ZMIANA PRAWA MIESZKANIOWEGO W NOWYM JORKU (THE RENT LAWS OF 2019)

W czasie letnich wakacji weszlo w zycie nowe prawo mieszkaniowe w Nowym Jorku, poprawiajace sytuacje lokatorow, a z drugiej strony utrudniajace zycie wlascicielom budynkow mieszkaniowych. Zbior nowych przepisow poprawiajacych prawa lokatorow zawarte sa w akcie prawnym "The Statewide Housing Security and Tenant Protection Act of 2019" a calosc poprawionych praw mieszkaniowych jest znana jako The 2019 Rent Laws.
The 2019 Rent Laws wydluza procesy postepowan w sadzie o ewikcje lokatora (holdover proceedings) jak tez o sciagniecie zaleglego czynszu (nonpayment proceedings).
Jezeli chodzi o postepowanie o sciagniecie zaleglego czynszu, zamiast 3 czy 5 dniowego zawiadomienie o nieplacenie, wlasciciel musi teraz dostarczyc w okreslony prawnie sposob 14-dniowe zawiadomienie o niezaplaconym czynszu (przez dostawce procesowego). Poza tym, przed dostarczeniem tego zawiadomienia, wlasciciel musi takze wyslac innego rodzaju zawiadomienie informujace lokatora o tym ze czynsz jest zalegly co najmniej 5 dni. Przepisy sa niejasne co do tego wstepnego zawiadomienia, i dopiero przyszle orzecznictwo sedziow ma wyjasnic wlasciwe rozumienie tego przepisu (dostarczyc go przed 14 dniowym zawiadomieniem, czy pozniej).
Nastepnie, kiedy lokator nie wywiaze sie z obowiazku zaplacenia czynszu, wedlug 14-dniowego zawaidomienia, wlasciciel sklada w sadzie jak dawnie petycje o nieplacenie (nonpayment petition), i dostarcza ja lokatorowi poprzez dostawce pism procesowych, z tym  ze okres ktory lokator ma na zlozenie odpowiedzi w sadze wydluzyl sie teraz z 5 do 10 dni. Wydluzyly sie takze okresy czasu na ewikcje przez specjalnego urzednika (city marshal), po otrzymaniu wyroku i nakazu ewikcji.

Janusz Andrzejewski  jest nowojorskim adwokatem piszacym na tym blogu tematy prawne i inne wazne (czasem tez blache) tematy spoleczne. Mozesz skontaktowac sie z nim przez telefon: (212) 634-4250,  albo przez e-mail pod adresem JWANDRZEJEWSKI@GMAIL.COM albo JANUSZ@JANUSZANDRZEJEWSKI.COM

SPRAWY MIESZKANIOWE: EWIKCJA NA PODSTAWIE WYGASNIECIA ALBO NARUSZENIA UMOWY

Dawno nie pisalem na tematy prawne. Dzisiaj moze troche na temat spraw mieszkaniowych, znanych moim klientom w Nowym Jorku jako sprawy "landlord & tenant". Sprawy te naleza w miescie Nowy Jork do sadow cywilnych (civil courts), a szczegolnie do ich wydzialow znanych jako "landlord and tenant court", albo tez jako "housing court". Wiekszosc spraw dzieli sie na sprawy o nieplacenie czynszu (non-payment proceedings) i sprawy o ewikcje (holdover proceedings).
W sprawach o ewikcje wlasciciel budynku musi miec powod by wszczac sprawe, badz tez umowa lokatora wygasla, a lokator nie ma najmniejszej ochoty na opuszczenie mieszkania. Najczesciej zaczyna sprawe poprzez dostarczenie lokatorowi pisma ktore konczy prawnie umowe, a znane jest jako "notice of termination". W wielu przypadkach, zwlaszcza w przypadku mieszkan podlegajacych prawu "rent control" czy "rent stabilization", zanim wlasciciel moze pomarzyc o wypowiedzeniu umowy wynajmu, najpierw musi dostarczyc lokatorowi ostrzezenie na pismie, informujace ze jezeli lokator nie przestanie postepowac niezgodnie z prawem mieszkaniowym, czy umowa wynajmu, jego umowa zostanie wypowiedziana. Zawiadomienie to jest znane jako tzw. "notice to cure". Jezeli w przewidzianym terminie, najczesciej jest to 10 dni, lokator nie przestanie naruszac prawa czy warunkow swojej umowy, wlasciciel dopiero wtedy moze wypowiedziec pisemnie umowe, najczesciej jest to 30 dniowe wypowiedzenie, ale moze to byc termin krotszy, w zalznosci od statusu danego mieszkania. Jezeli lokator nadal nie chce opuscic mieszkania, nastepnym etapem jest zlozenie petycji o ewikcje w sadzie "landlord & tenant" i dostarczenie jej lokatorowi, zgodnie z odpowiednimi procedurami. Lokator ma prawo do zlozenia pisemnej odpowiedzi, ktora musi byc dostarczona wlascicielowi i zlozona w sadzie w okreslonym przepisami terminie. Postepowanie w sadzie zazwyczaj wymaga kilkakrotnego stawienia sie przed sedzia, ktory usiluje doprowadzic do ugody. Dopiero gdy sedzia dojdzie do wniosku ze nie ma szans na ugode, i wszelkie wnioski procesowe zostaly rozstrzygniete, dochodzi do przekazania sprawy innemu sedziemu, ktory zajmuje sie wylacznie przeprowadzaniem rozpraw. Ten sedzia prowadzi rozprawe z udzialem swiadkow, po ktorej wydaje koncowy wyrok o ewikcji, badz oddala sprawe. Nawet jezeli zostal wydany wyrok o ewikcji, wlasciciel nie moze wyrzucic lokatora od razu. Specjalny urzednik "marshall" musi dostarczyc lokatorowi odpowiednie pismo, i dopiero po 72 godzinach od jego dostarczenia "marshall" moze dokonac ewikcji, pod warunkiem ze lokator nie zlozyl w sadzie zadnej dodatkowej aplikacji. W przypadku jej zlozenia, sad wstrzymuje ewikcje do czasu rozpatrzenia tego dodatkowego wniosku. W nastepnej czesci zajme sie sprawami o nieplacenie.

Janusz Andrzejewski jest nowojorskim adwokatem piszacym na tematy prawne i inne wazne tematy spoleczne. Mozesz skontaktowac sie z nim pod numerem tel efonu (212) 634-4250  badz poprzez poczte internetowa: jwandrzejewski@gmail.com albo janusz@januszandrzejewski.com

LANCE ARMSTRONG: THE MOST SOPHISTICATED DOPING CONSPIRACY IN THE HISTORY OF SPORTS

In 1999 Lance Armstrong won his first Tour de France. My reaction then was one of total disbelief and shock. I followed cycling for many years and I knew that no one could improve so dramatically within one year without doping. Particularly that Armstrong was already 28 years old. When Jacques Anquetil, Eddie Mercks, Bernard Hinault or Miguel Indurain, the great heros of international cycling, were winning their multiple Tour de France races, they were strong all around riders from the beginning of their careers whereas Lance was mediocre in multiple stage races, which included mountain terrain stages. Prior to 1999 Lance Armstrong was known as an average cyclist in mountain stages whereas he was a very good sprinter who was able to win a flat stage, or he was capable of winning one-stage races on a flat terrain, like for example world championship or one-stage classics. Sprinters like Lance Armstrong, Olaf Ludvig, or Mark Cavendish are not capable of winning multiple stages races like Tour de France, Giro D'Italia or Vuelta Espana, that is without doping. Prior to 1999 Lance Armstrong was never a contender to win the Tour de France, in fact he was happy to finish it 15-30 or more minutes behind the leader. However, suddenly, out of the blue, barely a cancer survivor, he won record seven Tour de France races from 1999 to 2005! All insiders of cycling knew that Armstrong had to dope for, as many insiders said, nobody could have improved at the age of 28 so much or so suddenly change his characteristics as a rider (i.e. a sprinter could not have suddenly become a great mountain rider). Greg LeMond, a great cyclist, from the beginning of his career, knew all this of course, and he could not stomach the great Armstrong lie. He decided to fight Armstrong. But it was not to be easy. Lance Armstrong aided by his doctors and his chief consultant dr. Michele Ferrari, who was known in cycling for helping dopers, and was even convicted for it, continued the big lie. Lance Armstrong refused to dissasociate himself from dr. Ferrari after the latter's conviction, as without him, or without doping, Lance Armstrong would not have been able to win any of the Tours. Lance did not want to fight for a win in Giro D'Italia, as the greats in the past were doing, for the risk of being caught would multiply, and Italy developped strong laws against doping. There was no proper test for EPO in those years in which Armstrong won the Tour de France, therefore he was successful in beating the doping tests (Also, the EPO stayed in blood only for 12 hours, and the tests could not show it if it was taken more than 12 hours prior to the test being applied). Naturally, the tests were not able to show any of the blood transfusions. However, when the doping test for EPO was developped and Armstrong's old blood samples taken in 1999 Tour de France (kept in freezers) were reaxamined, suddenly the authorities had 6 samples proving that Lance doped during the 1999 Tours de France, the first of the Tours that he won. Of course, in the court of law, due to due process one could not rely on old samples, that's why he won a lawsuit when one of the sponsors refused to pay Lance Armstrong $5 million per sponsorship contract. But, his doping was confirmed for all to see, and Armstrong could have acknowledged the doping, but he decided that denial was the proper course for him. He vowed to deny to the end of his life. Since Lance Armstrong was a cancer survivor and was such a big hero to masses, he became a holly cow one could not touch. Over the years I have voiced my opinions regarding his doping and I knew how untouchable Armstrong became to media and fans, particularly in the United States. Suddenly, Greg LeMond, the true American cycling hero, has become an enemy of the American people. Anyone who attempted to touch Armstrong was enemy of the people. Lance Armstrong bullied everyone and played the legal system relying on the rules of evidence and protection afforded usually to those criminally charged. He was supported by the media, corporate sponsors, medical, research and cancer foundations, etc., all those who either drew material gains or who were looking for a great American hero. Thanks to that support, all his former coriders or confidantes who came out and spoke against him, paid the price by being villified, attacked and dragged in dirt by those who supported the Armstrong lies: the cog in the conspiracy - Lance Armstrong himself - and his doctors, sponsors, mostly U.S. media, lawyers, etc. They all bullied and crucified the following whistle blowers: Greg LeMond, Armstrong's teammate Frankie Andreu and his wife Betsy Andreu, journalist and writer David Walsh, Armstrongs' masseuse Emma O'Reilly, cyclist and columnist Christophe Bassons and teammate Floyd Landis, and then more of his former teammates. The most perplexing was Lance Armstrong's attack on Christophe Bassons during the 1999 Tour de France. Bassons was a cyclist who was known as the only cyclist on Festina team who never doped, pursuant to testimony of his doping teammates to the Police. He was known for fighting with doping in cycling and was the author of the phrase of "two speeds" in cycling, one of the dopers and the other of those not doping. During 1999 Tour de France, while himself riding in the Tour, Bassons was also a columnist for "Le Parisien" and in his column he started to question Armstrong's shocking and unexplained bursts of speed; Armstrong cycled to Bassons during one of the stages and bullied him and threatened so viciously, that Christophe Bassons, the cyclist and columnist felt that he had no choice but to leave the Tour, afraid for his own safety. Lance Armstrong's cancer foundation (which apparently raised more than $500 million out of which only $20 million was provided to cancer research, the rest spent on so called cancer awareness, etc.) has been a cash cow for Armstrong's circles, and was a great PR success for Lance Armstrong himself and his shield from doping accusations. More and more people were coming out with revelations about Armstrong's doping, yet Armstrong was able either to play the media or the media were willing participant in his conspiracy, and with support of the media he bullied the few who dared to speak out against him. Yet now, when he was charged officially with doping, when the court of law in Austin, Texas dismissed Armstrong's lawsuit and decided that USADA can proceed with the doping case, Lance Armstrong decided not to appeal to Court of Arbitration for Sport and said "enough is enough" in order to stop the witnesses from testifying. This way, he can be stripped of his wins but he still can claim in the court of public opinion that he is a victim of a witchhunt. How smart! It is enough to read various forums online, mostly here in America, to realize to what extent his gullible followers would go to protect the myth of Lance the strong man, the American hero, the man who beat cancer and then won seven Tour the France races, the most grueling sporting event in the world. Should have he decided to proceed with the case in CAS, the public opinion would have heard his confidantes and riders from his team testifying graphically about his doping, taking EPO which after 12 hours would not show in his blood during tests or numerous blood transfusions, or about his doctor predating a prescription for a steroid based ointment which steroid was uncovered in his blood after one of the tests and when his whole team panicked; he would have been finished for all to see. Lance Armstrong is a smart cheater, and always was, so he did not file the appeal with Court for Sport Arbitration, said "enough is enough", by same cutting off any public testimony with graphic details of doping by ten witnesses consisting of his teammates and confidantes! He still is trying to salvage the myth and some of his sponsors. He defended himself in courts when there was no one willing to testify against him. Now, when USADA has 10 witnesses (former co-riders and confidantes of Armstrong) who would graphically disclose the details of Armstrong's doping scheme, he suddenly says "enough is enough". Where is the honor, Mr. Armstrong? Or perhaps, he does not want to enjoy the fate of Marion Jones, who if I remeber correctly also passed all the doping tests? Nobody is perfect in this life, and we all have our own weaknesses, our secrets, we all bear our crosses. We commit our mistakes, our sins, regret them, repent in our own ways and try to become better. We all try to learn from our mistakes. Not Lance Armstrong, though. This man is all about denials, this man bullied and destroyed others in protecting the big lie, this man used the mantle of savior of millions of people struck by cancer to protect the big lie and the money he earned as a result of perpetrating the big lie. This man, as they say, planned to run for the office of the governor of Texas, and then for the U.S. presidency. He made himself a public person and now he should be treated as such. As I hate to throw stones at anybody, for we all are sinners, including myself, I am one of the many who do not have any sympathy for Lance Armstrong, the public persona. But I wish well the tormented human being who hides behind the public image of Lance, the strong man.

Janusz Andrzejewski, is an attorney based in New York, writing on legal and other important community topics. You can contact him by telephone: (212) 634-4250 or through e-mail: janusz@januszandrzejewski.com