Zorikkh's New Housing Court Challenge! Day 1

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?