TenantNet Forum

Where tenants can seek help and help others



manhattan housing court

NYC Housing Court Practice/Procedures

Moderator: TenantNet

manhattan housing court

Postby zara » Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:40 am

I was wondering what the general feeling is about the honesty of the manhattan housing court judges and what are the chances of getting an honest or corrupt judge.
zara
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:01 am
Location: new york city

Re: manhattan housing court

Postby Downtown » Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:56 am

I wouldn't recommend that anyone go to housing court without an atty. Not a question of honest vs. corrupt..HC judge not like Small Claims where they help the non professional.
LL atty's are notorious for using any means to win.
Downtown
 
Posts: 1386
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2002 1:01 am
Location: NYC, NY

Re: manhattan housing court

Postby Concourse » Tue Nov 01, 2005 11:23 am

I definitely agree with you when it comes to evictions or anything serious, such as fighting for a preferential rent. But my brother went to HC to get repairs, (I think they call it an HP action?)pro se. Isn't that the exception to the rule?
A stupid landlord is a joy to behold.
Concourse
 
Posts: 859
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Big Apple

Re: manhattan housing court

Postby shirts and shoes » Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:00 pm

An HP action is an exception to the rule because you have the HPD attorney working with you. Your first time in front of a judge ask for an "application" to have time to find an attorney. If they didn't serve the papers properly, force them to do a traverse hearing or discontinue the case (don't listen to any crap they tell you, stick to the fact that the LL has to serve papers properly to be able to sue you in court). If you have repair issues, fill out an HP form right away and set up an inspection. No matter what, don't let them billy you. Don't sign a stipulation if you go alone and you are in the right. Bring all your evidence: letters, photos and especially rent receipts, cancelled checks. The LL attorney can weave things into the stip that you have no idea about. Say you have counterclaims and the stip doesn't say anything about it, that means you waived your counterclaims forever unless the stip can be vacated or found in contempt. It is also being used by landlords in an effort to harass tenants and scare them into vacating their apartments especially if the tenants are rent regulated. Go down and check it out. LLs and attorneys all run around in fancy clothes and gold watches. The tenants are mostly poor. It's quite a commentary on the two NYs.

<small>[ November 03, 2005, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: roslyn court ]</small>
shirts and shoes
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 2:01 am
Location: nyc

Re: manhattan housing court

Postby jim berg » Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:57 pm

rosylyn court,
Don't most leases require you to waive your right of counterclaim? What you may actually be providing is a defense which is more inclusive than a counterclaim,isn't it?This doesn't stop the judge and the landlord's attorney from screwing you and not permitting you to make a fair defense,while they wrongly treat it like a counterclaim. Look to not be able to get in a word edgewise for their apparent intentional misreading of the more narrow parameters. I say apparent, because, while the judge will make some blusterous attempt to show he/she is being fair handed,it is grandstanding and the deck is stacked. Just my humble opinion.
At the end of the day,there is no one looking out for your legal rights in that system--it is all a crock. The system is also prejudiced to determine that the time spent in delays for whatever reason is compensation to you, the egreiged tenant. It is not. It is a cynical way of screwing you. Good luck

<small>[ November 01, 2005, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: jmb ]</small>
jim berg
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:01 am

Re: manhattan housing court

Postby zara » Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:00 pm

Any ideas about who is a good judge to get for a tenant, and who would favor the owner more?
zara
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:01 am
Location: new york city

Re: manhattan housing court

Postby Concourse » Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:39 pm

Zara, you've started about three topics concerning what I asssume is one situation. Now, no problem with that, but I think it might be more helpful for you if you simply describe your situation, changing enuf details to conceal your identity.

I get the impression that you have something that might wind up before housing court and a preferential rent is involved. If I'm guessing right, by the way, forget about posting here and get a good tenant lawyer.
A stupid landlord is a joy to behold.
Concourse
 
Posts: 859
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Big Apple

Re: manhattan housing court

Postby zara » Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:12 pm

I don't agree that getting a lawyer is necessarily the best thing. We have a friend who was badly screwed by at least 2 lawyers who turned out to be friends with the building owner's lawyers. She almost ended up in the street and became suicidal. Fortunately, it seems like she finally found a lawyer who seems to be on her side.

My experience has been that lawyers can't be depended on. They have limited time to spend on your case, and can miss crucial issues that are not common knowledge.

I think it's good to consult with lawyers, but not to necessarily use them to conduct the case.
zara
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:01 am
Location: new york city

Re: manhattan housing court

Postby lofter1 » Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:05 am

Regarding which judges are more favorable to tenants: Given the machinations of Housing Court it is nearly impossible for a tenant appearing without a lawyer to control which judge your case gets placed with (aka "judge shopping").

Some lawyers familiar with Housing Court are much more able to steer a case to a particular judge, although "judge shopping" supposedly is not allowed.

In a recent case involving a friend who appeared before the assigned HC judge (and who was considering proceeding without an attorney) the judge telegraphed in no uncertain terms that the tenant would be much better off if the tenant retained an attorney (partly due to the fact that the LL's attorney is a very slick player of the HC game).

The HC judge gave the tenant an additional two weeks to retain an attorney.
lofter1
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 1:01 am

Re: manhattan housing court

Postby jim berg » Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:59 am

Can someone comment on the viability of tenant suing landlord civilly,NOT in housing court,where in spite of claims to the contrary,the game is clearly rigged against the tenant?
We shouldn't be talking about pro-landlord or pro-tenant judges. We should be talking about fair judges PERIOD.
While these Land T cases aren't jury cases as that right is waived,it is clear a jury of your peers would be much more favorable to the tenant than some biased potentate. You can make the case that juries would be biased to the tenant. On the other hand, you are dragged into court for withholding rent and YOU are put on the defensive by definition.It obscures the fact that your landlord might deserve jailtime for willfully witholding services.
jim berg
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:01 am

Re: manhattan housing court

Postby TenantNet » Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:18 am

First, you've indicated that a right to counterclaim and jury trials are waived. Despite what you may have read in leases, that is not necessarily the case. Leases often contain unenforceable clauses.

Second, Housing Court is part of Civil Court. Matters in the full Civil Court, with real judges (Housing Ct. judges technically are not real judges) depend on many things, including jurisdiction, amount and type of claims, etc. Most of the time it's the LL that chooses to go into Housing Court, which can be quicker relatively speaking. Other than HP proceedings, HC cases are brought by the LL, so it's their choice. Other differences include cost of the docket number, automatic right to discovery*, the amount and age of the rent claimed. Rent that is considered "stale" might require a plenary proceeding or action in Civil Court.

* not positive, but I think Civil Ct. gives litigants an automatic right to discovery where Housing Ct. is by permission only.

There are other differences, best explained by a practicioner.

Some claims are even litigated in Supreme Ct. Usually that's Article 78s challenging DHCR decisions, but not always. Some actions (as opposed to proceedings) can be commenced in Supreme Ct.

Do not assume -- for one second -- that judges in Civil or Supreme are any fairer towards tenants than those in Housing Ct. Just isn't so.
The Tenant Network(tm) for Residential Tenants
Information from TenantNet is from experienced non-attorney tenant
activists and is not considered legal advice.

Subscribe to our Twitter Feed @TenantNet
TenantNet
 
Posts: 10311
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2002 2:01 am
Location: New York City

Re: manhattan housing court

Postby jim berg » Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:50 pm

The situation I am referring to,is where the tenant was not able to provide a full affirmative defense. The judge administering case as if it were a counterclaim therefore was told the responses needed to be confined to those specifics.The judge was enforcing a "right " the tenant didn't have or want. It could actually be to the tenants benefit to have the counterclaim waiver provision enforced,especially if it provides tenant with a broader spectrum to make his case.
I am not the expert on this,all i know is a screwing is a screwing

<small>[ November 02, 2005, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: jmb ]</small>
jim berg
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:01 am

Re: manhattan housing court

Postby NYHawk » Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:56 pm

TenantNet wrote:
* not positive, but I think Civil Ct. gives litigants an automatic right to discovery where Housing Ct. is by permission only.

Correct. Discovery is an automatic right in any lawsuit in any court, except in a special proceeding (which is the fancy name for a Housing Court case) a/k/a a summary proceeding -- same difference. See CPLR Article 4.
NYHawk
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 2:01 am

Re: manhattan housing court

Postby Anna » Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:32 pm

I can't quite decipher jmb's question/comments re defenses/counterclaims, but I'll try:

First & foremost: residential Ts cannot waive most defenses or counterclaims against LLs eviction proceeding in their leases, commercial Ts can waive the right to some of them & therefore must pay full rent and sue seperately for them.
Second, some things most Ts think should be a defense or counterclaim (because the LL owes or would owe them money) aren't.

RPAPL 743 provides: "...The answer may contain
any legal or equitable defense, or counterclaim. The court may render affirmative judgment for the amount found due on the counterclaim."
http://www.tenant.net/Other_Laws/RPAPL/rpapl07.html
However, all defenses/counterclaims must be "inextricably intertwined" with the LLs claims. (search for that phrase in the usual places)

In general: defenses are against the central claim; counterclaims aren't; e.g.: in a non-payment proceeding, warranty of habitability claims against the unpaid rent LL is suing for is a defense; WH claims for the past six years (the contract SOL) of paid rent are counterclaims. HC judges must hear the defense, usually allow the counterclaim.

Claims for damages to person or property by LLs violation of the WH are not heard as either defenses or counterclaims in HC. T must sue in Small claims, Civil or Supreme for those.
e.g.: unfixed leak renders part of room uninhabitable, ceiling falls in, plaster chunk breaks T's finger & dust kills computer. In HC, all T gets is rent abatement for portion of room that is uninhabitable. To get compensation for finger & computer, T must sue LL elsewhere.

Does this clear things up jmb?

<small>[ November 02, 2005, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Anna ]</small>
Anna
 
Posts: 2538
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Manhattan

Re: manhattan housing court

Postby jim berg » Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:12 pm

Sorry, I am not intentionally trying to be obtuse,just not too specific. I think I get the gist of your post. Thank you.
Situation:
A landlord sues for non- payment.
In the petition,the tenant points to a specific breach of habitability--personal damages understood as a separate issue,however,should be pertinant in determining the value of the uselessness of the apartment. For example,if there is a leak in the apartment,we understand that property damage is for a separate court.However,the tenant may be so distressedas to live elsewhere during this leak.Or, the tenant is so disrupted while there,the tenant wants to make a case that just because only 20% of the apartment is affected by leak,their apartment becomes 100% useless in theory.This still takes into account personal damages as a separate issue.Now take this another step. Say there is no heat.Tenant still had shelter,but not viable shelter. Personal damages include getting sick,losing income,perhaps even the income to pay for the apartment. It is understood that HC is STILL not the venue for recovery of those damages. FINE.
In practice,the math used to extract the value of the apartment fractionally,personal damages aside,to my view is faulty. If there is a cockroach in the spaghetti,maybe in this court we cant't sue for the personal damages of getting sick from infested food,but we should be able to have the cost of the entire meal abated--not just the fraction of the spaghetti untouched by the cockroaches.
In making ones initial defense,one gives a certain time parameter of the problem. However,the history behind the problem is excluded from testimony as not being in the time realm of the "counterclaim" that tenants lease says he has waived. Tenant doesn't believe he can waive a right he does not have and believes instead that it is an affirmative defense. By your post,it is understood that the defense or counterclaim must be intertwined with the landlords claim. At the end of the day,the issue may just be, whether defense or counterclaim,a pro se tenant being bullied by a pro landlord judge. In other words,not allowing the full context of the defense, but inexcusably and inconsistantly bending his own parameters for his own agenda..The judge claims the tenant should have included a longer time frame in response to the landlord's claim in the initial petition and then uses that as an excuse to prohibit virtually any relevant contextual testimony. Like I said--a screwing by the judge.

<small>[ November 03, 2005, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: jmb ]</small>
jim berg
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:01 am


Return to Housing Court - NYC

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 24 guests