Opinion
802957/17
02-22-2018
NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Various Houses, Petitioner, v. VARIOUS TENANTS, Respondents.
For Petitioner:NYCHA Law Department For Respondent: Anthony Pointdexter, pro-se Tayvia Harris, pro-se Carmen Baerga, pro-se
For Petitioner:NYCHA Law Department
For Respondent: Anthony Pointdexter, pro-se
Tayvia Harris, pro-se
Carmen Baerga, pro-se
Enedina Pilar Sanchez, J.
The summary non-payment proceedings 803802/17, 802957/17 and 803547/17 appeared on the Court's calendar on May 10, 2017. It became apparent that each of the respondents had additional, lower index number, proceedings seeking overlapping rent. On May 10, 2017, notice was given to all parties from the bench that a sanctions/cost hearing would be scheduled and that notice was memorialized in the Order dated May 15, 2017.
On May 17, 2017, a hearing was held to determine whether sanctions/costs are an appropriate remedy under these circumstances.
Petitions with Overlapping Rents
The New York City Housing Authority filed the following cases:
Anthony Poindexter : Petition 806447/16 was verified on June 16, 2016 seeking May 2016 and June 2016 rent. On September 9, 2017, the case was discontinued as rent was paid through 6/16. Petition 808078/16 was verified on July 15, 2016 seeking May 2016, June 2016 and July 2016 rent. On October 27, 2016, a final judgment issued for $1,059.94 which was for July 2016 — October 2016 rent. Petition 811788/16 was verified on November 16, 2016 seeking July 2016, August 2016 — November 2016 rent. At the time 811788/16 was verified there was already a judgment for the months of July — October 2016.
Tayvia Harris : Petition 808868/16 was verified on August 18, 2016 seeking June 2016 — August 2016 rent. A final judgment was awarded on October 2016 for August 2016 — October 2016. On March 20, 2016, petition 803547/17 was verified seeking June 2016 — August 2016, October 2016 and March 2017 rent. In the 808868/16 case there was already a judgment for August — October 2016 rent from the prior proceeding (808868/16).
Carmen Baerga : Petition 810364/16 was calendared for November 30, 2016. A judgment issued for the months of August 2016 — November 2016. Case 803802/2017 was verified on March 17, 2017 and was seeking November 2016 — March 17 rent even though those arrears were already addressed in the prior proceeding. A proposed stipulation with a judgment for a portion of November 2016 rent was drafted but was not approved by the Court.
Final judgments and warrants of eviction had been granted in the lower index numbered petitions and sought again in the proceedings that appeared on the calendar on May 10, 2017.
New York City Housing Authority was afforded an opportunity to be heard. Ms. Rodriguez (Boston Secor Houses), Ms. Mendez (Sotomayor Houses), Ms. Ageboyge (St. Mary's Houses) and Mr. Powell (Regional Asset Manager) appeared on behalf of NYCHA. Petitioner assured the Court that it takes this issue seriously and are in the process of reviewing internal procedures to ensure that this does not happen again. Petitioner denied any intent to threaten, intimidate or cause harm to the respondents. Petitioner stated that in 2016, for approximately 10 months, NYCHA management was testing a new method of record keeping and filing of petitions. This led to multiple cases being filed against the same respondent.
Discussion
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 deciding whether to award sanctions, the court must consider whether the attorney adhered to the standards of a reasonable attorney. 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 (1st Dep't.2005).
In Ruffalo v. Ackerman, 2014 NY Slip Op 51744(U) decided December 12, 2014, the court imposed costs on plaintiff of $250.00 because of plaintiff's submission of inappropriate pleadings produced a "colossal waste of time" and expense to defendant and to the court. The costs "failed to deter plaintiff from engaging in his frivolous conduct so the court now grants defendants the sum of $1,000.00 for the costs of the motion..."
The Court notes that NYCHA is taking this situation seriously, however, it is difficult to overlook the fact that three different tenants that had their court cases scheduled on May 10, 2017 had multiple cases against them that were seeking overlapping rent. It is also difficult to overlook the fact that these tenants live in different developments and have different managers. The petitions were signed by different managers and verified by different attorneys. The overlapping petitions were not an individual mistake or an isolated issue.
The tenants were forced to miss days of work, find childcare, and, in one case, were forced to come to court despite physical disabilities. The Court also was forced to waste time and resources on the above cases. This waste included creating new files, calendaring cases, entering judgments and taking time away from other cases that were scheduled for that day.
CPLR 3211(a)(4) states that a "case may be dismissed when there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause of action in a court of any state or the United States; the court need not dismiss upon this ground but may make such order as justice requires" As in the Ruffalo v. Ackerman , supra , filing of "inappropriate pleadings" creates a waste of time and resources for both the litigants and the courts. This Court, in its May 15, 2017 Order, found that the conduct described above was frivolous under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c). Conclusion
The Court finds that respondents are entitled to reasonable costs and expenses as allowed under the law. This is to act as a deterrent and to ensure that this frivolous conduct does not occur in the future. The lower index numbered petitions have been discontinued and the corresponding judgment and warrant vacated after this was discovered.
Multiple warrants for the same premises obtained because of the overlapping rents sought in the petitions create uncertainty and confusion. Which warrant is to be stayed upon showing good cause may not be obvious to the litigant, the attorney or the court. Summary proceedings seek an eviction; an eviction arising from a petition which was satisfied would be a wrongful eviction. Petitions seeking overlapping rents lack a reasonable inquiry contrary to Rule 130-1.1.
It is ORDERED that Anthony Pointdexter is awarded $300.00 as costs and expenses which are to be awarded to Anthony Pointdexter in the form of a rental credit. Petitioner has 30 days from the date of this order to adjust the rental ledger accordingly. It is ORDERED that petitioner provide proof of such credit to the Court within 30 days of the date of this decision.
It is ORDERED that Tayvia Harris is awarded $200.00 as costs and expenses which are to be awarded to Tayvia Harris in the form of a rental credit. Petitioner has 30 days from the date of this order to adjust the rental ledger accordingly. It is ORDERED that petitioner provide proof of such credit to the Court within 30 days of the date of this decision.
It is ORDERED that Carmen Baerga is awarded $100.00 as costs and expenses which are to be awarded to Carmen Baerga in the form of a rental credit. Petitioner has 30 days from the date of this order to adjust the rental ledger accordingly. It is ORDERED that petitioner provide proof of such credit to the Court within 30 days of the date of this decision.
This constitutes the Decision/Order of this Court.
This Decision/Order is being mailed to all the parties.
So ordered,