Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
New York City Housing Court Judge Inez Hoyos, while assigned to the Queens Housing Court, issued this unlawful decision in a frivolous lawsuit a slumlord filed against one of his tenants after the tenant prevailed over that slumlord's closely-affiliated firm in October of 2013 in related litigation. The following circumstances confirm Judge Hoyos' 1/5/15 decision was unlawful and that she flagrantly violated the tenant's due process rights:1. Following a request the tenant made to Judge Hoyos to have her recuse herself from that lawsuit upon learning that she had been assigned to it, Judge Hoyos denied the request and told the tenant that she would not be "the trier-of-fact" in that lawsuit. The tenant's grounds for submitting the recusal request to her were due to intemperance she expressed to him that was indicative of bias in previous litigation he had been involved in with her. As it turns out, the tenant's expectation that Judge Hoyos would yet again engage in bias against him in the frivolous lawsuit his slumlord filed was quite prescient.2. A transcript of a court hearing that was held on 6/10/14 confirms that the tenant repeatedly told Judge Hoyos that he would move out of his apartment on July 31, 2014.3. In June of 2014, the tenant's slumlord was issued a $1,000 fine by the New York City Environmental Control Board because it had been issued a violation in April of 2014 by a New York City Buildings inspector for having the elevator in the tenant's apartment building out-of-order.4. In a decision dated July 22, 2014, Judge Hoyos expressed that it would not be appropriate to order the tenant to make a use and occupant payment to his slumlord because of Housing Maintenance Code violations that existed in the tenant's apartment building.5. Text messages confirm that between July 17, 2014 and July 23, 2014, the tenant arranged with a real estate broker the time for signing a lease agreement on July 28, 2014 for what would be his new apartment. Those text messages that were sent between the tenant and real estate broker also confirm that the tenant was informed by the real estate broker that his new apartment would not be ready to move into until August 2, 2014 because the landlord would need to clean and paint in that apartment after the existing tenant moved out on July 31, 2014.6. On July 28, 2014, the tenant received a copy of the decision Judge Hoyos issued on July 22, 2014. In that decision, Judge Hoyos scheduled the date for trial in the frivolous lawsuit for August 5, 2014 in spite of the fact the tenant had told her on June 10, 2014 that he would be moving out of his apartment on July 31, 2014 and would understandably need sufficient time to unpack his belongings following that move, locate relevant documents and evidence for the trial, and review it prior to the trial. Upon learning of the date for trial, the tenant visited the Queens Housing Court on July 28, 2014 to file a request to have that date for trial postponed for the reasons just discussed. Judge Hoyos confirmed this point in her January 5, 2015 decision. Ultimately, the request to have the date for trial postponed was filed with the Queens Housing Court on August 4, 2014 and Judge Hoyos capriciously abused her discretion in violation of the tenant's fundamental due process rights by denying that request.7. On August 5, 2014, unlawfully Judge Hoyos granted the slumlord a default judgment against the tenant, after the tenant did not appear in court for trial on that date because he could not obtain permission to take time off from his job and Judge Hoyos had deprived him of his due process right to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful way that took into full consideration the fact he told her on June 10, 2014 that he would be moving on July 31, 2014. Quite simply, Judge Hoyos' scheduling of the date for trial for August 5, 2014 was unlawful because doing so deprived the tenant of his due process rights. CPLR 3215
Citation preview
