Some of Our Many Coalition Success Stories THE FOLLOWING is a partial list of Successful CHALLENGES RAISED and won BY THE COALITION AND ITS MEMBERS. The majority of the people listed below became Coalition members after they were fined and abused. It happens too often! Don’t wait for it to happen to you! Don’t wait for a reason to join the fight! Join NOW, be informed and save money! Don’t let municipalities put fear into you! Forewarned is forearmed! Knowledge is power!

August 10, 2010: The information is jurisdictionally defective because its factual allegations, even if given a “reasonable, not overly technical reading” (People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 576, 813 N.E.2d 626, 780 N.Y.S.2d 546 [2004]), do not” establish, if true” [**3] (CPL 100.40 11] [ci), the element of the offense of “buil[ding], install[ing], enlarg[ing] or alter[ing]” -(Brookhaven Town Code § 16-3 [A]; see People v Jones, 9 NY3d 259, 262, 878 N.E.2d 1016, 848 N.Y.S.2d 600 [2007]; People vAlejandro, 70 NY2d 133, 134-135, 511 N.E.2d 71, 517 N.Y.S.2d 927 119871). The information alleges only, in effect, that the attic had been converted to an apartment, and does not allege that the conversion took place while Appellant owned the property (see People v Caravousanos, 2 Misc 3d 7, 10, 770 N,Y.S.2d 820 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2003]; People v Cu/len, 195 Misc 2d 692, 695, 761 N.Y.S.2d 432 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 20031 see also People v Anmar Realty, LLC, 26 Misc 3d 144[A1, 2010 NY Silo Op 50423 [U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2010]). Furthermore, liability under the ordinance must be tied to work that was performed after the effective date of the ordinance. The allegations of the information fail to give the date of the alleged conversion, and thus do not ‘establish, if true” (CPL 100.40 [1] [c]) that the conversion took place after the effective date.
 Even if it is assumed that the information was, in fact, effectively amended (but see CPL 14045 131), the factual allegations of the information are deficient with respect to the elements of “erect[ing] or alter[ing]” in the amended offense in the same manner in which they are deficient .with respect to those elements in the original offense..The information does offer certain evidentiary allegations. It asserts that there were “double hung windows open with screens in the attic of the subject premises with venation [sic] blinds and curtains” and that “[f]inished walls were visible on the interior.” These allegations do not, however, provide an evidentiary basis from which it may reasonably be inferred that the attic was being used as an apartment rather than for example as a bedroom or a finished storage space Indeed these more detailed allegations highlight the overly conclusory nature of the allegation that “[t]he attic was being utilized as an .apartment” - this last allegation seems to be the result of the complainant inspector’s leaping to a conclusion on the basis of insufficient observations.
 

At the plea proceeding, this accusatory instrument-was purportedly orally amended to charge a violation of Brookhaven Town Code § 85-20. This section provided, in relevant part, at the time of the alleged offense:
A. No land shall be occupied [**7) or used and no building or structure hereafter erected or altered shall be used or changed in use until a certificate of occupancy shall have been issued by the Chief Building Inspector, stating that the building or structure or proposed use thereof complies with the provisions of this chapter,” Again, the gravamen of the charged offense is apparently that the third-floor attic was being illegally used as an apartment, but “evidentiary” (CPL 100.15 131) factual allegations to this [*4) effect are lacking. Accordingly, the judgments of conviction are reversed and the accusatory instruments are dismissed. In light of our disposition, we pass on no other issues.With respect to defendant’s speedy trial motion, the District Court (Stephen L. Ukeiley, J.) denied the motion, finding that it was untimely and improperly served, Contrary to the finding of the District Court, the motion was not untimely (see CPL 170.30 [11 [el, fJ; 255.20 [11; People v Oliveri, 46 AD3d 267, 847 H.Y.S.2d 172 [20071 [**5] People v Gaillard, 252 AD2d 357, 358, 675 N.Y.S.2d 535 [1998fl. Furthermore, the People do not argue on appeal that service was improper, and, under the circumstances, we decline to find that it was. The merits of the speedy trial motion are not properly before this court in the current procedural posture of the case, however (see CPL 470.15 [1]; People v LaFontaine, 92 NY2d 470, 474, 705 N.E.2d 663, 682 N.Y.S.2d 671 [1998]; People v Bellissimo, 25 Misc 3d 141[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 52463[U] [App Term, 9th & l0th jud Dists 20091). We therefore remit the case to the District Court for a determination on the merits of the speedy trial motion (see People v Bellissimo, 25 Misc 3d 141[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 52463 [U]).
Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the information is jurisdictionally defective. With respect to subdivision A of the ordinance, the jurisdictional defect in the information is that its factual allegations, even if given a “reasonable, not overly technical [*2] reading” (People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 576, 813 N.E.2d 626, 780 N.Y.S.2d 546 f20041), do not “establish, if true” (CPL 100..40 [11 [c]), the element of the offense that defendant did any “buil[ding], install[ing], enlarg[ing] or alter[ing]” (Brookhaven Town Code § 16-3 [A); see People v Jones, 9 NY3d 259, 262, 878 N.E.2d 1016, 848 N.Y.S.2d 600 [20071; People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133, 134-135, 511 N.E.2d 71, 517 N.Y.S.2d 927 [19871). The information alleges only that the premises ‘had been altered,” and thus does not allege that any alteration took place while defendant owned the property (see People v Caravousanos, 2 Misc 3d 7, 10, 770 NX.S.2d 820 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2003] [**3] People v Cullen, 195 Misc 2d 692, 695, 761 N.Y.S.2d 432:rApp Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 20031 see also People v Anmar Realty, LLC, 26 Misc 3d 144[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50423[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 20101). Had the People wished to prosecute defendant for, in effect, the failure to correct a violation, they should have charged defendant under Brookhaven Town Code § 16-6 .(D) (now § 16-7 [D]), which imposes liability on “[t]he owner or owners of any building or premises or part thereof.. . . where any violation of this ordinance has been committed or shall exist.Furthermore, liability under both subdivisions of the ordinance must be tied to work that was performed after the effective date of the ordinance. The allegations of the information fail to give the date of the alleged alteration, and thus do not “establish, if true” (EJ 100.40 [11 [ci), that the altering took place after the effective date.

June 7, 2010:Defendant's motion for an order pursuant to CPL §§170.30, 170.35, 100.15 and 100.40 dismissing the superseding information charging defendant with violating section 153-28 (A)of the Town Code of the Town of Babylon upon the grounds that the information is defective due to facial insufficiency is hereby granted.

June 7, 2010:Defendant's motion for an order pursuant to CPL §§170.30, 170.35, 100.40 and 100.15 dismissing the superseding information charging defendant with violating Section 153-28(B) of the Town Code of the Town of Babylon, which prohibits the existence of an accessory Kitchen without the requisite permit, upon the grounds that the information is defective is hereby granted. The superseding information charges defendant with maintaining an "illegal accessory kitchen" but the factual part of the superseding information is devoid of any facts of evidentiary character which establish the existence of an accessory kitchen. Rather, it merely concludes that there is a primary kitchen on the second floor and an accessory kitchen on the first floor. Inasmuch as the information contains no factual allegations establishing the essential elements supporting the deponent's conclusion, it is defective and must be dismissed.

May 13, 2010:Dismissing, pursuant to CPL §170.30, the accusatory instruments against him on the grounds that same are legally insufficient and jurisdictionally defective;

April 13, 2010:With regard to the eight counts charging defendant with violating North Hempstead Town Code § 70-220 (A), viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that the testimony of .the town inspector, that he had seen a "three piece bathroom" in the basement of the property, without explaining what, specifically, he had observed, was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt defendant's guilt of erecting, altering or Maintaining a building without a permit. Likewise, the inspector's testimony, that he had observed two wall air conditioner units in the building located at the property without explaining how the building had been altered, i.e., by providing testimony that the building was not constructed with openings for external wall air conditioners, was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt defendant's guilt of erecting, altering or maintaining a building or structure without a permit. Accordingly, counts four and five of the accusatory instrument involving the property, and count three of the accusatory instrument involving the property,  each charging defendant with violating North Hempstead Town Code § 70-220 (A), charging defendant with violating North Hempstead Town

March 31, 2010: The information’s filed by Plaintiff against the Defendant separately charged the defendant with failing to remedy a specific violation of either the New York State Fire Code or Property Maintenance Code which are made criminally punishable pursuant to Executive Law §382. Unless the defendant took part in the construction of a building, then as a condition precedent Executive law §382(2) requires the service of an order to remedy, either personally or by registered or certified mail upon the defendant, directing the defendant to remedy the violation within a specified period of time (see People v. Caravousanos, 2 Misc.3d 138(A)), Not one of the seven information’s alleging that the defendant took part in the construction of the building. Although all of the information’s make reference to the service upon the defendant of a "written notice of this violation", there are no allegations to establish by whom such notice was issued, what permitted manner of service was utilized, that it directed the defendant to remedy anything, and what the authorized time period was within which to remedy the purported violation. No supporting depositions or documents of any kind accompany or were filed with any of the seven-information’s. In the absence of sufficient non-hearsay factual allegations to establish compliance with Executive Law §382(2), the court must find all seven information’s to be jurisdictionally defective mandating dismissal (People v Caravousanos, supra).Accordingly, all seven information’s filed herein are dismissed on the ground of facial insufficiency.

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.

May 11, 2009: The Village of Babylon issued a parking ticket on private property against a member of The Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc. After attorneys for The Coalition demanded a supporting deposition from the village, Babylon Village Justice Court Judge John T. Rafter DISMISSED the parking ticket because the village failed to supply the supporting deposition.

 April 8, 2009: The Village of Farmingdale enacted a moratorium against subdividing properties in order to buy the village time to change its zoning map. Prior to the moratorium a couple had applied for permits to subdivide the couple’s property, but due to the moratorium Farmingdale refused to allow the subdivision, and the Zoning Board of Appeals refused to grant a variance. After the couple joined The Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc., the group’s attorneys went to the Suffolk County Supreme Court, where Judge Angela G. Iannacci ANNULLED the decision of the Farmingdale Zoning Board of Appeals and ordered the village to review the Coalition members’ subdivision application based on the zoning law as it existed prior to the moratorium.

 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 Stephen L. Ukeiley agreed and DISMISSED the charge.

 December 22, 2008: The Town of Huntington revoked a couple’s accessory apartment permit because the couple refused to allow an unwarranted search of their property. After the couple joined The Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc., the Coalition’s attorneys went to the Suffolk County Supreme Court with the argument that the right to earn rental income from private property cannot be dependent on allowing an unwarranted search, and Supreme Court Judge Gary J. Weber VACATED the Huntington’s revocation of the permit.

 December 4, 2008: The Town of Babylon agreed to settle a lawsuit filed by a member of The Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc. Two years later, the Town of Babylon decided to back out of the settlement, and Suffolk County Supreme Court Judge Peter Fox Cohalan ordered the settlement annulled. The Coalition member would not accept Babylon backing out of its agreement to protect his family, and he appealed the court’s order to the Appellate Division, Second Department. In a unanimous decision, the Second Department Appellate Division OVERTURNED Judge Peter Fox Cohalan and found that the Town of Babylon must adhere to its agreement with the Coalition member.

 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 Joseph Santorelli DISMISSED six tickets because, as pointed out by the Coalition attorneys, “the informations 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 10, 2008: A man was charged by the Town of Islip with changing the occupancy or use of his premises without a permit. After attorneys for The Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the charge, Suffolk County Fifth District Court Judge James P. Flanagan DISMISSED a ticket for facial insufficiency because the town did not establish that the required permit was not secured. 

September 10, 2008: A woman was charged by the Town of Brookhaven with violating section 85-201(B)(1) of the Town Code. After attorneys for The Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants moved to have the charge dismissed, Suffolk County Sixth District Court Judge Howard M. Bergson DISMISSED the charge, 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: A woman was charged by the Town of Babylon with illegal rentals. Due to her representation by The Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc.’s attorneys, Suffolk County Second District Court Justice Patrick J. Barton dismissed one of the tickets because it was a duplication of another ticket. At trial, The Coalition’s attorney cross-examined the Town’s inspector, revealing that he lacked sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant lacked the requisite rental permit. Also, an affidavit submitted to prove that there was no rental permit on record was shown to be deficient because it did not state on what dates there was no rental permit on record. Therefore, the second ticket was DISMISSED. 

November 27, 2007: A man was charged by the Town of Babylon with two counts of allowing illegal occupancy and one count of illegal outside deposit and storage of waste. After attorneys for The Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc. filed motions to dismiss the charges, Suffolk County Second District Court Judge Patrick J. Barton DISMISSED the illegal occupancy charges because no facts had been alleged to support the conclusion that the defendant was indeed in charge of the premises, and he DISMISSED the illegal outside storage charge because the Town failed to state facts which established who the defendant was and how the inspector knew his identity and his relationship to the premises.

 October 29, 2007: A woman was charged by the Town of Babylon with three counts of zoning code violations. Due to her representation by The Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc.’s attorneys, Suffolk County Second District Court Justice Patrick J. Barton DISMISSED one of the charges because one accusatory instrument contained no “allegations stating how the deponent came to her conclusion that more than one non-owner occupied dwelling premises exist.” The remaining charges were dismissed because the appearance tickets were improperly served.

 March 23, 2007: A man was charged with violating various sections of the code of the Town of Hempstead. Due to his representation by The Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc.’s attorneys, Nassau County District Court Judge Howard S. Miller DISMISSED the charges, finding that the accusatory instruments were insufficient because they were based on hearsay and did not identify which area of the town code the defendant was alleged to have violated.

 March 15, 2007: A Town of Brookhaven man was charged with violations of the town code. After The Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc.’s attorneys defended him, Sixth District Court Judge G. Ann Spelman DISMISSED the charges because statements alleged to have been made by the defendant were insufficient to establish a necessary element of the offense.

 March 15, 2007: A Town of Brookhaven property owner was charged with violating his property’s Certificate of Occupancy. Upon a motion filed by The Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc.’s attorneys, Sixth District Court Judge G. Ann Spelman DISMISSED the charges, finding that the accusatory instruments “fail to contain the necessary nonhearsay evidentiary allegations supporting or tending to support the charges.” Judge Spelman also found some of the accusatory instruments to be self-contradictory.  

August 20th, 2006: Two summonses issued by the Incorporated Village of New Hyde Park for maintaining an “illegal” kitchen and for “illegally” renting a second floor apartment dismissed in the interest of justice.
 
  August 12th, 2006: Civil action against Coalition member dismissed for jurisdictional defects.
 
  August 7th, 2006: Coalition member previously refused refund of property tax overpayment is reimbursed by County of Suffolk for same.

July 31st, 2006: Summonses issued by the Town of Brookhaven for failure to obtain rental permit dismissed in light of Supreme Court’s declaration that Section 82-4 of the Brookhaven Town Code is unconstitutional.

July 26th, 2006: Long Island Board of Realtor’s Ethics Committee determination in finding a Coalition member guilty of having violated LIBOR’s “true picture in advertising” guidelines is overturned on appeal, dismissing all fines, and barring future claims for said alleged offenses.

 

July 12, 2006: A Town of Brookhaven property owner was charged with maintaining an illegal three family dwelling. After the Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners and Merchants, Inc.’s attorneys defended him, Second District Court Judge Patrick J. Barton DISMISSED the charges, finding that the accusatory instruments failed to state facts leading to the conclusion that the Coalition client was indeed maintaining more than one dwelling.

June 9, 2006: A Town of Brookhaven property owner was charged with maintaining his property in disrepair in violation of the New York State Fire Prevention Code even though he had not been given notice to abate as required by the code. On advice of counsel for The Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners, and Merchants, Inc., he demanded a jury trial; Brookhaven later DISMISSED the charges.

 June 6, 2006: A Town of Brookhaven property owner was charged with litter on his property and was later charged with violating his conditional discharge and was fined $1,500 by Suffolk County District Judge Toni Bean. After the Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners, and Merchants, Inc. appealed the fine, the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court found the fine to be excessive under the circumstances and OVERTURNED Judge Bean’s decision, reducing the fine to $250.
 

  June 3rd, 2006: Summonses issued by the Town of Babylon for failure to obtain a rental permit dismissed by Judge Barton.

 March 16, 2006: A Town of Brookhaven homeowner was charged with violations relating to the town’s rental code. As a member of the Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc., she challenged the charges, and as a result of motions by the Coalition’s in-house counsel, three counts were DISMISSED, two because, according to District Court Judge G. Ann Spelman, they were not based on punishable offenses, and one because the ticket lacked the requisite non-hearsay factual statements.

 January 20, 2006: A Town of Huntington homeowner was charged with lacking a rental permit. As a member of The Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc,. challenged the charges. The Coalition got the case DISMISSED by District Court Judge Steve Hackeling for lack of “non-hearsay allegations that the subject property was being utilized as a rental unit.”  

January 4, 2006- Coalition member’s tickets were dismissed in Sixth District Court due to the Plaintiff, The Town of Brookhaven’s, failure to prove that the defendant is renting the subject dwelling to a person other than the owner or a member of the owner’s family.

 November 7, 2005: A Town of Riverhead homeowner and member of the Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc. appealed a decision dismissing his claim that his property line extended to the middle of Centre Street, the decision written by State Supreme Court Judge Robert Lifson. In a UNANIMOUS DECISION, Judge Lifson’s decision was OVERTURNED by the Appellate Division, Second Department of the State Supreme Court.                                                                           

*March 3, 2005: Judge Daniel J. Loughlin recuses himself from a Coalition member’s case currently active in the Supreme Court of Suffolk County on the grounds of possible prejudice or conflict of interest.

February 23, 2005: A Town of Brookhaven Landlord was charged with unregistered rental occupancy. After being charged the landlord became a full member of the Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc. The summonses were challenged and the Coalition member was found NOT GUILTY through credible evidence and testimony introduced at trial in Sixth District Court.

February 10, 2005: A Coalition member’s Motion to Dismiss was granted and their summons for operating a tool or equipment used in construction, outside of designated time, was DISMISSED by Judge Barton in the Sixth District Court.

January 31, 2005: Five out of seven Coalition member’s tickets were dismissed in the Village of Patchogue. The tickets were found to be based on hearsay allegations, without any proven facts, and were therefore found inconclusive and were DISMISSED. Village Prosecutor refused to prosecute the remaining two tickets.

January 31, 2005: A Village of Lynbrook Landlord charged with 2 alleged violations of the Village of Lynbrook Building Code. After being charged the landlord became a full member of the Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc. The violations were challenged and the charges were found to be jurisdictionally defective. The tickets were found inadequate and the Coalition member’s charges were DISMISSED.

January 31, 2005: A Village of Lynbrook Landlord charged with 1 violation of the Village of Lynbrook Zoning Law. After being charged the landlord became a full member of the Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc. The violation was challenged and the charge was found to be jurisdictionally defective. The ticket was found inadequate and the Coalition member’s charge was DISMISSED.

January 31, 2005: Village of Lynbrook Landlord charged with 3 alleged violations of the Village of Lynbrook Over Occupancy Law. After being charged the landlord became a full member of the Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc. The alleged violations were challenged and the charges were found to be jurisdictionally defective. The tickets were found inadequate and the Coalition member’s charges were DISMISSED.

January 13, 2005: A Village of Rockville Centre Landlord was issued five (5) alleged violations of the Village code. After receiving the violations the landlord became a full member of the Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc. The alleged violations were then challenged and the summonses were DISMISSED by Hon. Frank E. Yannelli.

November 5, 2004: A Village of Amityville Landlord was charged with 9 counts of failing to maintain a smoke detector. After being charged the landlord became a full member of the Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc. The violations were then challenged in Village Court and due to facial insufficiency, the accusatory instruments were found defective. All 9 of the Coalition member’s charges were DISMISSED.

November 5, 2004: A Village of Amityville Landlord was charged with 1 count of changing the use or occupancy in a building. After being charged the landlord became a full member of the Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc. The violation was then challenged in Village Court and due to facial insufficiency, the accusatory instrument was found defective. The Coalition member’s charge was DISMISSED.

November 5, 2004: Village of Amityville Landlord was charged with 3 counts of altering a building without first obtaining a building permit. After being charged the landlord became a full member of the Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc. The alleged violations were then challenged in Village Court and due to facial insufficiency, the accusatory instruments were found defective. All 3 of the Coalition member’s charges were DISMISSED.

*May 20, 2004: The Sixth District Court issued a judgment against a Town of Brookhaven Landlord with multiple properties, charged with 3 counts of violating of the Town of Brookhaven Code. After the judgment was issued the landlord became a full member of the Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc. and the judgment was appealed. The Coalition member’s judgment was then reversed in the Appellate Term in Brooklyn, all accusatory instruments were dismissed and $2,250.00 in fines were REFUNDED back to Coalition member.
Click here to see the Check

March 14, 2005: A Brentwood landlord was charged with 3 (three) alleged violations of the Town of Islip code, including unregistered vehicle, equine livestock and a pool without a permit. After being charged the landlord became a full member of the Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc. The charges were then challenged in Fifth District Court and all 3 (three) were DISMISSED.

March 10, 2005: A Selden landlord was charged with 2 (two) alleged violations of the Town of Brookhaven code, including failure to maintain an occupancy at dwelling, and no rental permit. After being charged the landlord became a full member of the Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc. The charges were then challenged in Sixth District Court and both alleged violations were DISMISSED.


October 20, 2004: A Town of Islip Landlord was charged with 2 alleged violations of the Islip Town code for construction without a building permit. After the being charged with violations the landlord became a full member of the Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc.  The violations were then challenged in Fifth District Court and the charges were DROPPED.

October 18, 2004- Appellate Division reverses Supreme Court order for
 sanctions in favor of the Plaintiff, Coalition member, with costs to be paid by the Defendant, and Defendant’s cross-motion was denied.

March 31, 2004- The Village of New Hyde Park’s motion to dismiss a Coalition member’s summons and complaint against the Village was denied by Judge Molia. Also granted was the Coalition member’s order to amend their complaint. Thirty days were given to the Plaintiff to file and serve the amended verified complaint with entry of the order.  

April 28, 2004 - Town of Brookhaven’s appearance tickets were dismissed , in Fourth District Court, in favor of Coalition member, due to the Town’s failure to comply with CPL §150.50 and file legally sufficient informations prior to the return date on the issued appearance ticket.

February 4, 2004: Hon. James P. Flanagan recuses himself from a Coalition member’s proceedings in Sixth District Court on the grounds of possible prejudice or conflict of interest.

January 27, 2004: A Supreme Court action by the town of Brookhaven to knock down a Brookhaven family’s house is dismissed. A traverse hearing resulted in the determination that the resident was never served. The resident became a Coalition member after the court action was commenced and the result was victorious.

January 22, 2004: A Coalition member’s ticket 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 Sixth District Court, therefore dismissing all charges.

December 2003: Appellate Term reverses decision in favor of Coalition member. It was ordered and adjudged that the judgment is unanimously reversed without costs. The judgment was entered in favor of the Plaintiff (Coalition member).

November 14, 2003: In the Village of Freeport, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted by Honorable Cacciatore due to defective accusatory instruments.

November 4, 2003: A Village of Port Jefferson business owner and resident was served with twenty five (25) summonses. After being served the business owner became a full member of the Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & 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.

 October 28, 2003: Coalition member’s accusatory instruments including a violation of the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and a change of occupancy without the issuance of an applicable permit in the Town of Islip were dismissed on appeal and fines paid were to be remitted. 

 October 17, 2003: Village of Islandia Justice Alan M. Wolinsky dismisses four of a Coalition member’s violations all of which regarded maintaining a structure for a use incidental to its principal use without having first securing a valid building permit to conduct a business.  All were found jurisdictionally defective due to the failure to set forth that the offending was not the principle use.

 October 9, 2003: Village of Islandia Justice Alan M. Wolinsky dismisses a Coalition member’s summons of having maintained a two family use in a one family residence district.

 June 17, 2003: Sixth District Court, Suffolk County, dismisses a second Coalition member’s accusatory instruments, regarding the same situation, holding that rental occupancy permit law in effect prior to recent amendments was unconstitutional because it required warrantless searches of residential rental property.

 June 16, 2003: Sixth District Court, Suffolk County, dismisses accusatory instrument, holding that accessory apartment permit law is applied unconstitutionally because it compels periodic warrantless searches of residential rental property. 

 April 28, 2003: Two tickets dismissed by motion on speedy trial ground, in Sixth District Court.  Third ticket, motion denied, but an excellent record was made for an appeal on grounds of facial insufficiency..

 March 12, 2003:  Motion to dismiss accusatory instrument for facial insufficiency granted as to two tickets.  In a sworn statement of housing inspector did not contained facial assertions sufficient to allege non-hearsay allegations of each and every element of the offenses.

 February 25, 2003: Motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted where the commissioners state insurance fund failed to oppose
the motion. 

 February 4, 2003: Summonses issued by the Town of Islip for alleged change of occupancy/use dismissed by Judge John J. Toomey, Jr.