Since The Honorable Judge Weisberg dismissed my entire petition, I am going to be filing an intent to appeal and Motion to Reconsider, but that is tomorrows concern. What happened, though, is that I received a summons for a new case in another part of Housing Court.
This summons also named my co-petitioner in my HP case, so I assumed that it was the case filed by us jointly was being carried over into this court. However, upon the opening of the pre-0trial conference, the judge informed me that my entire case had been dismissed, and thus I was not a party to this new case. I was, however, allowed to sit as audience to the "Teams" meeting. I remained on camera, but my microphone was muted.
Unfortunately, the Petitioner's camera was not working, so she was just a voice, not a face, and unable to give visual cues. Nevertheless, she persevered.
This being just a conference, the Judge asked for some clarification of the issues and the situation. Charles Marino, defense attorney of the owner and managers of 182 Graham Ave, began to describe his side's view of the situation, saying that there was a vacate order due to lack of access to egress and use in conflict with the Certificate of Occupancy (Single Room Occupancy rather than one apartment per floor).
The Petitioner corrected Marino on that point, explaining that it was only the safety violation that was the cause of vacating and that only certain rooms were vacated.
As the conference continued, Marino kept on pushing issues without having full knowledge of the building or its actual situation. He did not know, for instance, that there were other people living on the third floor. When he brought up the issue that the whole floor had to go back to one apartment, then, he said that would require the eviction of the other tenants. Since I am one of those other tenants, I felt I had to say something, tentatively thought of raising my hand, but the Judge, who could see me on camera, asked me if I had anything to say about that.
This was the first time I got to say in a court, to a judge, that we are not opposed to making the floor one apartment with one or two co-signers on each lease. This changed the complexion of the conference immediately.
Marino claimed that the extant fire escape was blocked, and I was able to point out that the fire escape in question was right behind me, to the left as it appeared on the webcam. Marino tried to break down the number of units and their occupancy status, and I was able to give an accurate accounting, including the fact that there was no one living on the fourth floor at all at the moment.
Through and at the end of the rest of the conference, the judge instructed Marino to have "several" discussions with his clients, that all interested parties should be brought together, and that getting everyone back into a safe, legal building should be done first, and for every month until then, civil penalties could be assessed on the owners (Port Rich Realty). After that, issues of harassment would definitely be addressed
So now we, the petitioners are gathering to determine what shape we want the future to bring, in the hope that the owners will negotiate in good faith. But I wonder how this will change the face of my Illegal Lockout case?
Sunday, April 18, 2021
Zorikh's New Illegal Lockout Trial, Day 3: The Plot Thickens 2/12/2021
Welcome back! In this week's edition of the trial, we picked up with Mr. Marino, the attorney for Port Rich Realty, questioning the witness I had brought. Surprisingly, he brought out the floor plan I had submitted in evidence, the plan that he had initially objected to as evidence. He asked my witness to identify each of the rooms, one by one, on the floor plan, which she did, by their alphanumeric designations and their tenants, vacated or not.
When my turn came to redirect, I decided to take a page out of his book. pulled up the HPD Order to Repair/Vacate Order that had been submitted as evidence, and, one by one, read off the violations, asking her to which room each individual violation referred. As each violation either covered the entire floor or described the room by its geographic location, she was able to identify each of them accurately.
Marino objected, one by one, to each question and this entire line of questioning, saying that it was irrelevant. However, having brought up, the week before, the issue of which room was which and what part of the building was under the vacate order, the judge said "you opened the door," and allowed the questioning.
Then it was Marino's turn to ask me questions. He asked me if I had received any mail at the location. It just so happened that I still had in my bag the mail that I had picked up the previous week; some junk mail, a bank statement, and some stuff regarding my retirement account. He asked the frequency of my visits and whether I was using the kitchen and bathroom for kitchen and bathroom purposes. Her had asked similar questions of my witness, and our stories matched up.
I summed up my case by stating the whole crux of my argument, that as had already been confirmed, I am a rent-stabilized tenant and have the right to access those parts of the building as my tenancy entitles that are not under any vacate orders, to wit: the kitchen, bathroom, and mailbox.
After I summed up my case, it was Marino's turn to present his. He built his case around the word "condemned" in the Rent Order from the Division of Housing and Community Renewal, claiming that the entire building has been condemned.
His opening was brief, and he called Al Hatem, Port Rich Realty's "Non-litigation attorney." This was interesting because, unlike my witness, he had been present for the entire trial. normally witnesses are not allowed to attend a trial Mr. Hatem revealed that he had been with Port Rich since its founding in 1997 and was property manager of 182 Graham Ave from 1997 - 2006. He claimed that the building had one apartment per floor when he was property manager. He was also asked if one dollar was within the range of market rents in the area.
His statement about the apartments was actually in direct conflict wit the testimony I had given in my opening statement. I had described in detail how the third floor had been under a "master tenant" until one day in which Mr. Hatem said "no more master tenants." When it came to be my turn to question him, I questioned him very specifically about the people involved and events leading up to that moment, and he claimed that he could not recall any of them.
Furthermore, though he could recall collecting rent checks, he could not recall ever collecting rent checks for more than one party per floor in the nine years he was property manager. This flew in the face of my witnesses testimony, as she and I were tenants at the same time, during his time as property manager, and each rented our rooms individually sending checks to him. He claimed he did not recall ever receiving checks from both of us on the same month.
Then I got to asking him about the Order to Repair/Vacate Order from the Department of Housing Preservation and Development. He had claimed that all the rooms were under the vacate order. There was lack of agreement and specificity over the definition of "apartment" and "room." It got so I had to say "the space enclosed by walls and only accessible by one door with (a specific number) on it" and asking if that room was subject to a particular violation.
He claimed to be uncertain as to whether specifically named rooms were under specific violations and vacate orders or not. After further questioning, it came down to asking him if there was anyone among Port Rich Realty who was capable of realizing what part of the building was affected by which violation and what order in the document issued by HPD.
At that point we ran out of time and were adjourned until April 20th, 9:30 AM.
But then on Thursday... (please go to the next post to find out what happened!)
Zorikh's Illegal Lockout Trial, Day 1 - The Conference March 22, 2021
So, today's “trial date...”
When last we left our hero...the second Illegal Lockout case brought by myself, Zorikh Lequidre, in the matter of 182 Graham Ave, had a trial date at which the defendant Building Manager (Antonio Hernan Cook) and his lawyers (Ron Hariri and Charlie Balvin) did not show. This was because they had all been fired and are no longer associated with any part of the business of 182 Graham Ave.
Therefore, I made the decision to file a “substitution,” naming the new building manager and everyone else that I knew was involved with the ownership and management of 182 Graham Ave as defendants of this case regarding a key to the lock on the front door of the building. I sent the appropriate summonses to everybody, and almost all of them showed up on the on-line “Teams” meeting.
This beig the first day with the new Defendants, this was a scheduled "conference," rather than a trial, but for the purpose of numberg the days, I am going to call it the first day.
Present today were:
Priscilla Gerena – Building Manager – Port Rich Realty
Albert Gerena – Secretary – Port Rich Realty
Albert A. Hatem – Port Rich's “non-litigation attorney.”
Charles Marino – Attorney for the defense – Silva Law Firm
Apparently, an “Opposition with exhibits” was filed by the respondents but not sent to me, so that was ordered sent to me. I did not get to read it until after the hearing, so I will address it later.
Overall the hearing was an example of “meet the new boss, same as the old boss,” but at least the actual respondents showed up.
To open, The Honorable Judge Jack Stoller said, “Not to steal Mr. Lequidre's thunder...” and stated pretty much my case for me. I am a rent-stabilized tenant, as determined by the Division of Housing and Community Renewal in a decision made in 2018 and denial of PAR from 2019, therefore I have rights, and I am asking for the key to access those parts of the building that are not under the Order to Repair/Vacate Order, namely, the kitchen and the bathroom on the 3rd floor, and the mailbox reserved for the third floor. This key would be to the front door of the building, which was changed on Dec. 10, 2020 at the order of the previous building manager and defendant, Antonio Hernan Cook.
In response, Mr. Marino stated that the concern of the defendants was that if I were given access to the building, I would use it to “violate the terms of the Vacate Order,” which would presumably, mean accessing (breaking into) my room.
They also put forth the case that since the “apartment is illegal,” it actually “doesn't exist.”
I answered that by saying that I have had access to the building for over a year, before the lock was changed, and I have not done anything that violated the Order. On the other hand, Antonio Cook has entered that room multiple times, that the notices on the door had been removed and thrown into the room at one time, and that Mr. Cook has even gone into the room and destroyed my property. That room is a crime scene.
That room is also, essentially, a closet. It is safe in all ways except for the lack of egress. Therefore, so long as the subject of the room has been brought up, I would like a key to that room for the limited purpose of accessing my property and examining the damage by their former building manager.
So my offer was that if I could have the key to the front door and the key to the room, I would drop this case and we can go about the business of making plans for 182 Graham Avenue for the future.
Judge Stoller ordered the attorney to talk with his clients for a few minutes over that. When they came back, they said that they could see their way to allowing me access to the mailbox if a way could be found to keep me from accessing the rest of the building. However...
They claimed that the Rent Order from DHCR (the Order Determining Maximum Rent/Legal Regulated Rent (Fire Damage or Health/Safety Condemnation)) that determined my rent was $1 a month, declared my room “condemned.” They returned to this argument several times, even saying that the entire floor was condemned, that even they could not enter my room, and that everyone would have to be evicted in order to “make the building legal.”
They claimed that there was no way to “legalize” my “apartment” because of rules about square footage and without evicting the other tenants on the floor.
They claimed that I just admitted that I had been illegally using the room as a closet.
They pointed out that I had been accessing the building all along, and that my neighbor had let me in on the very day that they had visited the building.
They claimed that the Vacate Orders did not make mention of Room 2D, so therefore, it doesn't actually exist!
The claimed that what I was doing was actually an attempt to take over the whole apartment for $1 a month!
But they said that they could see their way to giving me access to the mailbox, if there was a way to block me from the rest of the building.
Judge Stoller asked if they could see their way to allowing a “supervised” visit to remove my property from the room. It was actually a little disturbing how enthusiastic Al Hatem was when he said “We would LOVE him to get his stuff out!”
When asked if I would accept that deal, I took stock of all that they had said, boiling it down to eight points that needed to be addressed: (in no particular order):
1. My “apartment” cannot be legalized.
2. The DHCR Rent Order “condemned” my apartment, and the building.
3. I have been illegally using the room as a closet.
4. I have been getting access to the building, and they don't like it.
5. They will allow access to the mailbox, but not the rest of the building.
6. Apartment 2D doesn't exist.
7. They think I want to take over the entire floor as one apartment for $1 a month.
8. The REALLY REALLY want to get my stuff out of my room.
I began my response by pointing out that it would be easy to restrict access to the mailbox...if they simply replace the interior door in the foyer that was removed by Antonio Cook in his first few months. But when I started to say that this did not mean that I am accepting the offer as presented. and..
...Judge Stoller stopped me right there and said, essentially, “If you are not accepting the offer, shall we go to trial?”
I was all for it, as I was ready to go. I have been prepping for this for over a month! Initially the Defense seemed willing to go as well. So Judge Stoller pointed out that he had to handle a couple more matters that morning but that he would be free at 11 AM to start the trial. One of the defendants, however, claimed that he had an appointment to get his second COVID19 shot this afternoon, and I have to be at work at 2 PM anyway, and then...
...they mentioned that the previous building manager, Mr. Cook, had kept incomplete records, and that they had not received any of the filings the previous council had made. In fact, it seems that Mr. Hariri is refusing to turn over the documents until his firm gets paid, and they are claiming a 6-figure sum!
I shall refrain from editorializing about this.
So the new court date for the trial is Thursday, April 8th.
The proceeding will be a “teams” meeting again, and I will post the link on my personal Facebook page and the one for this website, https://www.facebook.com/182Saga
When last we left our hero...the second Illegal Lockout case brought by myself, Zorikh Lequidre, in the matter of 182 Graham Ave, had a trial date at which the defendant Building Manager (Antonio Hernan Cook) and his lawyers (Ron Hariri and Charlie Balvin) did not show. This was because they had all been fired and are no longer associated with any part of the business of 182 Graham Ave.
Therefore, I made the decision to file a “substitution,” naming the new building manager and everyone else that I knew was involved with the ownership and management of 182 Graham Ave as defendants of this case regarding a key to the lock on the front door of the building. I sent the appropriate summonses to everybody, and almost all of them showed up on the on-line “Teams” meeting.
This beig the first day with the new Defendants, this was a scheduled "conference," rather than a trial, but for the purpose of numberg the days, I am going to call it the first day.
Present today were:
Priscilla Gerena – Building Manager – Port Rich Realty
Albert Gerena – Secretary – Port Rich Realty
Albert A. Hatem – Port Rich's “non-litigation attorney.”
Charles Marino – Attorney for the defense – Silva Law Firm
Apparently, an “Opposition with exhibits” was filed by the respondents but not sent to me, so that was ordered sent to me. I did not get to read it until after the hearing, so I will address it later.
Overall the hearing was an example of “meet the new boss, same as the old boss,” but at least the actual respondents showed up.
To open, The Honorable Judge Jack Stoller said, “Not to steal Mr. Lequidre's thunder...” and stated pretty much my case for me. I am a rent-stabilized tenant, as determined by the Division of Housing and Community Renewal in a decision made in 2018 and denial of PAR from 2019, therefore I have rights, and I am asking for the key to access those parts of the building that are not under the Order to Repair/Vacate Order, namely, the kitchen and the bathroom on the 3rd floor, and the mailbox reserved for the third floor. This key would be to the front door of the building, which was changed on Dec. 10, 2020 at the order of the previous building manager and defendant, Antonio Hernan Cook.
In response, Mr. Marino stated that the concern of the defendants was that if I were given access to the building, I would use it to “violate the terms of the Vacate Order,” which would presumably, mean accessing (breaking into) my room.
They also put forth the case that since the “apartment is illegal,” it actually “doesn't exist.”
I answered that by saying that I have had access to the building for over a year, before the lock was changed, and I have not done anything that violated the Order. On the other hand, Antonio Cook has entered that room multiple times, that the notices on the door had been removed and thrown into the room at one time, and that Mr. Cook has even gone into the room and destroyed my property. That room is a crime scene.
That room is also, essentially, a closet. It is safe in all ways except for the lack of egress. Therefore, so long as the subject of the room has been brought up, I would like a key to that room for the limited purpose of accessing my property and examining the damage by their former building manager.
So my offer was that if I could have the key to the front door and the key to the room, I would drop this case and we can go about the business of making plans for 182 Graham Avenue for the future.
Judge Stoller ordered the attorney to talk with his clients for a few minutes over that. When they came back, they said that they could see their way to allowing me access to the mailbox if a way could be found to keep me from accessing the rest of the building. However...
They claimed that the Rent Order from DHCR (the Order Determining Maximum Rent/Legal Regulated Rent (Fire Damage or Health/Safety Condemnation)) that determined my rent was $1 a month, declared my room “condemned.” They returned to this argument several times, even saying that the entire floor was condemned, that even they could not enter my room, and that everyone would have to be evicted in order to “make the building legal.”
They claimed that there was no way to “legalize” my “apartment” because of rules about square footage and without evicting the other tenants on the floor.
They claimed that I just admitted that I had been illegally using the room as a closet.
They pointed out that I had been accessing the building all along, and that my neighbor had let me in on the very day that they had visited the building.
They claimed that the Vacate Orders did not make mention of Room 2D, so therefore, it doesn't actually exist!
The claimed that what I was doing was actually an attempt to take over the whole apartment for $1 a month!
But they said that they could see their way to giving me access to the mailbox, if there was a way to block me from the rest of the building.
Judge Stoller asked if they could see their way to allowing a “supervised” visit to remove my property from the room. It was actually a little disturbing how enthusiastic Al Hatem was when he said “We would LOVE him to get his stuff out!”
When asked if I would accept that deal, I took stock of all that they had said, boiling it down to eight points that needed to be addressed: (in no particular order):
1. My “apartment” cannot be legalized.
2. The DHCR Rent Order “condemned” my apartment, and the building.
3. I have been illegally using the room as a closet.
4. I have been getting access to the building, and they don't like it.
5. They will allow access to the mailbox, but not the rest of the building.
6. Apartment 2D doesn't exist.
7. They think I want to take over the entire floor as one apartment for $1 a month.
8. The REALLY REALLY want to get my stuff out of my room.
I began my response by pointing out that it would be easy to restrict access to the mailbox...if they simply replace the interior door in the foyer that was removed by Antonio Cook in his first few months. But when I started to say that this did not mean that I am accepting the offer as presented. and..
...Judge Stoller stopped me right there and said, essentially, “If you are not accepting the offer, shall we go to trial?”
I was all for it, as I was ready to go. I have been prepping for this for over a month! Initially the Defense seemed willing to go as well. So Judge Stoller pointed out that he had to handle a couple more matters that morning but that he would be free at 11 AM to start the trial. One of the defendants, however, claimed that he had an appointment to get his second COVID19 shot this afternoon, and I have to be at work at 2 PM anyway, and then...
...they mentioned that the previous building manager, Mr. Cook, had kept incomplete records, and that they had not received any of the filings the previous council had made. In fact, it seems that Mr. Hariri is refusing to turn over the documents until his firm gets paid, and they are claiming a 6-figure sum!
I shall refrain from editorializing about this.
So the new court date for the trial is Thursday, April 8th.
The proceeding will be a “teams” meeting again, and I will post the link on my personal Facebook page and the one for this website, https://www.facebook.com/182Saga
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
