This is a story that boggles the mind:
I have a ‘mature’ woman friend who has a
severely arthritic ankle. On the recommendation
of a friend she started doing foot fetish sessions
where men with a foot fetish would come to her
apartment and worship her feet, suck her toes,
and massage her ankles, which not only became
an additional source of income for her, but was
a way of relieving the pain in her ankle.
One day a man saw her post on craigslist, made an appointment, came to her apartment where for 20 minutes they talked about life in general, but NOT about what was to happen in the session, when....
there was a knock on the door and she was
busted by 5 policemen and 1 policewoman.
There had been NO talking about anything sexual,
there had been NO touching, there had been
NO removal of clothes, there had been NO exchange of money. Yet she was charged with both prostitution and the practice of a profession without a license. Both untrue!
When her case was heard in Criminal Court, she was granted an immediate ACD (All Charges Dismissed).
So... the story should end there. But.... it’s barely the beginning!
Apparently in Queens County, New York City, there is a law on the books that allows the District Attorney to compel a landlord to evict a tenant on the basis of a CHARGE alone. Guilt or innocence is irrelevant! And that is exactly what happened. Despite the ACD, she was taken to housing court, and given a choice:
sign a settlement to leave the apartment she has lived in for 10 years with NO problems, or go to trial where if she lost she was told she would be evicted in 5 to 10 days.
She had an attorney representing her who was a very nice woman, but seemed somewhat intimidated by both the DA and the judge. On my suggestion, she tried to make a motion to dismiss, based on grounds I’ll explain below, but the judge would hear none of it. So she signed the settlement.
The grounds for dismissal are twofold:
1) - The original action by the DA requiring the landlord to evict was brought under RPL 711/715. RPL 711/715 clearly states that it can be invoked ONLY if the defendant has at least 2 prior offenses. She had at most one. And when the ACD was granted she had none.
2) - CPL 160.50 reads that once an ACD is granted, private persons (in this case the landlord) can not have access to the charge, and if someone already has access, it must be returned. Therefore the landlord should be precluded from entering the eviction notice as there no longer is a basis to do so.
It seems to me that this woman is unjustly being forced out of her apartment, but no one I know has the backbone to fight the system.
Is there an attorney reading this or does anyone
know of a lawyer who has both the skill and the guts to fight and possibly vacate this injustice?
Let us know how this turns out.
-- Modified on 7/6/2006 7:15:41 PM
1st of all, any statute requiring eviction based on a criminal charge alone, regardless of circumstances, is clearly unconstitutional (at least as applied), and I find it hard to believe no Noo Yawker ever challenged that. Sheeit, they have more public interest lawyers than all the rest of the country combined.
2nd, if you want to contest something, you APPEAL it, you don't plead it out. Settling usually precludes appeal, and it probably even precludes the landlord from appealing.
3rd, why not try the local ACLU?
Re calling the ACLU: I did & at their request, wrote to them. They replied that although it was a very interesting case, they were just overwhelmed with cases, and had to focus on cases with a more universal meaning. Everyone agrees its a disgrace, but everyone turns it down. It's SO frustrating!
where I live (in more liberal than thou Massachusetts, yet) there are laws that allow a person to be evicted from public housing if any member of the household has been charged (not convicted) of any (not just dealing) drug offense.
What this has led to is 70 year old grandmas being evicted from their public housing that they've been in for forty years because the grandson they took in (because mama was in the clink) got caught with something.
And yes, the ACLU stepped in but the courts upheld the law as being in "the public interest"
Interestingly, you could commit a murder, rape or (fill in your favorite crime) and still remain in the public housing.