Jones v. Gumbs, 84034/2015
Four family building with seven residential units
Landlord filed a holdover proceeding to evict tenant whose lease had expired. Tenant claimed the building was a legal four family home, but contained seven residential units which made the building rent stabilized. The landlord claimed that the building currently contained less than six residential units and could not be considered rent stabilized.
The court relied on legal precedent and a DOB violation when it ruled that the building contained six or more units and was therefore rent stabilized. The Court stated that the units did not need to be legal in order to subject the premises to rent stabilization.
Furthermore, and this may be the worst part, the Court stated that even if one or two units were now removed, the building would still be subject to rent stabilization because it contained more than six units when the DOB violation was issued. Thus, the Court found that the tenant should have been offered a rent stabilized lease and ultimately dismissed the landlord’s eviction action.
If you are in a similar situation and need legal assistance, do not hesitate to call the Law Firm of Vaughn, Weber & Prakope, PLLC at (516) 858-2620.
Car Accident Verdict
Barclay Taylor v. Ilenia Cangelosi & Joseph Robles, No. 15650/12 (Kings – Supreme)
Plaintiff alleged that he was driving east across New York’s Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, when the rear of his vehicle was struck by a car being driven by Ilenia Cangelosi. Plaintiff alleged that his vehicle was pushed forward and struck the rear of another vehicle. Plaintiff sued the driver for negligent operation and the vehicle owner for vicariously liability.
Plaintiff claimed that he sustained a herniated disc and two bulging discs. He underwent about 12 months of physical therapy and several injections of painkillers. He eventually underwent a percutaneous discectomy (a procedure that involved removing part of a disc). Plaintiff also claimed that, as a result of his injuries, he was unable to work for four months, suffers permanent residual pain and can’t lift heavy objects or perform rigorous tasks. He also said he must use a cane, may need to have a pain-relieving device implanted in his spine and may need undergo spinal fusion.
Plaintiff sought recovery of $15,000 for past medical expenses, $850,000 for future medical expenses, $885,000 for past pain and suffering, and $1.35 million for future pain and suffering.
Defense counsel argued that Plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury and his current pain may be caused by diabetes and/or obesity.
The jury found that Taylor sustained a serious injury and determined his damages totaled $1.5 million.
Not every car accident verdict will be seven figures. But not every injury will warrant seven figures. The important thing is that your car accident verdict compensates you for your degree of injuries sustained in the car accident.
Car Accident Attorneys
Car accident cases are very common in New York. The volume of cars on New York roadways will only mean that car accidents will continue to occur in very high numbers If you or a loved one are involved in a car accident and need legal assistance, call the Law Firm of Vaughn, Weber & Prakope, PLLC at (516) 858-2620 today!
More Posts:
OUCH! Tenant loses rent stabilized apt. over Airbnb rentals!
The court held that the tenant had “engaged in profiteering by renting out the apartment or allowing his children to rent out the apartment, to a series of short-term transient tenants for commercial purposes on Airbnb.” Based on online reviews and other evidence presented, the court found that the apartment had been “listed and rented out to travelers through the Airbnb website.”
The court stated that “[s]uch brazen and commercial exploitation of a rent-stabilized apartment significantly undermines the purpose and integrity of the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and is therefore incurable.” Thus, the landlord was awarded a final judgment of possession.
Bpark v. Durena
Repurchase your foreclosed home at today’s value!
Previously, foreclosed homeowners who wanted to repurchase their home were required to pay the entire amount owed on the mortgage. This requirement also applied to anyone buying the home for the benefit of the previous homeowner.
However, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) recently directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to allow former homeowners, or a third-party acting on their behalf, to repurchase their foreclosed home for the fair-market value.
That’s great news, but securing financing may still be an issue for recently foreclosed homeowners. Under existing rules, former borrowers must wait a minimum of three years after a foreclosure to be eligible to receive a loan purchased or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. However, there is an exception to this rule when borrowers can document they lost their home to foreclosure or filed for bankruptcy because they were laid off or because their income was reduced by at least 20 percent. These foreclosed homeowners may now be able to get a mortgage to buy again after a one-year waiting period through FHA’s “Back to Work” lending program.
Keep in mind that foreclosure defense, loan modification, and/or bankruptcy may be better options for you. As always, if you have a question involving the above issues, don’t hesitate to call The Law Firm of Vaughn & Weber, PLLC at (516) 858-2620, to speak with an attorney.
Read more about repurchasing your foreclosed home at today’s value HERE.
Keep in Touch