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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment