Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Has Nearly All of Respondent’s Affirmative Defenses and her Counterclaim Thrown Out
In Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s latest victory, the Court granted its cross-motion dismiss dismissing all but one of Respondent’s affirmative defense and dismissed the counterclaim outright.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was retained by their client under significant pressure. The current tenant had succeeded on a rent overcharge claim against Petitioner in the past. When Petitioner came to Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., Petitioner was instructed that it was time to end the battle, but not the war. Despite losing the overcharge case under prior counsel, Petitioner was still owed nearly $100k in back rent from Respondent. Thus, a new chapter of war began.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. swiftly took action, carefully crafting a non-payment petition that sought only six years’ worth of back rent in compliance with New York law. Respondent filed an Answer with six affirmative defenses and a counterclaim. Shortly thereafter, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss, contending, among other things, that Petitioner sought more than six years of rent and engaged in unlawful failure to register Respondent’s unit with DHCR. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. cross-moved seeking to dismiss Respondent’s affirmative defenses and shut down her counterclaim for discovery on a warranty of habitability claim.
At oral argument, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. picked apart Respondent’s argument by proving to the court that the petition sued for the proper amount under New York law, Respondent had not shown any prejudice to pay the back rent, and discovery is not warranted by Respondent as there was no evidence of a claim for warranty of habitability.
Interestingly, a few months after reserving decision at oral argument, Respondent filed a motion claiming that there was new evidence on the “pending motions.” Strikingly, this position could not be further from the truth because the motions were not pending. The motions were reserved for decision and marked fully submitted. The “new evidence” proffered by Respondent was in fact an attempt to bolster arguments that were not effectively raised during the hearing on the first motion.
Nonetheless, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. drafted opposition and argued at the second hearing that Respondent’s new motion was actually disallowed and “nothing more than another bite at the apple.” The court agreed stating, “Respondent’s motion is granted to the extent that the new evidence submitted was considered by the court in connection with Respondent’s initial, unsuccessful motion”. The court recognized that Respondent was attempting to relitigate an issue that was not effectively plead or argued. The court dismissed all but one of Respondent’s affirmative defenses and struck the counterclaim outright.
Carolyn Z. Rualo, Dov A Treiman and Caleb J. Brown of Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., represented the client in this litigation.