Posted by chelsea on June 21, 2001 at 23:54:09:
In Reply to: Re: costs of various options posted by Ronin Amano on June 21, 2001 at 12:59:08:
Well, I'm not a lawyer but it's my understanding that that Cecilia v. Irizarry, while very encouraging, was a ruling by the second appellate term, and applies for the moment only to Brooklyn, Staten Island and Queens. If it survives the court of appeals, it would apply more broadly.
I don't believe that Stacey indicated which borough she lives in but she did say she felt she couldn't afford a court action and had decided to go to DHCR. My point was that if she's going to do it, she should do it as soon as possible, given the four-year rule.
Whether we like it or not, the four-year rule was stated pretty firmly in the 1997 rent legislation, which is what the latest regulations were based on. I wouldn't think any tenant should gamble that it's going to go away anytime soon.
: : given the four-year rule barring examination of the rental history beyond that time. It will get your complaint on the record, even if you change your mind on tactics and take it to court later on.
: The 4 year statute of limitations was declared invalid by the Appellate Term in Brooklyn. A basic adminstrative law 'beyond the statutory authority' decision. Cecilia v. Irizarry, available here on Tenant Net.
: Just so you guys don't think that that corrupted excuse for an appellate court did anything radically original. The "Delegation Doctrine", the legislature can't give away it's power to delegate, goes way back to 1892... Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892). Clearly setting a statute of limitations on a contract action, which is 6 years in New York, to 4 years for one party (tenants) who allege fraud in the contract not only violates equal protection, but it's just plain stupid.
: What is surprising is that any judge, even these pathetic imitations that sit in housing court, would uphold such a rediculously unauthorized regulation. And to think, how many pro se's did they screw in the process.
: What is good about the court's ruling is that it gives the statute of limitations the start date from the first proper filing, to protect the rent regulation schema (any other interpretation would have meant that rent stabilization was just a joke). Which in some cases can go back 20 years. Even better. The overcharges are subject to trebling within two years of the proper registration. And of course there is fraud, 2 years from date of discovery. (More causes of action).
: Going to the DHCR is as useless as asking the LL to say "Scouts Honor". Supreme is best, but Civil is more likely given the numbers. Pro se's are dirt in state court, subject to massive abuse and corruption. If you have Section 8, or some other federal claim (there are many), you can get your state claim handled in the pristine halls of the federal courts, and you'll generally be treated well even if pro se. And they sometimes put pressure on the LL's attorneys to settle.
: Ronin Amano
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup