Posted by Anna on October 17, 1999 at 12:35:53:
In Reply to: Housing Court stipulation to move out posted by Working Mom on October 15, 1999 at 08:41:46:
: I don't really understand everything: can/should I call or visit the trial judge or her assistant to ask these questions?
Richard's note had good suggestions: I don't know if he is correct about losing the security: I would suggest it is a fight not worth fighting, think of one of those free month's rent as a refund of your security.
I think you would benefit from a one-on-one consult on the stip. Call Met Council M-W-F afternoon to find a Tenant Clinic on an evening convenient to you or go to the 'pro se atty'. Bring all your court papers.
Extending stip deadlines is one thing that some judges do and that landlords constantly complain about. But most of the ones I've heard about are extensions of time to pay or be evicted, for tenants who want to stay. You want to move out: you might lose the 3 months free rent, another reason to have someone read your stip very carefully. They might also know how your judge is likely to react. If yes, file the OSC in early Jan and offer to pay for Feb & Mar. If no, contact friends and relatives: find a sofa to sleep on, and a storage company for the furniture.
The HS sex harassment case is out of your hands: it is between that agency and your landlord, you are a witness now in their case.
DHCR service reduction: any rent reduction would be reduced by the rent abatement a tenant receives in HC. If any of the unpaid rent was or could be considered an abatement, you'll probably receive no money fromthis. However, the rent would be frozen (for the next tenant) until all repairs are made or services restored. Are you 'supposed to cancel' your complaint? I don't know.
HPD: call for new problems, after you call your landlord, as usual. What is new, what is old? In general, every day with no heat is a new problem, the illegal super is an old problem.
Harassment in HC: why not? Most of the anti-harassment laws give one specific agency or another the right to investigate, sue, fine the landlord. Most do not included a right for tenants to directly sue the landlord. Tenants should be able to use the 'quiet enjoyment of the premises' defense or counterclaim in HC lawsuits; this does not mean "no noise", this means provide required services, don't threaten tenants, etc., in real-world English: no harassment. Pro se tenants don't know this and use the word 'harassment'. HC pretends we mean those anti-harassment laws. Then again, perhaps even 'quiet enjoyment' cannot be a 'defense', but must be a 'counterclaim'.
Another harassed tenant posted a msg a couple of days before you did: perhaps someone else will answer that one with a better (and more accurate?) description of the situation.
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup