Feeback on attorney Keith Barnett please?

[Tenant123]

Does anyone have any experience using Attorney Keith Barnett as a tenant attorney? I may be hiring him and need feedback from anyone -- ANYTHING would be valuable as I didn't get his name from anyone that used him and he seems to be the most affordable. That, unfortunately is one of my biggest priorities in my holdover case.

[TenantNet]

We're not familiar with him, so we can't offer any opinion. Lawyers are expensive no matter who you pick, but there are ranges in fees if you shop around. A number of competent tenant attorneys advertise on tenant.net. While cost is an important consideration, it's not the only concern. ANy tenant will need an attorney who can give them the most effective representation, and that does not necessarily mean a lawyer who will tell you what you want to hear. If others have opinion, please send them to this poster via a private message.

[TenantNet]

We deleted your post with your actual email. Not only will spiders pick it up to send you spam, landlords watch this forum. We ask posters to not use any identifying information.

[Tenant123]

Dear Administrator:

Please Help. When I originally registered with this site, I checked something that said people could not contact me by email. Now that you say you want people to email directly about this lawyer question, no one will be able to reach me by email and you said you deleted my posting of the email b/c it is against your policy.
I don't know how to fix my registration so allow emails through. What can I do?
Thanks.

[Tenant123]

Never mind. I believe I just fixed the options so I can receive private messges.

[TenantNet]

Yes, use private messages. We don't want tenant to put their identifying information on the public part of the board. Beleive me, landlords monitor the board and we know of cases where that's been a problem. We have removed your other messages with your email. Feel free to re-post, but don't use your email address (if for no other reason, to keep you off of the spam lists). Also, consolidate all your posts into one thread. No need for multiple threads on the same subject. Regular readers check all the forums and use the 'today's posts' button.

[Aubergine]

Here are some gleanings from published decisions. Only official reporter citations are given, although Barnett's appearances are sometimes noted only in NYS2d. See http://government.westlaw.com/nyofficial/search/default.asp?tempinfo=SEARCH for decisions since 2000 (not including those cited to NYLJ).

Barnett has successfully represented, at least at the appellate stage, a nontraditional family member claiming succession rights to the rent-controlled tenancy of the departed tenant. See St. Marks Assets, Inc. v Herzog, 196 Misc 2d 112 (App Term, 1st Dept 2003). Barnett handled article 78 proceedings for unsuccessful would-be successors to a Mitchell-Lama apartment, in Matter of Estate of Vaisman v East Midtown Plaza Hous. Co., 15 AD3d 290 (1st Dept 2005), online at http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2005/2005_01262.htm , and to a NYCHA public housing apartment, Matter of Brooks v Wagner Houses, 1 AD3d 284 (1st Dept 2003), online at http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2003/2003_18902.htm .

Barnett represented a subtenant in an appeal of a holdover proceeding that was brought by the prime tenant. The prime tenant was the former LL of the building, who had transferred the property and received leases for two apartments. Barnett's client, then represented by other counsel, raised an illusory tenancy defense and lost at trial. Barnett ultimately obtained a settlement wherein the landlord gave his client a rent-stabilized lease. The prime tenant then sued Barnett himself, alleging abuse of process and malicious prosecution. The case was dismissed, with the court noting that Barnett "represented the subtenant with the proper, in fact required, zeal." See Alroy v Barnett, NYLJ, Feb. 27, 2002, at 18, col 4 (Civ Ct, NY County).

Other cases in which Barnett represented tenants include B.N. Realty Assocs v Lichtenstein, 21 AD3d 793 (1st Dept 2005), online at http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2005/2005_06739.htm ; Matter of Melendez v New York State Div. of Hous. and Community Renewal, 304 AD2d 580 (2d Dept 2003); and Goldman v Segal, 278 AD2d 74 (1st Dept 2000).

In Matter of Deroza v New York City In Rem Foreclosure Release Board, NYLJ, Nov. 10, 1993, at 23, col 1 (Sup Ct, NY County), Barnett won a ruling that a city administrative board's failure to provide a sign language interpreter to his deaf client, who sought to redeem his property after it had been taken over by the city in a tax foreclosure, unconstitutionally deprived the client of his right to participate in the hearing.

See also Matter of Pavillion Agency, Inc. v Spitzer, 9 Misc 3d 626 (Sup Ct, NY County 2005), online at http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2005/2005_25317.htm ; Smith v Parkchester Apts. Co., 256 AD2d 58 (1st Dept 1998); and Smith v Parkchester Apartments Co., 240 AD2d 223 (1st Dept 1997).

<small>[ December 12, 2005, 12:56 AM: Message edited by: aubergine. ]</small>

[lofter1]

3 cheers, aubergine! Above and beyond the call ...

[Tenant123]

Thank you so much Aubergine!