ADDITIONAL CASES Edenwald Houses v. Yahaira Figueroa; 802217/18; Mott Haven Houses v. Avonia Beckford; 801218/19; 812849/18; Patterson Houses v. Ana Andrew; 809242/18; 804082/17; Butler Houses v. Alina Perez; 800359/19; 806186/18; 806675/17; 804533/17; Patterson Houses v. Josefina Martinez; 811951/18; 805310/18; Mott Haven Houses v. Erica Whitehurst; 801214/19; 812844/18; Morrisania Air Rights Houses v. Lisa Turner; 800695/19; 800055/19; 810012/18; Webster Houses v. Tiffany Williams; 811438/18; 803660/18; 800638/17; Morris Houses v. Elisha Reid; 801438/19; 803484/18; Morris Houses v. Kenia Zanz; 801427/19; 810254/18; 802027/18. Decision and Order The Court found that these proceedings are frivolous pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c) and scheduled a sanction/cost hearing. (Matter of Kover 2015 NY Slip Op 07802 10/27/2015 AD1) See, NYCHA v. Various Tenants, 60 Misc. 3d 1210(A) (Civ. Ct. Bronx Co. 2018) On May 2, 2019, a hearing was held to determine whether sanctions/costs are appropriate under the circumstances. Petitioner’s agents and various respondents appeared. All the parties that appeared and testified were sworn in. Hearing: Tracy Forrest, Esq., the Division Chief of Landlord & Tenant Division, appeared and testified that his responsibilities include supervising cases, training lawyers and providing guidance to managers of various housing developments. He testified that there have been periodic trainings held to remedy the issue of multiple cases seeking the same rents. Mr. Forrest testified that there is a third training that will take place within “few weeks.” Mr. Forrest acknowledged that the process has been impaired by the heavy case load but described steps that are to be taken by petitioner’s employees to prevent this from happening again. Alan Pelicow, Esq., a senior policy manager, appeared and testified that all petitions are generated by the Rent Collections System (RCS) which is “decades old.” Mr. Pelicow testified that the software is very old and has “many patches.” A recent “correction” was implemented so that if the RCS system detects another petition, a new petition will not be generated unless the old case is cancelled. Cancellations are done manually after consultations with an attorney from the Landlord & Tenant Division. The “correction,” designed to “red flag” the duplicate petitions, and a new training for the property managers were to be implemented. The new training would address the “red flag” cases and that the property manager must contact the Landlord & Tenant Division. Discussion: This Court held a hearing to address the issue of overlapping rents sought in multiple non-payment proceedings. The Court found petitions seeking overlapping rents lack a reasonable inquiry contrary to Rule 130-1.1. These petitions were not an individual mistake or an isolated event. The petitions were signed by different managers and verified by different attorneys. Petitioner’s witnesses stated that it was taking this situation seriously. New York City Housing Authority v. Various Tenants, 60 Misc. 3d 1210(A) (Civ. Ct. Bronx Co. 2018) A similar hearing was held by Honorable Michelle D. Schreiber in 2017. Tracy Forrest, Esq. and Alan Pelicow, Esq. testified as to the steps that the New York City Housing Authority had taken to prevent the issuance of multiple judgments for the same, overlapping rents. Hon. Schreiber found, in part, that “NYCHA has taken necessary steps to prevent the filing of multiple, overlapping cases…While the ‘IT’ safeguards developed have not been fully implemented to date, it appears the training provided to NYCHA employees has been augmented to include detailed instructions on preventing these circumstances from being duplicated in the future.” New York City Housing Authority by Wald Houses v. Sarah Santana, L&T Index No.12428/17, Unpublished Decision (Civ. Court, NY Co. Decided October 26, 2017) (Schreiber, JHC) This Court notes that at the hearing in the Santana case in 2017, the same witnesses testified on behalf of the New York City Housing Authority. The witnesses for the New York City Housing Authority laid out several steps to prevent the overlapping rent cases from being filed. Since 2017, the issue of overlapping rents has been addressed by this Court on numerous occasions. See, New York City Housing Authority v. Various Tenants, 60 Misc. 3d 1210(A) (Civ. Ct. Bronx Co. 2018.) and New York City Housing Authority v. Marrero, 64 Misc. 3d 1228(A) (Civ. Ct. Bronx Co. 2019). It appears, that while there were proposed steps to be taken to prevent the filing of multiple cases, those steps are not being fully implemented or not effective enough to prevent the continued filing of overlapping cases. Numerous overlapping cases continue to be filed more than two years after the 2017 hearing. 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 allows the court, in its discretion, to award to any party in any civil action…costs in the form of reimbursement of actual expenses reasonably incurred and reasonable attorney’s fees, resulting from frivolous conduct as defined in this part. Costs and/or sanctions can be imposed upon the court’s own initiative, after a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The form of the hearing shall depend upon the nature of the conduct and the circumstances of the case. 22 NYCRR 130-1.1d 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(b) states “By signing a paper, an attorney or party certifies that, to the best of that person’s knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances (1) the presentation of the paper or the contentions therein are not frivolous as defined in section 130-1.1(c) of this subpart. In determining whether to award sanctions, the court must consider whether the attorney adhered to the standards of a reasonable attorney. By signing the certification on court papers an attorney certifies that it is not frivolous but rather is based on knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances. DeRosa v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp., 15 AD3d 249 (App. Div. 1st Dep’t., 2005). Filing of multiple cases for overlapping rents places an undue burden on the courts and the litigants. The courts must create multiple files, enter multiple judgments and maintain multiple records. The litigants are even more burdened because of the risk of a potentially unlawful eviction. Litigants must come to court on multiple days (potentially losing work hours, paying for extra childcare, increased commuting costs) and must figure out which case is “active” and can lead to an eviction. The courts and the litigants alike are forced to figure out which judgment is satisfied, and which warrant should be stayed by an Order to Show Cause. Based on the above, this Courts finds that: Yahaira Figueroa: On or about December 29, 2017, petitioner issued a petition, L&T Index # 802217/18, seeking rent for December 2016 — December 2017. On April 25, 2018 parties entered into a stipulation where respondent owed rents for March 2017 — April 2018. On December 24, 2018, petitioner issued a second petition, with the L&T Index # 801366/19, seeking rent from August 2017 — June 2018. Most of those rents were already included in the April 25, 2018 stipulation in the first case. This increased the risk of an unlawful eviction. Avonia Beckford: On or about September 19, 2018, petitioner issued a petition with L&T Index # 812849/19 seeking rent from July 2018 — September 2018. The case was calendared for January 11, 2019. It was adjourned to February 14, 2019 and then to March 14, 2019 for Adult Protective Services to evaluate the respondent. On or about December 17, 2018, petitioner issued a second petition, with the L&T Index # 801218/19, seeking rent from July 2018 — December 2018. In this instance as respondent is unable to advocate for herself. This increased the risk of an unlawful eviction. Furthermore, petitioner was on notice that Adult Protective Services was involved in the case due to respondent’s condition. Ana Andrew: On or about March 20, 2017, petitioner issued a petition with L&T Index # 804082/17 seeking rents for August 2016 — March 2017. On June 26, 2018, parties entered into a stipulation wherein $9,658.78 was due through June 30, 2018. On or about July 17, 2018, petitioner issued a second petition, with the L&T Index # 809242/18, seeking rent for June 2018 — July 2018. The June 2018 rent was included in the stipulation of June 26, 2018 and therefore petitioner was seeking a judgment for the same rent. This increased the risk of an unlawful eviction. Alina Perez: On or about April 19, 2017, petitioner issued a petition with the L&T Index # 804533/17 seeking rents for March 2017 — April 2017. The parties signed multiple stipulations in this matter. On November 14, 2018, respondent’s Order to Show Cause (OSC) was granted staying execution of the warrant through December 14, 2018 for payment of $1,338.00 which included rent from October 2018 — November 2018. On June 19, 2017, petitioner issued a second petition, with the L&T Index # 806675/17, seeking rent for April 2017 — June 2017. The second case was calendared for August 30, 2017 and petitioner obtained a final judgment for rents from April 2017 — August 2017. At the time the second case was heard, petitioner already had a judgment for the same rents in the first case. On or about April 18, 2018, petitioner issued a third petition, L&T Index # 806186/18 seeking arrears of $9,837.21 with the monthly rent of $800.00. The third petition was defective as it did not specify what months are owed and how petitioner calculated the arrears. On or about December 19, 2018, petitioner issued a fourth petition, with the L&T Index # 800359/19 seeking rent from October 2018 — December 2018. This case was seeking overlapping rents that were partially addressed in the stipulation of November 14, 2018. Petitioner obtained two final judgments against respondent and sought two additional ones. Respondent was at a risk of eviction because of the double judgments against her. This increased the risk of an unlawful eviction and the risk of multiple warrants of eviction. Josefina Martinez: The Court does not find sufficient evidence to determine whether petitioner sought overlapping rents in the cases against Josefina Martinez. Erica Whitehurst: On or about September 19, 2018, petitioner issued a petition, with the L&T Index # 812844/18 seeking rent from June 2018 — September 2018. On January 9, 2019, the parties entered into a final judgment stipulation wherein $1,353.66 was due for rents from July 2018 — January 2019. On or about December 17, 2018, petitioner issued a second petition, with the L&T Index # 801214/19. It sought rents from June 2018 — December 2018. These cases clearly seek overlapping rents. The Court notes that in the first case, petitioner seeks $37.66 for June 2018 rent and in the second case, petitioner seeks $197.66 for June 2018. This discrepancy is troubling and raises questions about basic accounting. These multiple filings for overlapping rents increased the risk of an unlawful eviction. Lisa Turner: On or about July 25, 2018, petitioner issued a petition with L&T Index # 810012/18 seeking rent for May 2018 — July 2018. On November 2, 2018, the parties entered into a final judgment stipulation where $619.07 was due for the months of May 2018 — November 2018. On November 20, 2018, petitioner issued a second petition. L&T Index # 800055/19 seeking rent for May 2018 — November 2018. The second case was commenced merely 18 days after the final judgment stipulation was signed in the first case. On January 28, 2019, the second case was discontinued as “petition satisfied. Rent paid through 12/18. On December 21, 2018, petitioner issued a third petition, L&T Index # 800695/19 seeking rent for May 2018 — December 2018. On the February 28, 2019 court date, petitioner’s counsel drafted a stipulation wherein a final judgment would issue for the months of November 2018 — February 2019. The Court did not allow this stipulation to go through and matter was scheduled for a hearing. These overlapping non-payment proceedings are egregious because the second case was discontinued, and it said that rent is paid through December 2018. In the third case, petitioner attempted to obtain a final judgment for November 2018 and December 2018, — for the months which were already paid. These cases increased the risk of an unlawful eviction. These cases demonstrate that the subsequent overlapping petitions were issued without a reasonably inquiry. Elisha Reid: The Court does not find sufficient evidence to determine whether petitioner sought overlapping rents in the cases against Elisha Reid. Tiffany Williams: On or about February 16, 2018, petitioner issued a petition, L&T Index # 803660/18, seeking rent for January 2018 — February 2018. On August 20, 2018, respondent agreed to pay $5,460., as all arrears due from January 2018 — August 2018. On or about October 16, 2018, petitioner issued a second petition, L&T Index # 811438/18 seeking rent for August 2018 — October 2018. The second case was seeking partial rent for August 2018, which was already addressed in the first case. In January 2019, petitioner obtained a default warrant based on respondent’s failure to answer the petition. Respondent came to court after receiving a Notice of Eviction and filed an Order to Show Cause. On March 4, 2019, petitioner’s counsel drafted a stipulation wherein a final judgment would issue for the months of August 2018 — March 2019. Petitioner sought a second judgment for August 2018 rent. The Court did not approve the stipulation and the case was adjourned for a hearing. This increased the risk of an unlawful eviction. Kenia Zanz: On or about August 23, 2018, petitioner issued a petition, L&T Index # 810254/18 seeking rent for June 2018 — August 2018. On November 19, 2018, the parties signed a stipulation where “petition was satisfied, rent paid through” November 2018. On or about December 18, 2018, petitioner issued a second petition, L&T Index # 801427/19 seeking rent for October 2018 — December 2018. This is especially troubling because the rents sought in the second case were already paid as evidenced by the November 19, 2018 stipulation. This increased the risk of an unlawful eviction. Decision: The Court finds that petitioner’s actions do not meet the reasonable inquiry standard. (See, Rules of the Chief Administrator Part 130). A reasonable inquiry, such as a search of the tenant file at the management office, or review of the court records, would have disclosed that there are multiple cases being filed. The Court understands the difficulties faced by petitioner’s counsel due to the high volume of cases and the “decades old” software system. It does not, however, alleviate the need for a reasonable inquiry on the part of the attorneys and its managers. On the contrary, a reasonable inquiry may alleviate petitioner’s claim of high volume and allow petitioner to properly pursue one case for one respondent instead of two, three or four cases with overlapping rents. The filing of multiple cases drains limited resources and increases the potential for an illegal eviction. It imposes an undue burden on Court resources. The Court find that petitioner’s behavior is subject to sanctions/costs as follows: It is ORDERED that Yahaira Figueroa is awarded a rental credit of $50.00 to be credited to her rental account within 30 days of this decision. The second case, L&T Index # 801366/19 is dismissed without prejudice. It is ORDERED that Avonia Beckford is awarded a rental credit of $50.00 to be credited to her rental account within 30 days of this Decision. Due to the circumstances, case with L&T Index # 812849/18 is restored to the Court’s calendar for November 14, 2019 at 9:30 AM to determine whether the appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem is necessary. The second case, L&T Index # 801218/19 is dismissed without prejudice. It is ORDERED that Ana Andrew is awarded a rental credit of $50.00 to be credited to her rental account within 30 days of this Decision. The second case, L&T Index # 809242/18 is dismissed without prejudice. It is ORDERED that Alina Perez is awarded a rental credit of $100.00 to be credited to her account within 30 days of this Decision. In the second case, L&T Index # 806675/17, the judgment is vacated, and the case is discontinued with prejudice as the judgment should have never issued. The third case, L&T Index # 806186/18 is dismissed due to defective petition and because it seeks overlapping rents. The fourth case, L&T Index # 800359/19 is dismissed without prejudice as it seeks overlapping rents. It is ORDERED that Erica Whitehurst is awarded a rental credit of $50.00 to be credited to her account within 30 days of this Decision. The second case, L&T Index # 801214/19 is dismissed without prejudice. It is ORDERED that Lisa Turner is awarded a rental credit of $75.00 to be credited to her rental account within 30 days of this Decision. In the first case, L&T Index # 810012/18 the judgment is vacated ant he case is dismissed with prejudice as the judgment has been satisfied (see January 28, 2019 stipulation in the second case.) The third case, (L&T Index # 800695/19) is dismissed due to a defective petition that seeks rents that have already been paid to petitioner. It is ORDERED that Tiffany Williams is awarded a rental credit of $50.00 to be credited to her rental account within 30 days of this Decision. It is ORDERED that Kenia Zanz is awarded a rental credit of $50.00 to be credited to her rental account within 30 days of this Decision. The second case, L&T 801427/19 is dismissed as the petition is defective and seeks rent that has already been paid. The Decision/Order is being mailed to all the parties. This constitutes the Decision/Order of the Court. Dated: October 18, 2019 Bronx, New York
