Posted by Anna on May 10, 1999 at 14:00:53:
In Reply to: Re: rent demand (Romea v. Heiberger & Associates) posted by Mark Smith on May 09, 1999 at 09:30:40:
: : It has come to my attention that tenants are
: not being advised of the ruling in the Heiberger
: case. It seems to me to be a very good defense in that Most courts are sustaining this as a
: defense. Also warrant clerks are instructed to
: disregard this decision in ssuing judgemnts and
There was a new case successfully using Romea last week, see link & excerpt:
:: The motion was brought in February,
:: 1999 to vacate the stipulations, final judgment and warrant
:: of execution because the rent demand notice failed to
:: comply with the Fair Debt Collection practices Act
:: (hereinafter referred to as the "FDCPA")....
:: Therefore, the judgment must be set aside, the
:: warrant set aside and the petition dismissed.
glenn tracy: I don't understand your comment about warrant clerks ignoring this: please expand.
Also: pro se tenants are never advised of any of their rights or possible defenses before they file their answers, unless they are now receiving that ridiculously inadequate Housing Court Manual... They don't even know to say "General Denial"! And it is NOT the clerks job to advise tenants. It is only the pro se attorneys job: and there aren't enough of them. In Manhattan, the information table manned by helpful people (is it CWTFor CTRC?) 9:00-12:00 M-F is located on the first floor on the way to the old cattlegrounds while the clrks are on the second floor: result: tenants answer without even knowing that their help is available!
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup