EDITORIAL: (PERSONAL-FOR TENNETS)

You ever get that feeling that you're being ripped off. I'm a tenant in subsidized housing under equal opportunity law. My lawyer "deuce" is right on this shit, I'm ok thought, I resent that lack of privacy and the shit talking amongst strangers whom don't know me, as random fights have broken out, enough to sue the assholes and the management.
"Watches soap operas on TV ,While 6 billion disappears from HUD
Who are you working for
What did you hope to gain
Why do you hate your past
So much you destroy
The ones you love"
-Forkboy!-LARD (with Jello Biafria)
cryptomail
The bassist shredded and slayed, forgot his name. Great show, went both nites. Here they are, playing fork boy.
The bassist shredded and slayed, forgot his name.
Great show, went both nites.
Here they are, playing fork boy.


This is a true scenario:
*I OVER paid my rent in ( OVERCHARGE in rent-where I currently live) 2002, and NEVER got a refund. I've always paid my rent.
* A cycle for painting (painting my apartment) is an issue here, as tenet landlord relationships are often adversarial. It does NOT clarify in my lease nor tenant handbook that tenets have to PAY out of POCKET for painting cycle cost, routine every four years.. In the fact that I over paid my rent, why is that $ not recovered or pro rated towards such as security.
*I've have not seen the interest on my security deposit since 2003.
*If the tenant is manipulated to pay for painting costs out of pocket (embezzlement, extortion, via management?), the tenets they should be able to choose there own contractor. Since said painting contractor used to be my neighbor in 1999, 2000, 2001 (at a different residence) and put a condom on my doorknob, he is not allowed in my rental, or near me.
*Also the same contractor (Tony Velequez) built the storm door backwards with no outside lock or key, and did a horrible job on the painting of my bathroom before I moved in.
*Velequez was being evicted in 2000/01 at my former residence,at the time the landlord re considered for Tony, however, I saw the Sheriffs department deliver the eviction notice. I simply got fed up with living at 40 North Chestnut (next door to him, and the noisy shit talking in front of my door and in the hallway) and didn't renew my lease and moved across the street after OVERPAYING my rent at 40 N. Chestnut.
*Said tennet does not have a contract with said painting contractor, just a lease with a management company.
*On a 4 year painting cycle, I signed something in 2006 saying I refused the painting cycle, dislocated knee at the time from late '05, (wrote a journal entry about it and everything) and I shouldn't be bothered until the next 4 year painting cycle.
*This is not a mandated not smoking apartment complex (like i would live here if it was?)
*Water sealing is/ should be routine maintenance wear sinks, and water usage occurs. Not really a big deal for me. The management blames the tennents, because they are cheap and greedy.
*Of course the unbelievable amount of gossip as complete strangers are mocking me, and making homophobic comments close to where I live, enough that hate crimes have perpetuated against me, as those people have been undercharged including sex offenders and jealous squatters. I have every right to defend myself, and sue, and that's quite tame for the way we feel right now.
*That attack on me via Timothy Cannon that I briefly mentioned, um, the same day that some other douche that attacked me ( JULY 2008-Charles Bridge-a stranger to me-http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/cgi/internet/nsor/fortecgi?serviceName=WebNSOR&templateName=detail.htm&requestingHandler=WebNSORDetailHandler&ID=460981298) had to have his picture taken for his level 3 sex offender registry.
*Crimes this management has committed towards me: *Turning off my water January 2009 while I was taking a shower, causing my toilet to overflow as that is NOT my fault, and that can cause water damage, stress, just one day after I was discharged from hospital. There was NO water in my apartment that day, as I patiently waited for the water to be turned back on.
*Walking into the apartment (superintendent Erazo) without a work order after I took a shower and left my house, intentionally, no consent, a year to the date of a friend of mines funeral.(9/11/08)
*My door was found opened after a night out in December of 2007, just two days before X-mas, I walked into my apartment ducking as if I had been burglarized. Not sure if I didn't lock my door, or if the super went in there and abused the privilege of the master key.
This is illegal for landlords/management do to to lease bearing rent paying tenets.
*Using homophobic language, and not protecting tennents privacy for..what? GREED, issues unrelated to housing.
*Let's open up the books on the management and the contractor and let them prove they are not fraudulent, out of pocket costs for the tenet goes where? In there pocket. I OVERPAID my rent via being OVERCHARGED my rent, I hardly noticed until they clarified clerical errors of there own.
*You break it, you bought it, if I have to sue, at the very least, anyone in my apartment without supervision can not be here, including the superintendent.
*Anything they have already stolen goes into a huge lawsuit including medical bills, for permanent scar on my forehead (20 stitches- Snug's Harbor 38 main str. new paltz, ny), including their intimidation and threats, punitive damages.
*I just want my money back, my lawyer (deuce) is checking for any embezzlement vs. HUD LAW, and also EOH/FAIR HOUSING states equal opportunity for gays, otherwise I can't stand the homophobia, and criminal mischief around here, find something else to
do. What? It's on..
*I'll pay $200.00 to deuce and the management will lose more than they can possibly gain from exploiting me, since they owe me money.
*Trying to criminalize me over something that is NOT a matter of my ethics but a denial on others part, this is a civil court matter and they provoked it, in their lack of ethics and illegal behavior.
*In January 1st 2009 (New Years Day-a federal holiday), same day I was in the hospital for injuries via a drug addicted squatter attacking me, the management where I live wrote a note saying I would have to pay the "market rate" of rent if I didn't re certify. Of course I been living here for over 7 years, re certify and renewed every year (I'm not a noob) as the management put the cart before the horse, before they sent me a scheduled appointment for rectification. Another unsuccessful attempt (from the management) to embezzle low income people. Of course it worked out, I don't have the pay the market rate, but I resent the obnoxious attitude, drama, at the most inopportune times.
*Whatever I comply to, does not guarantee my privacy, safety or stability, why should I commit to this crap?
Extortion, price gouging and embezzlement will NOT be tolerated.
*Not to mention laundry facilities. So I did my laundry on the premises for years, and wondered how much money I spent to get my clothes dry without someone opening up the dryer mid cycle, stalking me when there clothing is not in any machines (309), as my clothing was barely getting dry. 2006, there was a power outtage in the middle of me doing laundry in building 6, and I had to drag my clothes, heavy and water logged across the street as nothing worked, and I was NOT refunded. Warning: as many loads to dry as to wash. So the management remolded the laundry facilities, and as it's no longer coin op, and I DID NOT get an electronic card for this.
Then others pretend they don't the difference between my damp clothing, before totally dried and the appliances and resources they provide for the tennets.

FROM ANSWERS.COM (although I live in NY):
Resolved Question
Show me another »
Can landlord of apartment charge for painting apartment? (california)?
I found the california tenant law and am interested in the part quoted below about the "painting". They cant deduct that from the deposit.
My previous landlord of an apartment complex says they will charge $45.00 to repaint the apartment and take it from the deposit - i lived there 9 months.

"Within 21 days after you leave the unit, the landlord must refund your full deposit, except for limited deductions which must be itemized in a accompanying notice. The landlord may only deduct from your security deposit the amounts that are reasonably necessary to clean the premises for the next tenant, repair damages that you caused beyond normal wear and tear, and pay any rent you owed but did not pay. Painting the unit is not a legitimate deduction, unless inherent in repairs of damage you caused, such as replacing the walls. The list must itemize each amount, time spent, hourly rate, the name and contact information of the person who did the work, and what was done, and be accompanied by receipts and other documentation showing exactly where the money went"

A landlord is trying to charge you for routine maintenance or cosmetic enhancements and trying to shift the cost to you under the 'repair' clause. If there is a painting charge, it must be disclosed at the time of renting/leasing the apartment, not at the time of termination.
DO NOT LET RETALIATION HAPPEN TO YOU:, this CAN NOT HAPPEN: HOW TO USE THE NEW YORK STATE
ANTI-RETALIATORY LAW

In 1979, section 223b was added to the Real Property Law. This
section provides legal protection for tenants who have been
retaliated against by landlords after engaging in certain kinds
of "protected activities" . The statute is of special value to
two classes of tenants: (1) tenants in areas of the state without
rent control or rent stabilization laws. 2) tenants living in
areas that have rent regulatory laws but whose buildings or
apartments, for one reason or another, are exempt from those laws
(i.e., in NYC, buildings with less than six dwelling units,
buildings constructed post 1974, apartments rented after a
vacancy in coop or condo buildings, luxury deregulated
apartments, etc.).

Rent regulated tenants, as well, need protection from landlords
who sue to evict them on a so called "breach" of a substantial
clause in the lease, when, in reality, the landlord is acting in
retaliation against the tenants' efforts to enforce their legal
rights. But, the rent regulatory laws have provisions to protect
against this type of landlord abuse.

Section 223b applies to all rental residential premises in the
state except those in owner-occupied one-, two-, or three-unit
buildings.


Main Features

The statute has four principal features:

First, it contains a list of tenant activities which are to be
"protected" from landlord retaliation. These activities are:

1. A good faith complaint by or on behalf of the tenant to
a governmental authority of a landlord's alleged
violation of any law, regulation, code, ordinance, or
any law which has as its objective the regulation of
premises used for dwelling purposes.

2. Actions taken in good faith by or on behalf of the
tenant to secure or enforce any rights under the lease
or rental agreement, under the Warranty of Habitability
Law, or under any local, state, or federal law which
has as its objective the regulation of premises used
for dwelling purposes.

3. The tenant's participation in the activities of a
tenants' organization.

Second, it prohibits a landlord from taking certain actions in
retaliation for any of the protected activities.

Third, it creates a "rebuttable presumption" that the landlord is
acting in retaliation if he undertakes a proscribed action within
six months after the occurrence of any of certain events.

Fourth, the statute has important consequences if there is a
finding of retaliation; it provides an affirmative defense in an
eviction proceeding. Retaliation can also be the basis for a
civil suit by the tenant against the landlord, but the rebuttable
presumption will not apply.


Presumption

The "rebuttable presumption" clause is the most significant
feature of the law. It suggests that there is a motive of
retaliation on the part of the landlord if he attempts to evict
the tenant, substantially raise the rent, decrease services, or
refuse to renew an expiring lease within six months after the
tenant has undertaken any of the protected activities.

The effect of this clause is to place the burden of proof on the
landlord that his action is not retaliatory, rather than on the
tenant to prove that it is. In other words, the landlord must
satisfy the court that he has some other legitimate reason for
acting against the tenant. As a practical matter, complaints to
some governmental agency (NYS Division of Housing and Community
Renewal, municipal housing or code enforcement agencies,
municipal or county health departments, municipal or county
social service departments) provide the basis on which tenants
may then proceed to claim the benefits of presumption, and not on
complaints made only to landlords.

In order to obtain the benefit of the presumption, it is
necessary to allege an actual violation by the landlord. This
does not mean that an enforcement agency must have already
determined that the violation exists or occurred; the court may
decide that for itself.


Retaliation As A Defense

The law makes "retaliation" available as an affirmative defense
in an eviction proceeding, but the court must find that the
landlord is not only acting in retaliation, but must further find
that the landlord would not otherwise have commenced such action
or proceeding. This means that the defense applies only if the
court concludes that retaliation was the decisive or determining
factor leading to the landlord's bringing the eviction
proceeding.

The defense does not apply if the court concludes that the
landlord would have brought the proceeding regardless of the
retaliatory motive.


Affirmative Action By Tenant

The law establishes the right of a tenant to start a legal action
against a landlord based on an allegation of retaliation as well
as using retaliation as a defense against legal action started by
the landlord. However, the rebuttable presumption would not be
available if the tenant started the legal action. The statute
provides that an affirmative action by the tenant would be
governed by a one-year statute of limitations.


Lease Renewals

A tenant may assert the defense of retaliation if, after a tenant
has exercised a protected activity, the landlord refuses to renew
the lease, and then attempts to evict the tenant. But, if,
following the tenant's protected action, the landlord offers a
new lease for at least one year, the tenant may not raise the
retaliatory defense again at the end of that lease if the
landlord refuses to offer yet another renewal lease.

There is then, in effect, a limit of a one-year lease renewal,
after which the tenant can no longer use the retaliatory defense
if the landlord seeks his removal.


Altering Terms of Tenancy

Apart from barring evictions, the law prohibits the landlord from
"substantially altering" the terms of the tenancy in retaliation
for any of the protected activities. The usual ways the terms
might be altered would be to raise the rent, or decrease the
services. Whether an attempted alteration of the terms is
"substantial" is determined by the court, on the facts, in each
case, but the word is included so that relatively minor or
insignificant changes in services or rent will not be used to
invoke the statute.

Rent Increases

Because rent increases typically follow major repairs, an issue
under this statute is whether a rent increase can be considered
retaliatory. Simply showing that an increase was the result of
recovering the cost of repairs should not be an adequate excuse,
since the landlord is required to provide habitable, violation
free, premises to begin with.

Thus, this statute may provide an opportunity to challenge in
court the reasonableness of any rent increase demanded by a
landlord subsequent to a tenant complaint of code violations. It
is important that tenants in this situation not accept an
attempted increase in rent if they wish to challenge it as being
retaliatory.

In addition, although the rebuttable presumption is not available
to the tenant in a normal non-payment proceeding, it is available
if the non-payment proceeding involves an increase in rent to
which the tenant has not agreed.


Use

The Anti-retaliatory Eviction statute, unfortunately, has not had
a significant impact in defending tenants who exercise their
rights, against landlord abuse. As previously mentioned, rent
regulated tenants have in their laws, protective provisions
against retaliatory tactics, so this statute overlaps with
others.

The retaliatory defense, however, is raised by tenant attorneys
but it is a difficult defense, the rebuttable presumption
notwithstanding; "motive" and "intent" on the part of the
landlord can be a highly subjective and debatable matter.

Sorry to write this-BBL with METAL-\m/ -l-