2018 © All Rights Reserved.

  • White Facebook Icon
  • White Twitter Icon
  • White Yelp Icon
  • White Google+ Icon
Trials and Tribulations

The following are some of the successful challenges raised by Coalition members:

January 19, 2018

People of The State of New York, Town of Babylon brought charges against defendant for a violation of the code §153-2(A). A motion to relief was granted based on the extent that the information is hereby dismissed on the ground of facial insufficiency (CPL 170.30(1)(a) and 170.35(1)(a)). However, the underlying information fails to plead that the premises is not the actual residence of the owner, rather, it pleads that it is the actual residence of the owner, thus, the information is jurisdictional defective and must be dismissed. There is no allegation of a self-contained dwelling unit within the residential premises which is being occupied and is not the actual residence of the owner.

January 19, 2018

Town of Babylon brought charges to the defendant, as owner, with allowing the occupancy of a residental dwelling, which is not the actual residence of the owner, without a rental permit in violation of Babylon Town Code §152-2(a). However, all charges are dismissed because there is no allegations of a self-contained dwelling unit within the residential premises which is being occupied and is not the actual residence of the owner.

April 25, 2018

The defendant, who now moves for omnibus relief, is charged by information with violating three (3) sections of the code of the Town of North Hempstead: Count 1, Failure to obtain Rental Occupancy Permit (§2-103); Count 2, Permits for work, Alteration, or Maintenance of Building or Structure (§70-220[A]); and Count 3, Permitted Uses (§70-44). The defendant's motion is determined as provided herein. The defendant moves to dismiss all counts of the accusatory instrument as facially insufficient.The factual allegations contained in the information are wholly conclusory and insufficient to make out a prima facie case against the defendant for having violated §2-103 of the code. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss based upon facial insufficiency is granted as to Count 1. The factual allegations contained in the information are sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the defendant for violating code §70-220(A), clearly the court finds the accusations to be facially sufficient and in accordance with CPL sections 100.15, 100.20, 100.25, 100.40, 170.30, and 170.35. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss based upon facial insufficiency is denied as to Count 2. A review of the above reveals that the factual allegations contained in the information are insufficient to make out a prima facie case against the defendant for violating code §70-44. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss the charge contained in Count 3 of the information based upon facial insufficiency is granted. A mapp hearing shall be help as soon as is practicable that branch of the defendant's motion which seeks the disclosure of the defendant's past criminal history and/or prior bad or immoral acts which the people intend to use at trial should the defendant choose to testify and pre-trial hearing pursuant to People v Sandoval is granted to extent of ordering that such hearing shall be held immediately before the commencement of trial. This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

April 25, 2018

The defendant, who now moves for omnibus relief, is charged by information with violating three(3) sections of the code of the Town of North Hempstead: count 1, failure to obatin rental occupancy permit(§2-103); count 2, permits for work, alteration, or maintenance of building or structure(§70-220[a]); and count 3, permitted uses(§70-44). However, these factual allegations are insufficient, this constitutes the decision and order to the court.

June 15, 2018

The defendant, who now moves for omnibus relief, is charged by information with violating two(2) sections of the code of the Town of North Hempstead: count 1, failure to obtain rental occupancy permit(§2-103) and count 2, permits for work, alteration, or maintenance of building or structure(§70-220[a]). The violations allegedly occured on September 25, 2017 In Westbury, Town of North Hempstead, Nassau County, New York. However, the defendant's motion to suppress is granted to the extent that a pre-trial mapp hearing will be conducted. This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

October 24, 2018

People of the state of New York, Village of Linderhurst brought charges against defendants who submited an omnibus motion seeking various relief. However, there has been no opposition to the motion and no prosecution Has taken place. This matter is dismissed on speedy trial grounds, C.P.L.30.30.

May 17, 2017

People of The State of New York, Town of Huntington brought charges against defendant for a violation with the Huntington code §87-25(A) but it was dismissed due to insufficiency of information.

January 6, 2017

People of the State of New York, Town of Babylon was charging defendant with appearance tickets, defendant joined the Coalition of Landlord, Homeowners & Merchants. A motion is filed supported by an affirmation of counsel and exhibits on behalf of the defendant. The affirmation of counsel for the people fails to directly address the various requests for relief in the omnibus motion. Under the circumstances as presented, the court considers the omnibus motion to be unopposed. However, the information is also jurisdictionally defective, and the charges are dismissed.

July 26, 2017

Town of Islip was charging defendant with violation of code 12-27 (A) (12) of the code of the Town of Islip (Count 1) is legally sufficient as it is based upon the personal knowledge of the Town Investigator and provides reasonable cause to believe that defendant committed the offense charged and contains the necessary evidentiary allegations. However, the branch of the motion seeking to preclude the people from cross-examining the defendant as to any previous criminal convictions or uncharged bad acts is granted.

July 27, 2017

Town of Islip was charging defendant with a violation of code section 68-23(A) but the charge was dismissed due to the accusatory instrument not containing the necessary non-hearsay allegations.

October 13, 2017

People of the State of New York, Town of Babylon brought charges against defendant with two seperate violations. The case was dismissed for facial insuffiency pursuant to CPL 170.30(1)(a) and 170.35(1)(a).

October 13, 2017

People of the State of New York, Town of Babylon was charging defendant with two separate violations. However, all charges were jurisdictionally defective, and all violations were dismissed by the court.

November 4, 2016

On May 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed and served a notice of claim on defendants Suffolk County and Suffolk County Police Department alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by committing an unreasonable search and seizure of his property. The criminal matter is not resolved and on May 20, 2016 the Plaintiff commenced the instant action by filing a summons and complaint. The court further directed the continuation of the 50-h hearing upon the final disposition of the Criminal Case.

March 22, 2016

People of the State of New York, Town of Brookhaven brought charges against defendant with no rental registration pursuant to Brookhaven Town Code §82-10 (1) and permitting a provisional accessory apartment license to lapse, pursuant to Brookhaven Town Code §82-258 (J) on both violations. The charge of §82-10 (1) of the Brookhaven Town Code was dismissed by the court, in favor of the Coalition Member

January 7, 2015

The Plaintiff brought an action against defendant for labor and parts made upon the sale of a used piano sold by the defendant in April of 1996 to the Plaintiff for nine thousand dollars. However, the court is denying the Plaintiff’s motion for discovery sanctions and ordering that a note of issue be filed.

January 15, 2015

People of the State of New York, Town of Brookhaven charged defendant with violation informations filed hereunder and it is ordered that the branch of the defendant’s motion seeking dismissal for insufficiency of the information filled hereunder is granted as to count one, but denied as to counts two, three, and four. Accordingly, as to count one, dismissal is granted, in that the factual portion of the instrument does not factually allege that the defendant failed to obtain site plan review and approval; however, as to the latter three, counts, the court finds that these informations comply in all respects with CPL § 100.15 and 100.40, and therefore, dismissal of counts two, three, and four, pursuant to CPL § 170.30 and 170.35, must be denied. But finally, the branch of the defendant’s motion seeking leave to serve, and file additional pre-trial motions is denied, subject to the defendant’s right to interpose any such additional motion(s) upon a showing of the requisite good cause CPL § 255.20.

February 13, 2015

Town of Babylon Plaintiff brought charges against defendant to punish the Plaintiff for civil contempt, to impose sanctions and, alternatively, to punish the plaintiff for criminal contempt is denied in all respects. The plaintiff served and filled a supplemental discovery response, albeit outside the time parameters set by the court in its order dated April 16, 2014, prior to the service of this motion. The defendant has failed to demonstrate that any prejudice has injured him resulting from the late service of a supplemental discovery response.

August 28, 2014

On November 14, 2013, The Plaintiff brought charges against the defendant. Plaintiff’s allegations are that due to lack of notice to the Plaintiff, the state court’s appointment of the defendant as receiver was invalid. According to the Plaintiff, the defendant’s conduct in that capacity violated certain constitutional rights. The plaintiff asserts the following 9 causes of action: (1) unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment; (2) deprivation of property without just compensation and without due process of law in violation Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; (3) cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eight Amendment; (4) invidious ethic discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C § 1981 and 42 U.S.C §3617; (5) deprivation of property interest in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1982; (6) deprivation of rights secured by the constitution and laws as a result of New York State custom in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (7) trespass in violation of New York State common law; (8) conversation violation of New York State common law; and (9) tortious interference with a contract in violation of New York State common law. In this regard the court denies the defendant’s motion without prejudice and remands this action to the state court based on lack of subject matter prejudice. The clerk of the court is directed to close the case.

October 14, 2014

Plaintiffs served a notice of claim and subsequent summons with notice upon defendant village and that the motion by Plaintiffs for an order pursuant to CPLR 3215 permitting entry of a default judgement is granted in an amount to be determined after inquest on damages; and it is further ordered that the cross motion by defendants which seeks an order pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) extending their time to submit a notice of appearance and demand for complaint is denied. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for the entry of a default judgement is granted and an inquest on damages will be scheduled after the filing of a note of issue. Defendant’s motion for an extension of time to appear and demand a complaint is denied.

May 20, 2013

The Plaintiff brought charges against defendant after officials from defendant Town of Babylon entered the premises where they allegedly reside. The complaint alleges that on June 9, 2011, defendant a zoning inspector for defendant the Town of Babylon created a disturbance loudly banging on the door of the subject premises. It alleges that plaintiff knowingly filed an application for a search warrant which included a patently false affidavit by plaintiff. It alleges that on June 13, 2011 the building department and zoning enforcement, the defendant, a zoning enforcement inspector a fire marshal and two police officers entered the subject premises with the search warrant and proceeded to inspect and take pictures of the entire property. However, it is undisputed that the fire Marshall and Town officials entered the subject premises pursuant to a search warrant on June 14, 2011. Accordingly, the first cause of action for trespass and the second cause of action for illegal search are dismissed.

February 1, 2012

People of the State of New York was charging defendant with having more than 2 sheds in a “C” residential area. A shed cannot exceed 100 square feet in area and/or 10 feet high and only 2 sheds are permitted. The information alleged, defendant allowed 3 sheds (a greenhouse, standard 10x10 shed & a dollhouse) none of which exceeds 100 square feet in area. All 3 counts were dismissed as being jurisdictionally defective in favor of the Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants Member.

September 14, 2011

The Town of Babylon was charging the defendant with having more than one Non-owner on the premises without obtaining a certificate of occupancy. There was insufficient information for the defendant to be arraigned on, so it was dismissed, in favor of the Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants Member.

August 25, 2011

The Town of Brookhaven alleged that an in-ground pool was not property surrounded by a gate that was self-closing or with self-latches, and another allegation was found that included a bedroom door with a key lock on it. The defendant sought help at the Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc, and all charges were dismissed in favor of the defendant.

January 22, 2010

The Judgment Convicting defendant of Causing an obstruction on a public way in violation of Brookhaven Town Code §38-4 and of Storing an unregistered Vehicle on private property in Violation of Brookhaven Town Code § 45-6 (as charged in the May 2006 accusatory Instrument) are reversed on the Law, Said Accusatory Instruments are dismissed and the fines, if paid, are remitted.

September 30, 2010

The Town of Brookhaven was charging the defendant with violating section 82-10 of the town code. The defendant searched for an advocacy group & found the Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants. The result was a Motion to Dismiss the Charges and was granted and the accusatory instruments (tickets) were dismissed, in favor of the Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants Member.

March 27, 2009

A woman was charged by the Town of Brookhaven with illegally renting to an unrelated individual. After the woman joined The Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc., the Coalition’s attorneys argued that the accusation was based on hearsay testimony. Suffolk County Sixth District Court Judge agreed and dismissed the charge.

May 8, 2009

The Village of Babylon issued a parking ticket on private property against defendant who is a Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc member. The judge dismissed the parking ticket because the Village of Babylon failed to supply the supporting deposition.

September 12, 2008

A man was charged by the Town of Babylon with violating permit laws. After attorneys with The Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc. challenged the charges on the man’s behalf, Suffolk County Second District Court Justice dismissed six tickets because, as pointed out by the Coalition attorneys, “the information charging defendant with failing to have the requisite permits all are missing the essential element of knowledge on the part of the zoning inspector that she searched the records and found none to exist.”

September 12, 2008

Town of Brookhaven brought charges against defendant for a violation of Brookhaven Town Code §85-201(B)(1). All charges were dismissed by the judge by finding that the accusatory instrument was defective because the code section was merely informational and procedural and was not a punishable offense.

December 10, 2007

Town of Babylon brought charges against defendant with an illegal rental. The case got dismissed by the judge from the Suffolk County Second District Court Justice because it was a duplication of another ticket. At trial, it was revealed that the Town's inspector lacked sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant lacked the requisite rental permit and also an affidavit submitted to prove that there was no rental permit on record. Therefore, the second ticket was also dismissed.

March 23, 2007

Town of Hempstead brought charges to defendant for violating various sections of the code of the Town of Hempstead. Based on hearsay and not identifying which area of the Town code the defendant was alleged to have violated, the Nassau Country District Court Judge dismissed all charges.

January 20, 2006

People of the State of New York, Town of Huntington brought charges against defendant for lacking a rental permit. The case got dismissed by the judge after lack of "Non-hearsay allegations that the subject property was being utilized as a rental unit".

June 9, 2006

Town of Brookhaven brought charges against a Property owner for disrepair in his property in violation of the New York State fire prevention code even though he had not been given a notice to abate as required by the code. All charges were dismissed by the court.

January 31, 2005

Village of Lynbrook brought charges against defendant with 2 alleged violations of the Village of Lynbrook building code. The violations were challenged, and the charges were found to be jurisdictionally defective. The tickets were found inadequate and the charges were dismissed.

March 14, 2005

Town of Islip brought charges with 3 alleged violations including Unregistered Vehicle, Equine Livestock and a Pool without a Permit. After being charged the owner became a full member of the Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc, and all the charges were all dismissed.

January 22, 2004

A Coalition member from the Town of Brookhaven regarding not having a rental permit under the Town of Brookhaven's rental Permit Law. The ticket was withdrawn in the interest of justice by the Town of Brookhaven in the 6th district court, therefore all charges dismissed.

November 5, 2004

Village of Amityville brought charges against a property owner with 9 counts of failing to maintain some smoke detectors. After being charged the owner became a full member of the Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc. The violations were found defective due to facial insufficiency. All 9 charges were dismissed.

October 17, 2003

Village of Islandia was charging a property owner with a violation which regarded maintaining a structure for a use incidental to its principal use without having a valid building permit to conduct a business. All were found jurisdictionally defective by the court. All charges were dismissed.  

November 4, 2003

A business owner and resident of Port Jefferson was served with 25 summonses. After being served the business owner became a full member of The Coalition of Landlords, Homeowner & Merchants, Inc. The alleged violations were challenged in Village Court and were withdrawn by the Village of Port Jefferson. No further charges were pursued at that time and no other charges against that Coalition member were pending in the Port Jefferson Village Court.

January 4, 2002

A property owner from the Town of Brookhaven was served with 1 summons for failure to obtain a rental permit, the owner became a Member of the Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc and all charges were dismissed by the court.

January 10, 2002

The Town of Huntington issued 5 summonses against a Coalition member. All 5 summonses ((1) Failure to obtain a certificate of occupancy, (2) “Illegal” installation of electrical wire and devices, (3) Exceeding the legal occupancy limit, (4) Maintaining an unsafe deck, and (5) Failure to obtain a plumbing permit.) are all dismissed.

December 13, 2001

Five summonses issued by the Town of Huntington to a Coalition member are all dismissed by the court. Those summonses included: Failure to obtain a certificate of occupancy, non-permitted structural alterations, failure to maintain structure in a required condition, maintaining a junkyard without a permit, and littering and dumping.

September 1, 2000

The Suffolk County Marine Police served several summonses for operating a boat after sunset without displaying navigation lights. All charges were dismissed by the court.

September 18, 2000

Three summonses issued by the Town of Babylon for renting without a permit are dismissed.

December 14, 1999

The Town of Babylon issued 2 summonses to a Babylon resident for renting without a permit. All charges are dismissed by judge.

Thank You

The Coalition and its staff would like to thank all the Housing, Building, and Environmental Inspectors who have recommended us to people who have been abused by municipalities and unjustly fined. They have helped to not only achieve success but also to uphold justice.

December 5, 2018

The Appellate Division remitted the matter back to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings to determine the extent of the plaintiff's financial losses caused by the Town's contempt, to impose an appropriate fine (see Judiciary Law§ 773; Cassarino v Cassarino, 149 AD3d 689, 692), and for a determination as to the amount of costs and attorney's fees to which the plaintiff is entitled against the town (see Schwartz v Schwartz, 79 AD3d at 1010). In light of our determination, the plaintiff’s contention that he was prejudiced by the Supreme Court's failure to enforce certain subpoenas ad testificandum is academic.

July 23, 2018

Defendant's motion for an order, dismissing the within information on the grounds of facial insufficiency is granted. The information was deficient for its failure to state whether the deponent personally examined the proper documents. Further, in as much as it appears that the information is based in part on the defendant's statements (admissions), the CPL 710.30 notice states only that the defendant stated he had "an apartment in his house"' which alone does not support the existence of "two separate dwelling units". The information does not presently allege what, if anything, the deponent observed in the premises. The tickets and accusatory instrument is dismissed.