---

Posted by hawk on February 03, 1999 at 11:25:26:

In Reply to: Re: Rent-Stab Coop Confusion: RPAPL 721.1. posted by Anna on February 03, 1999 at 09:06:46:

Very confusing story.

Remember the petitioner must -- as part of its prima facie case -- prove that it is the landlord and you are the tenant. In other words, the ll must establish a l & t relationship, or proceeding should be dismissed.

Your last comment about atty affirmation, what's your point?? A year or so ago a new rule requires all attys to sign all papers filed in court. the signature is a guarantee that the paper filed is not frivilous. if you can establish that the petitioner is not your ll, you can argue that the attorney violated rule 130 and should be sanctioned. you may not get the atty sanction, but you might scare them to back off and stop treating you shabbily.

Good luck!

Follow Ups:

• Re: Rent-Stab Coop Confusion: RPAPL 721.1. Anna 2/03/99 (2)
  • Re: Rent-Stab Coop Confusion: RPAPL 721.1. Hawk 2/03/99 (1)
    • Re: Rent-Stab Coop Confusion: THANK YOU Anna 2/03/99 (0)

---

Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 

Comments:
: Very confusing story.

: Remember the petitioner must -- as part of its prima facie case -- prove that it is the landlord and you are the tenant. In other words, the ll must establish a l & t relationship, or proceeding should be dismissed.

: Your last comment about atty affirmation, what's your point?? A year or so ago a new rule requires all attys to sign all papers filed in court. the signature is a guarantee that the paper filed is not frivilous. if you can establish that the petitioner is not your ll, you can argue that the attorney violated rule 130 and should be sanctioned. you may not get the atty sanction, but you might scare them to back off and stop treating you shabbily.

: Good luck!


Optional Link URL:  
Link Title:         
Optional Image URL: 

---