Reed v. Ragsdale

VICTOR B. CHAMBERS, J. Plaintiff sues defendant for rent owed for an apartment occupied Also, in this case evidence was received that defendant made payments larger than the monthly rent due, including a $400 payment made in the last month of the tenancy. These excess payments indicate some consciousness on the part of the defendant that she was behind in her rent. Real Property Law § 235-e states that "Upon the receipt of rent for residential premises in the form of cash or any instrument other than the personal check of the tenant, it shall be the duty of the landlord to provide the payor with a written receipt". Nowhere in the statute, or in any section of article 7 of the Real Property Law, does it provide that the failure to comply with the terms of the statute shall be a reason for forfeiture by the landlord of any rental amounts due. The statute, in fact, has no sanctions whatsoever. To draw the conclusion, as reached in Palmieri (supra) and Brinkman (supra), that the violation of the statute creates a presumption in favor of the tenants inserts a consequence into the statute that simply has not been enacted by the Legislature. Even if the court were to follow the cases above, however, it would hold for the plaintiff. Because contradictory statements were not the "only" evidence received by the court, and because the landlord has not "clearly" violated the statute, the court finds for plaintiff in the sum of $2,200.