[NYtenants-Online] NY Tenants Online 4/22/00
tenant
tenant@tenant.net
Sat, 22 Apr 2000 02:11:05 -0400
NYtenants Online 4/22/00
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, see the bottom of this newsletter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In this issue...
1. April is the Cruelest Month (more fallout on the MBR lawsuit)
Met Council responds
What did the Law Journal know and when did they know it?
2. Readers on pro-landlord DHCR
3. Attorney: Never file your Overcharge at DHCR!
4. Peter Vallone and Joe "Strausberg"
5. "Strausburg" & Landlords cozy up to State Republicans
6. Tenant Organizing & Advocacy Training
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EMAIL OF THE WEEK:
"Good Afternoon, Is it possible to get a list of all the slumlords in the
city? I would really like to have it for my records."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MET COUNCIL CLARIFIES ITS ROLE ON THE MBR SUIT
To clarify Met Council's role regarding the MBR lawsuit, we did extensive
organizing with our rent controlled membership, mobilizing them for
hearings at DHCR, and lobbying efforts at the City Council. In addition we
were actively involved with our counsel on the lawsuit. Not to mention the
numerous articles in our monthly newspaper "Tenant/Inquilino" and updates
regarding the issue on "Housing Notebook" over WBAI. Jon Lilienthal,
referred to in Stanley Panesoff's letter as having worked on this issue,
remains an active member of our Board of Directors.
The sum and substance of the piece in the "City Limits Weekly" regarding
the judge's decision is substantially accurate, especially in light of the
complex nature of this matter. The article explains the decision in a
comprehensible format for the average tenant. Legal technicalities and
demanding legal jargon is not what we need from our media.
There is enough credit for all who truly worked on the issue to share.
Stanley did great work and he should be proud, not sniping at his allies.
Scott M. Sommer
Chair, Met Council on Housing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A CRAVING FOR RECOGNITION
Letter to the Editor printed in the New York Law Journal
To the Editor:
At the risk of antagonizing the gods who monitor hubris and immodesty, I am
writing to plead for recognition of my firm's role in the recent victory
for rent controlled tenants throughout the City in the case reported on
page 1 of the Law Journal of April 11 under the headline "City Law Not
Trumped by State Law."
For two years the firm of Collins, Dobkin & Miller LLP has served as
co-counsel in that and other related cases along with the firm of
Himmelstein McConnell Gribben & Donoghue to a host of organizations
including Met Council and many building-wide organizations of rent
controlled tenants. Both firms performed this work on a pro-bono basis.
Both firms were listed as co-counsel in all the pleadings, briefs, etc. Our
two firms, both of which specialize in tenant representation, shared the
burdens of the litigation equally. There were no leaders, Only overworked
lawyers, working for years without fee on a case we believed in.
Last Tuesday I was taken aback, to put it mildly, to read in the Journal's
report on the case that William "Gribbon" was the "lead" counsel appearing
for the tenants. Not only was Gribben's name misspelled, but Collins,
Dobkin & Miller LLP had disappeared completely.
But Wednesday's Journal brought what was surely the most unkindest rut of
all. A bold face correction on page 2 disclosed that indeed a mistake has
been made. To my horror, I read that "the names of the lead counsel and the
firm for the tenant intervenors were misspelled. The group was represented
by William Gribben of Himmelstein McConnell Gribben & Donoghue."
As someone steeped in a culture of nightly award presentations bestowed for
the paltriest of walk-on performances, I was now prepared to kill my good
friend Billy Gribben for what I perceived was deliberate slight to the good
name of my firm. After a few minutes of, being subjected to my hysterical
ranting, Gribben assured me it was a misunderstanding and faxed a
correction to the Journal. Since our ultimate recognition, for better or
worse, must surely await our arrival at the pearly gates, I feel somewhat
embarrassed about what must sorely seem like a petty need for credit. But
the fact remains that this is business and I suppose we all tend to crave
some recognition.
In the improbable event that the Appellate Division decides to reverse
Justice DeGrasse's decision, Gribben can have all the credit.
Stephen Dobkin
New York, NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
READERS ON DHCR
One Reader writes:
"DHCR for sometime now has been reversing its own policies during their
processing of Rent Overcharge and FMRA complaints within the agency as well
as in the courts. Too many cases being overturned on the PAR level and this
irresponsible behavior is also demonstrated in the courts on landlord
appeals of favorable decisions DHCR made for tenants. Too many tenants are
left with huge liabilities and rent increases and unconscionable legal
bills due to the agency's unpredictable shifts in policies in mid-stream."
Another Reader writes:
"One bone to pick -- in regards to the DHCR. Will someone please stand up
and tell everyone what a terrible agency this is, that if you are a tenant
they will blatantly make your life a living hell of red-tape, that they
will consistently ignore your evidence, that they will blindly take your
landlord's side. I would NEVER recommend that a tenant take any issue to
the DHCR. What I would recommend is having your t's crossed and your i's
dotted from day one, and bring the issue to court with or without a lawyer
(generally a case in DHCR cancels out your chance of bring up the issue
later in court)."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HOW DHCR LOVES LANDLORDS
Where a tenant should file a rent overcharge complaint in New York City --
never at DHCR!
Note: the following was written by NYC tenant attorney "NYhawk" -- a
regular contributor on the TenantNet Forum
The law allows tenants three options for raising the claim that the rent
they have been paying is more than the law allows under the rent regulated
systems in New York City. The three options are: (1) starting a lawsuit,
either in Supreme Court, or Civil Court if the amount in controversy is
under $25,000.00; or (2) stop paying rent thereby forcing the landlord to
start a non-payment proceeding in Housing Court, then counterclaiming
(suing the other party who sued you in the same lawsuit) claiming a rent
overcharge; or (3) filing a rent overcharge complaint with DHCR.
Starting a lawsuit, in Supreme or Civil Court, is clearly a much better
place to raise a rent overcharge claim for several reasons: Supreme or
Civil Court usually has "better" judges than in Housing Court (better
meaning more experienced); the rules of procedure in Supreme and Civil
Court are much better from a tenant's perspective than in Housing Court
(most significantly, for example, discovery is available in Supreme and
Civil Court, but only available with permission in Housing Court, and hard
to get in rent overcharge situations); if a tenant is counterclaiming in
Housing Court it is a defensive posture, rather than an offensive posture,
if suing in Supreme or Civil Court.
The option of filing a rent overcharge complaint with DHCR is the worst
option of all three, but perhaps because of their unawareness of the
pitfalls of filing a rent overcharge complaint with DHCR, inexplicably, it
is the option tenants seem to select the most. A rent overcharge complaint
should never be filed with DHCR because it takes a very long time to have
DHCR decide a rent overcharge complaint (literally years), and in the event
the tenant wins, the landlord can file an administrative appeal with DHCR
(called a PAR) for free, because the landlord does not have to put up the
overcharge award amount. Also, the PAR appeal will likely take a few more
years. In contrast, in a Supreme or Civil Court case, the case will be
resolved in weeks or months and if the landlord loses and wants to appeal,
it would have to put up the judgment amount or a bond -- the equivalent of
the full money amount awarded to the tenant. Having to put up the full
judgment amount as a condition of appealing is certainly a disincentive for
a landlord to appeal.
Filing a complaint with DHCR seems like a good option because it can be
done for free, that is, without the assistance of a lawyer. This option,
however, is actually penny wise and pound foolish, because almost every
landlord uses sophisticated lawyers to respond to rent overcharge
complaints and DHCR does not give unrepresented tenants any slack.
Furthermore, tenants should be aware that many tenants who at first win
rent overcharge complaints at DHCR, invariably find out that they
ultimately lose after the landlord files the administrative appeal with
DHCR (the PAR). This common result occurs because DHCR, which is a very
pro-landlord government agency, strategically put its army of pro-landlord
people in the PAR units, so that they can overrule the rent overcharge
complaints that are favorable to tenants. After a tenant loses at the PAR
level, the next step in the appeal procedure, is that the tenant can then
bring an Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court (which is different than
the rent overcharge lawsuit that can be started by a tenant in Supreme
Court -- discussed above as one of the three options) and then possibly
seeking the help of a lawyer for the first time. By then it is probably too
late to salvage the case, because the Supreme Court judge can only review
the evidence and arguments put before DHCR by the parties (all the evidence
and arguments put before DHCR is called the record). Having not had the
help of a lawyer while the rent overcharge complaint was pending before
DHCR, it is likely that the record will have been inadequately developed --
from the tenant's perspective. Thus, more time and money might be spent
fighting a case that well might have had merit, but that the landlords
sophisticated lawyers and DHCR cleverly turned into a loser.
So, filing a complaint with DHCR is a cheap way to go, but it will take far
longer than the other two options (and you must pay your rent while DHCR
ponders your complaint for years), it will likely put the tenant up against
sophisticated lawyers who know how to deal with DHCR very well, and in the
long run, will likely result in a losing decision for the tenant.
In conclusion, it is suggested that any tenant considering raising a rent
overcharge complaint avoid the option of filing such complaint with DHCR at
all costs; instead, consult a pro-tenant attorney, who will determine the
potential merits of your case and if it is determined that your case has
merit, explain the options of either starting a lawsuit in Supreme or Civil
Court, or withholding rent, so the rent overcharge issue can be raised in a
non-payment proceeding in Housing Court, as a counterclaim.
DISCLAIMER: This information is offered only for general information
purposes. It is not offered and does not constitute legal advice or legal
opinions. You should not act or rely upon this information without seeking
the advice of an attorney.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PETER VALLONE and his RSA BUDDY JOE "STRAUSBERG"
(yes, the invitation used this spelling)
Honorable Joseph Strausberg
President of the Rent Stabilization Association
Honorary Chair of Citizens for Warden
cordially invites you to share an evening with
Hon. Lawrence A. Warden,
Council Member, 12th District
Hon. Peter F. Vallone,
Speaker of the New York City Council
honoring David Rosenzweig
President Fire Dispatchers Benevolant Association
Paul Washington, President Vulcan Society
Stephen Jerome, President Monroe College College
Charles Ensley, President Local 371 SSEU
Willie James, President Transit Workers Union Local 100
at the Eastwood Manor
3371 Eastchester Road, Bronx, New York
Thursday, May 18, 200O, 6:00 P.M - 10:00 P.M.
RSVP: May 12, 200O (718)798-6817
Patron: $300.00 Sponsor: $200.00 Countribution: $100.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION POLITICAL ACTION FUND
123 William Street - 14th Floor
New York, New York 10038-3804
March, 2000
Dear Real Estate Professional:
The world of politics continues to change - sometimes subtly and sometimes
radically. This is one of the most important years facing us at the state
level because the parties that wind up controlling the state house in
November will go on to draw the district lines for the next 10 years. With
high turnout expected for the Presidential and Senate contests, we must he
active participants in the election process~ We count on your financial
support so NPPAF can be there for you in these elections as we have been
for the last 25 years.
I would like to invite you to our annual luncheon this year on Thursday,
May 11, 2000. Our guest speaker will be John Faso, Minority Leader of the
New York State Assembly. John has been the leading voice of opposition to
the continued extension of rent regulation since coming to the Assembly in
1986. And since becoming the minority leader he has made sure his entire
conference stands up for the rights of property owners when these issues
come before the Assembly for debate.
Your presence and financial support of NPPAF have always been important and
I promise you that your donation will he put to good use. Please take a
minute right now to fill out the enclosed response card and return it to us
today.
I'll see you on May 11 at the Water Club!
Sincerely,
Joseph Strasburg
THE NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION POlITICAL ACTION FUND
Invites YOU To Attend A
Private Political Action Luncheon
Thursday, May 11, 2000
11:45 A.M.
Invited Guest Speaker
Hon. Johii Faso, Minority Leader,
New York State Assembly
The Water Club
30th Street and East River Drive
THE NEIGHBORLIOOD PRESERVATION POLITICAL ACTION FUND
14th Floor 123 William Street
New York, New York 10038-3804
______ YES, I will attend the luncheon.
Enclosed is my check for $_____________ for ______ tickets,
at $150. Each, made out to NPPAF.
______ I regret I will be unable to attend the luncheon,
however, I am enclosing a contribution of $_______
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TENANT ORGANIZING & ADVOCACY TRAINING OPPORTUNITY
ANHD in collaboration with the Training Institute for Careers in Organizing
(TICO) is hosting a unique Training Curriculum Series specifically tailored
to groups wanting to improve their housing organizing & advocacy skills and
knowledge.
- Successfully navigate the HPD organizational structure and use it to its
maximum advantage.
- Identify potential community leaders and develop their knowledge and
skills appropriately.
- Conduct title searches and expeditiously obtain information on the
registered owner/managing agent, building insurance, taxes, liens,
water/sewer bills and more.
- Develop and implement a range of technically sound organizing strategies
- Understand how mortgages work, good repair clauses, lending patterns, the
role of bank regulators and the uses of the Community Reinvestment Act.
- Measure effectiveness in neighborhood preservation and tenant organizing
efforts.
- Effectively run public meetings and other forms of meetings.
- Fully understand the implications of Local Law 37 and how to effectively
organize to utilize HPD's Third Party Transfer Program to its maximum benefit.
The 10 classes, will be held over eight consecutive weeks from early June
through late July.
Class size is limited to 15. Do not miss this unique training opportunity.
ANHD Members: $200
Non Members: $300
For more information, to express interest or to obtain a copy of the
curriculum, contact Adrian Di Lollo at ANHD at (212) 463-9600.