New York Probate and Estate Administration Lawyer Blog
On March 29, 2010, a building owner from 1165 Evergreen Avenue in the Bronx, New York filed a motion to evict the resident of one of their apartments. A New York Probate Lawyer said the property owner claims that the person who leased an apartment from them has failed to pay her rent from April 2006 until March 2010. Apparently the leaser had been making only partial payments and at the time of the motion, the renter was $1183.94 behind on their rent. When the property owner filed the motion they also stated that the rent had been $25.00 short each month during the time listed. The property owner stated that if the amount was not paid by April of 2010, that the amount would need to be raised to $1418.94 which would include the late rent and $210.00 for legal fees.
The court set a hearing date, however the renter did not appear for that hearing. The property owner filed a motion for summary judgment. The court decided to review the litigation history between the parties and discovered that there had been four other cases filed between these two parties during the time span going back to 2006 which is also covered by this particular petition. A Staten Island Probate Lawyer said the court determined that the renter would only be behind in rent that was left unpaid through May of 2010 of $375.00. The court decided not to issue an eviction notice for five days so that the renter could have time to pay the amount determined by the court. On May 26, 2010, the renter applied for an order to show cause to cancel the default judgment.
The renter filed three more motions trying to keep from being evicted from the apartment. On August 11, 2010, the renter applied for an additional order and supported the approval of the original $1308.94. The court granted the motion on August 25, 2010. Both parties at that time agreed that the renter owed the property owner $1308.94. That amount would cover any amount that was not paid to the property owner through August.
In November of 2010, the renter applied for an order stating that she had been trying to pay the property owner the rent, but that the property owner had refused to accept the payment. The renter in December applied for the court to give her the opportunity to hire an attorney to represent her. The motions were put off until December 29th. However, the renter did not come to court on that date and the court decided to wait to make a final determination. The property owner then filed a request for an order to vacate the order of August 25, 2010 based on mutual mistake of fact.
The property owner not states that the renter lives in a Section 8 HUD subsidized building. Her original share of the rent was $25.00 a month. However in June of 2010, the renter failed to re-certify to qualify for the apartment at that rate, and the property owner failed to adjust the status on her account. The HUD representative gave an affidavit to the court that stated that the renter due to her loss of HUD support, actually owed the property owner $3,117.94 through August. Queens Probate Lawyers said the HUD representative stated that the renter has since re-qualified and that her rent would be lowered in November of 2010. The court evaluated the motion and stated that the property owner knew about the error in HUD payments prior to the initial filing and failed to enter the correct information. However, the renter was not aware of the error and of the fact that she was required to re-certify in order to continue to get her reduced rent. Since only one of the parties was familiar with the mistake, it cannot be a mutual mistake. Therefore, any motion to vacate based on mutual mistake would be in error and the court will not allow it.
At Stephen Bilkis & Associates, New York estate attorneys can review the circumstances of your property legal complaints, whether it involves an estate litigation, probate or trust. We have convenient offices throughout New York and the Metropolitan area. A New York rental lawyer can evaluate your case and provide advice for an appropriate defense.