Posted by Sam on June 16, 1999 at 23:32:43:
In Reply to: Re: Eviction in Supreme Court: more help please posted by Cassie on June 15, 1999 at 23:15:45:
Sometimes they don't need a c of o but I'm sure you've talked to people at the buildings department who have explained if your buildings original c of o is sufficient if there is one, there should be one. If the building hasn't been altered for use, meaning converted to another type of building, not necessarily adding apartments but major changes like adding a restaurant on the main floor, or making a commercial loft on the second floor, would require renewing the c of o. So then if there was originally 3 apartments, the c of o should say it. I think you should research cases at 80 Centre Street, the Supreme Court actions using keywords like ejectment, or co op. Ask the librarians what would be good keywords, look up the cases and site as many cases similar in your papers to defend your position. If you made a motion to dismiss, look up ejectment motion to dismiss, etc. Hopefully you could give more details as you go along which stage you are in, in a motion to let us know what's going on and what kind of motions they have served you with. You would have to serve oppositions and I'm sure the pro se office at 60 Centre street are advising you.
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup