Civil Lawsuit?

[pcv1107]

I was taken to court by my landlord who was represented by an attorney. The landlord took me to court saying that I was in violation of my lease due to an illegal washing machine. However, the landlord never produced my lease and later admitted that they never had my lease because the building was taken over in receivorship.

They initiated the court proceeding by saying that they had my original lease which I was in violation of. Also, it came to my attention that I was not even the tenant of record so therefore I should not have been taken to court at all. The attorney for the landlord should have noticed the error. Another event transpired when the landlord produced a fraudulent lease, to the court, that was not mine or my spouse's. This was another tactic to deceive the court and prolong the unnecessary proceedings against me. I was taken to court six times until the proceeding was dismissed at a traverse hearing for improper service.

The landlord took me to court knowing I was not the tenant of record, and also produced a manufactured lease. The attorney should be responsible for mal practice and the court should have dismissed the proceeding when I brought this to their attention.

I feel that I can sue civilly. Is my feeling correct?

Thanking you in advance,
PCV

PS
I live in Bronx, NY.

 

[JETX]

I think that you might be misleading us a little when you say, "the landlord produced a fraudulent lease". Was this lease presented as yours (which would have been VERY easy to defend), or was it presented as a 'typical' lease (maybe showing that personal washing machines weren't allowed). If the former, then you are correct that it was unethical, but if the latter, then it really wasn't fraudulent. (I find it hard to believe that ANYONE would knowingly try to defraud the court claiming someone elses lease.)

As to your other issues, at best, you might have a claim of malicious prosecution or lawsuit abuse. If you have a lot of money to pay a lawyer, you might consider talking with one.

Due to the complexities of this type of lawsuit and the fact that you would be going against an attorney, I wouldn't recommend self-representation (Pro Se). Further, this type of case generally falls outside of the perview of the Small Claim system, so would require a higher court (read more expensive, extensive).

 

[pcv1107]

Fraudulent Lease

First of all, I thank you for your reply. As far as the lease, I was not misleading anyone. The landlord was told, by the judge, that the burden of proof was on them and if they did not produce a copy of my original lease the case would be dismissed. At the next court appearance is when they produced a copy of my spouse's lease which was 3 years newer than the original lease that was signed in 1970, not in 1973. Also, the signature was not my spouse's, nor the name of the landlord that the rent was paid to in 1973.

It is very clear that in order to prolong the court procedure they had to produce a lease or the case would have been thrown out. Because they produced a phony lease the case was set for trial on 05/01/01 and was set for a traverse hearing on 04/11/01. I beat the landlord at the traverse hearing and therefore there will be no trial on 05/01/01.

Now, how strong is my case?

Thanks again,
PCV

 

[JETX]

Wow, a THIRTY YEAR old lease. You should have bought the property, it would have been paid for by now!!

In any case, you still have little to challenge them with. And, as I said, it really wasn't 'fraud', it could certainly be argued by them that they tried to make an (honest?) attempt to provide a copy of a 30 year old lease as requested by the court. This is further confused by your claim that a 1973 lease does not supercede a 1970 lease.

Your issues have gotten confusing.... you are apparently hinging your position of possible fraud in that they failed to provide a copy of a lease dated in 1970. They did provide one in 1973 (which would usually supercede the 1970 lease), but you said that the landlord is different and the signature wasn't your spouses.

Your complaint was about the landlords saying you had an 'illegal washing machine' that was (apparently) allowed in a 1970 lease, but apparently not allowed in later leases (1973?). If there were later leases (and I have to believe that there were in the last THIRTY years), and maybe even with 'new' landlords, the newer lease would replace the earlier leases. Meaning that you would be obligated to the 'most current lease', not one that was previous.

It seems obvious to me that this issue is far too complex, with too many different leases, landlords and signatures, for this forum and without the benefit of reviewing all the documents and facts.

In closing, let me answer your question, "I feel that I can sue civilly. Is my feeling correct?"
Yes, you can sue (anyone can sue anyone else). But, in my opinion, you will need a lot of money and have little or no chance of recovery.

 

[pcv1107]

Thanks Again

Well, thanks again for giving me a fast reply. The landlord originally did try to produce a lease from about the same time but was told that it had to be a copy of my actual lease. This is a multi-family dwelling of approximately 64 families. In NY we get lease renewals every 1 or 2 years. However, the landlords are bound to your original lease and have no way of changing it or forcing you to sign another original lease.

Thanks,
PCV