NYDailyNews
Landlords have every right to evict tenants from their property for one reason or another; but all landlords must follow a prescribed legal procedure. More importantly, they have to prove that the tenants to be evicted are able to be evicted under article 7 of the RPAPL. They can’t evict tenants without serving them with a notice of termination or notice to cure in a timely manner prescribed by law and done so in an acceptable method.
Most landlords follow a legal procedure to evict undesirable tenants. But some don’t bother, seeking financial benefits from illegal, fraudulent government schemes as an alternative.
One such incident has recently come to light in Brooklyn. The Brooklyn Supreme Court has sentenced Yuri Baumbilt, a landlord, to jail for up to 5 years for following crimes:
- Bilking public assistance
- Unlawful tenant eviction
- Grand larceny
- Scheming to defraud
What is the Matter?
Yuri Baumbilt mercilessly threw all his tenant’s belongings into the street without a court order. According to the prosecutors, he forced the tenant to leave and locked the house after. He also broke his cooking utilities (stove) to make sure he couldn’t cook for himself.
He crossed all legal limits of cruelty and took away the tenant’s bed after evicting him unlawfully and inhumanely. The tenant was left with no option but to sleep on the floor for at least four months and sue to get justice.
The tenant successfully sued him and got his bed back. Rimma, Yuri Baumbilt’s wife, was his accomplice in this incident. The authorities had nabbed both of them back in 2016 and had also seized many expensive items from their $3 million residence. The list includes:
- Fur coats
- Designer bags
- Mercedes Benz
Baumbilt was also pushing his tenants into drug treatment programs to pocket kickbacks from Medicaid providers. According to the prosecutors, Yuri and Rimma successfully extracted the amount of $1.5 million using this tactic. The couple has pleaded guilty to these wrong doings last month.
According to Mr. Eric Gonzalez, Brooklyn District Attorney, Bambuilt and Rimma always targeted people who desperately needed a house to line their own pockets. The couple must be put behind the bars for their fraud and inhumane actions, said Mr. Eric Gonzalez.
RETALIATORY EVICTION
In New York, tenants are protected from retaliatory eviction proceedings by RPAPL 223-b. This statute states in summary that a landlord cannot commence a summary proceeding to evict a tenant in retaliation or response to a tenant exercising it’s rights to file a complaint against the landlord with a government authority. The statute also goes a bit further and protects a landlord from retaliating against the tenant in other ways than starting a retaliatory eviction proceeding. Most notably, the statute prohibits a landlord from changing terms of the lease agreement in response to a complaint.
Another major component of this statute is the presumption that it creates. If the landlord has knowledge of the complaint filed by the tenant prior to initiating the summary proceeding, the landlord is presumed to be commencing a retaliatory eviction proceeding. The presumption however is only applicable after the tenant disproves certain underlying allegations of the petition; such as nonpayment of rent.
Retaliatory evictions are often commenced in response to the filing of a complaint due to the landlords failure to provide necessary services such as heat or hot water. It is important to understand whether or not a summary proceeding is warranted under the circumstances or whether the commencement of an action will be considered by the court to be a retaliatory eviction.
Landlord Tenant Attorney
Knowing the law regarding retaliatory eviction proceedings is necessary for every landlord and tenant. Please call the Law Firm of Vaughn, Weber & Prakope, PLLC at 516-858-2620, where a landlord tenant attorney can speak with you about your case.
Related 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
Standing in Landlord Tenant Court
Standing is an affirmative defense that finds its way into many Answers in Landlord Tenant Court. Standing refers to the right of the petitioner/landlord to bring the case in the first place. The quick rule of thumb to decipher whether or not a petitioner has Standing is if the petitioner appears on the deed to the property on the date that the action was commenced. An action is commenced on the date that the index number is purchased with the Court.
In cases where Standing is at issue, it is necessary to determine whether or not a Power of Attorney has given the authority to prosecute a case to another individual than whom appears on the deed. It is important to note that the petitioner should in most cases still be the person named as owner on the property deed.
If you are involved in a current landlord tenant proceeding or are considering bringing a landlord tenant action, call (516) 858-2620 to speak to a landlord tenant attorney today!
Keep in Touch