliance. Rather, considering the conflicting testimony, petitioner's admitted failure to comply with the statutory receipt requirements, the absence of the records the statute required petitioner to maintain, and the Court's assessment of the witnesses' credibility, the Court finds that petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the credible evidence that respondent failed to pay rent for February through May 2026. Consistent with this Court's determination in Palmieri, the doubt created by the conflicting evidence and petitioner's statutory noncompliance is resolved in favor of respondent.

The analysis differs with respect to rent for June and July 2026. Respondent unequivocally acknowledged at trial that she did not pay rent for those months. There is therefore no factual dispute concerning payment for June and July and no uncertainty for the Court to resolve in respondent's favor. Any presumption arising from petitioner's failure to provide rent receipts is necessarily overcome by respondent's own admission of nonpayment (See Lawler v Caufield, 66 Misc 3d 312).

Accordingly, petitioner has failed to establish that rent remains due for February through May 2026 but has established unpaid rent for June and July 2026 in the amount of $2,200.

Legality of the Subject Premises

Respondent testified that the subject premises is an illegal basement apartment and maintained that petitioner refused to provide rental receipts because of the allegedly illegal status of the premises. Petitioner acknowledged that the subject premises is a basement apartment.

The mere characterization of the subject premises as an "illegal basement apartment", however, does not by itself establish that the rent-forfeiture provisions of Multiple Residence Law § 302-a apply. Application of that provision depends upon whether the premises is subject to the certificate-of-occupancy requirements of MRL § 302 and whether the occupancy at issue violates the statute.

The Multiple Residence Law governs multiple dwellings located within the City of Mount Vernon. MRL § 302 sets forth the certificate-of-occupancy requirements applicable to multiple dwellings. Where a dwelling or structure is occupied for human habitation in violation of that section, MRL § 302-a(1) provides that "no rent shall be recovered by the owner of such premises for said period, and no action for possession of said premises for nonpayment of such rent shall be maintained therefor".

The record before the Court, however, is insufficient to establish that these provisions preclude petitioner from recovering rent in this proceeding. Although respondent characterized the subject premises as an illegal basement apartment, no certificate of occupancy, Building Department records, violations, or other documentary evidence concerning the lawful configuration or permitted occupancy of the building was introduced at trial. Nor was there testimony establishing the number of separate dwelling units or families residing in the property. Respondent's testimony that she would go upstairs to petitioner's residence to pay the rent establishes only that the petitioner resided in another portion of the building. It does not establish that the property was occupied by three or more families living independently of one another so as to constitute a multiple dwelling within the meaning of the Multiple Residence Law.

Accordingly, on the record presented, respondent has failed to establish that her occupancy in the basement apartment violated the statute and the Court, therefore, finds no basis to apply the rent-forfeiture provision of the Multiple Residence Law § 302-a (1); see Madden v Juillet, 46 Misc 3d 146(A) [2d Dept 2015]).

Accordingly, the Court finds that petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the credible evidence that respondent failed to pay rent for the months of February through May 2026. The Court further finds, based upon respondent's admission at trial, that rent for June and July 2026 remains unpaid. At the agreed monthly rent of $1,100, petitioner has established rental arrears in the amount of $2,200.

Accordingly, petitioner is awarded a judgment in the amount of $2,200. The warrant of eviction shall be stayed for 10 days from the date of this order to give the respondent an opportunity to pay the rent arrears. To the extent that she has not done so, respondent is also directed to pay the petitioner all rent that became due and owing during the pendency of the Court's Decision After Trial.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated: August 24, 2026

Mount Vernon, New York

HON. NICHELLE A. JOHNSON

City Judge of Mount Vernon

Nichelle A. Johnson, J.