Posted by Anna on February 03, 1999 at 12:37:21:
In Reply to: Re: Rent-Stab Coop Confusion: RPAPL 721.1. posted by hawk on February 03, 1999 at 11:25:26:
: Very confusing story.
As are the legal terms & relationships to me!
Note to earlier email: yes, the coop was declared effective, and yes, it "CLOSED", titles were _______, shares tranferred to purchasers.
: Remember the petitioner must -- as part of its prima facie case -- prove that it is the landlord and you are the tenant. In other words, the ll must establish a l & t relationship, or proceeding should be dismissed.
Yes: that's my basic question: how do they prove that & with what documents?
: Your last comment about atty affirmation, what's your point?? A year or so ago a new rule requires all attys to sign all papers filed in court. the signature is a guarantee that the paper filed is not frivilous. if you can establish that the petitioner is not your ll, you can argue that the attorney violated rule 130 and should be sanctioned. you may not get the atty sanction, but you might scare them to back off and stop treating you shabbily.
It was frustration talking: e.i. why can't they at least put the right data on the papers? Petition is signed & affirmed by atty with "..knowdledge & belief... & records in atty office...": all tenants in the answer line with me had errors on the petition: landlord name, tenant name, monthly rent amount, rent partially paid by subsidy, MDL or DHCR registration, etc.
: Good luck!
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup