Next up: deposits for commercial actions.

Seizing on the developing momentum for depositing rent in court during residential tenant actions, commercial players are introducing their own measure to require the deposit of rent in court during commercial non-payment and eviction proceedings.

That's such a silly thing, a reasonable person might declare. Why should the owners of commercial buildings need such a law? Don't they have real leases that are enforceable in court and are not statutory, as those of residential tenants under the almighty Emergency Tenant Protection Act?

Guess again.

The Civil Court judges act as if they were protecting residential tenants and give great leeway to non-paying commercial tenants. So those in stores, offices and commercial warehouses and offices right now can operate their businesses without paying rent for sometimes six to nine months. And these aren't $400 rents, but $20,000 a month rents, with operating costs for the owners including real estate taxes and mortgage payments - on a much higher cost level as well.

Attorney Mark J. Alonso explained a typical non-payment proceeding takes many months, even if the tenant does not try to defend the action.

According to Steven Spinola, president of the Real Estate Board of New York, the law also requires the payment of future rent. "As the proceeding progresses he has to put up the money," he said. "We tried to stay away from the judge having leeway because that's where the problems seem to arise."

John Loehr, a partner with Wien Malkin & Bettex who helped draft the bill that has been sent up to Albany in search of a sponsor, said "Frequently by the time adjudication is made the tenant doesn't have any money."

It is the cost to owners in lost rent, attorney's fees and in some cases their entire building that has prompted the Real Estate Board of New York to devise the legislation to combat the problem. "The legislation will ensure the money is available," said Loehr.

That's good news to owners like Audrey Block Heckler, president of Gray Block Corporation, the owners of commercial properties in Manhattan. "I'm glad to see some activity on this because this court system is horrendous," she said. "I think I'm a fair person, but in court, you don't get a fair shake."

Owner Robert C. Rosenberg, chairman of Rosenberg Diamond in The Bronx that leases stores in its residential properties, said depositing rents is a "win-win" situation. "The owner is guaranteed to get their rent and the tenant is allowed to get their repairs. When owners are guaranteed their rent," he continued, "it will end the backlog in courts, so yes, we need deposits in court."

Under the proposed bill, a tenant would have to deposit all rent and use and occupancy with the court after it is two months past due, and that includes monies owed going forward. To be fair, the bill was drafted to allow the tenant two postponements, along with one to obtain a lawyer.

If the tenant wins, but has not made the deposits in court, and is evicted because they didn't make the deposit, they will be limited in damages to actual out-of-pocket damages.

Monies would be deposited with the county treasurer, who will be entitled to keep 5 percent of the money, up to $5,000, to cover expenses.

Heckler thought the 5 percent was excessive. "We keep security for the tenants and it's one percent," she pointed out. "They are bribing them, but it's better than nothing."

Alonso said the law will not cure the backlog. "Keeping legal costs at a reasonable amount in the current state of things, with or without this new law," he said. "A tenant with no defense can buy sufficient time to make a mockery of the system and the lease. The owner is always at a disadvantage."

Spinola said "It makes sense and I'm optimistic we will get it passed if not this year, next year. I'm hopeful it won't be controversial."

On June 27th, the City Council will have another hearing on the referendum to require the deposit of rent.