In a building with tax breaks dependent on tenants meeting certain income limits, several tenants conspired with an outside screening agent to phony up their income records along with their placement on the waiting list for the building. Through this scheme, they got their apartments. However, the Attorney General’s Office became aware of this scheme and insisted that the landlord remove these tenants on pain of the landlord losing its tax breaks. Therefore, the landlord came to Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. looking for means to evict these tenants and sue the criminal screening agent.

Examining the various laws, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. became convinced that none of the ordinary eviction statutes used in Housing Court were going to get rid of these tenants. Housing Court is meant for people who violate their leases, not for people who were not entitled to get a lease in the first place. So, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. put together a strategy where the State Supreme Court would declare the leases void and of no effect and the tenants should therefore be evicted by the County Sheriff rather than a City Marshal.

There were three apartments involved. One tenant caved in almost immediately and the Sheriff put the landlord in possession of that apartment. However, the other tenants fought bitterly and took full advantage of the Court’s inclination to give them every kind of break it could.

One tenant even claimed that her right against self-incrimination exempted her from the lawsuit’s requirements altogether. So, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. had to put together an education for the tenant and the court on the limits of this constitutional privilege. The court accepted Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s argument and had that tenant evicted as well.

A third tenant tried convincing the court that because she was a student and trying to improve her life that she should be forgiven for the improper manner in which she acquired her apartment.

However, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was working hand in glove with the Attorney General’s Office and made it clear to the Court that keeping this apartment for an undeserving tenant was keeping it away from one who really did qualify and really did need the help.

The Court then ordered her eviction as well, but there remained the possibility that any appeal she might take would reach a more sympathetic ear with the appellate court. Therefore, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was able to convince her that if the landlord gave her enough time to gather her effects, she could avoid eviction, but she would also have to waive all rights of appeal.

The Attorney General was satisfied with all these solutions.

The case was decided on papers alone, prepared by Solomon Chouicha and Dov Treiman.