| Melinda | Saturday, June 16, 2001 - 08:55 pm
I read on your website that Rent Wars federalizes
housing court cases. What does that mean? |
| Ronin | Monday, June 18, 2001 - 04:47 pm
It means that you take issues related to housing into the federal forum for better, cleaner, quicker resolution of the problem. For instance, you can go to the HP parts where a Housing Judge has inspectors find violations and not get them fixed after years of 'toothless' litigation which wins damages for the City and which the City won't collect.
Instead, take it to a federal judge and get the problem fixed in two hearings. Federal judges aren't 'toothless'. |
| Anonymous | Tuesday, June 19, 2001 - 01:04 pm
I'm a lawyer and that's BS. No federal judge
would even consider HP repairs.
It sounds nice but it's fantasy. Stick with
the HP part. |
| Ronin | Tuesday, June 19, 2001 - 06:43 pm
If it's a federal issue the federal judiciary will deal with it. And if a federal judge refuses to deal with it you have an excellent appeal to the 2d Circuit.
If a building has federal money involved in it, then the lack of repairs is a federal issue.
What's so unbelievable about that? |
| Anonymous | Wednesday, June 20, 2001 - 12:01 am
There's no way a federal judge would
allow that. It's a nice theory, but
of no use in reality.
When I see it happen, then I'll buy
it. But it's never happened before
and it won't happen now. |
| Ronin | Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 07:33 pm
Well get ready to chow crow:
Elva McZeal Tenants v. William and Georgia Corp., 93 CV 2827
Removed from state court. Federal Judge Nickerson did the honors on that one.
Drew Plaza Tenants v. Linden Realty Associates, 94 Civ. 1358.
Original filing. Another federal judge appointed a receiver in February, by June there was a stip and order.
End result of both cases: Owners gave tenants the buildings.
So, yes, federal judges will order repairs or appoint a receiver to do so. And yes, federal judges will handle cases with federal jurisdiction, even when they coincidentally involve tenant matters.
Earlier you said you were a lawyer. Isn't it sad that you didnt know about these cases? or even sadder, that you did but never acted on the knowledge?
You said that when you see it happen you will buy it, am I to assume then that this is a sale?
Ronin |
| Ronin | Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 07:34 pm
Incidentally, both of the above cases were litigated and won by the Met Council on Housing. |
| Anonymous | Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 02:35 pm
Those were a fluke.
A federal judge in Manhattan
sanctioned an attorney for
bringing the same cause of
action in Manhattan. |
| Ronin | Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 01:17 am
Ok. Work with me here. If on one side of the river two sets of judges award tenants a 100+ unit building worth at least $50 million, and on the other side a single judge dismisses the action, why wouldn't the tenant appeal to the Second Circuit??
The reason is that the SDNY judge dismissed the case based on the tenant's shenanigans. I'm not agreeing with the judge, but his basis was not that the cause of action is invalid. His sanctions were because of 'plaintiff misconduct'. Not only that, the SDNY action was pro se and other issues apply (that is why I disagree with the SDNY judge in this case- had the plaintiff appealed he stood a good chance of overturning the sanctions and dismissal. The Circuit discourages it's judges from being too harsh to pro se's. Under Circuit law he was supposed to notify the pro se plaintiff that his case would be dismissed if he didnt clean up his act.)
Given the fact that other tenants won so much property, why would anyone avoid a cause of action so strong that the defendants SETTLED by giving tenants the building (hint: you settle for less than you think you may be liable for).
IMHO
Ronin |