New York Real Estate Legend Dan Peckham’s Appelate Court case
against his landlord, Larry Tauber, was decided May 5, and, in a blow against
tenants everywhere, Peckham lost (Peckham v. Calogero). Later that day Tauber sent Peckham an e-mail
message that said, “Tick-tock,” hinting that Peckham’s days in his rent
stabilized apartment were numbered; Tauber also forwarded his lawyer's BBWG's e-mail
to Tauber that gloatingly said, “WE WON!”
In other words: Hooray! We get to throw an elderly, disabled man whom we’ve harassed for five years out into the street!
Their mothers must be beaming with pride. I don’t know what’s going to happen to
Peckham now, but most likely Tauber will step up efforts to evict him. Hopefully Peckham has legal recourse. He relies on pro-bono legal representation,
and is presently without a lawyer. We
are hoping that a competent, dedicated lawyer will quickly step forward to
represent Peckham, and keep the wolf from his door.
To bring you up to speed on this case: Tauber
is seeking to gut renovate Peckham’s building which is in the Chelesa neighborhood.
The Department of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) granted him the
permits to demolish the building (which he began to do, with Peckham still in
it!), but then realized its mistake. The
Appellate Court said, basically, that the DHCR couldn’t change its mind about
the definition of “demolition” in Tauber’s case after it had already decided
that he met the criteria.
(This is actually somewhat reasonable, as
allowing city agencies to change the rules after they have already granted
permits could lead to all sorts of abuses.
It’s just that in Tauber’s case—an instance of the so called “phony
demolition”—the permits shouldn’t have been granted in the first place, and any
reason to revoke them would seem justified.)
This affects other cases around the city in
which the DHCR has already made a decision to grant permits for this kind of
phony demolition. Fortunately, the DHCR
can still change their definition of “demolition” for future cases. We urge them to do so, and immediately close
this dangerous loophole.
Enduring untold stress and harassment,
Peckham has been the lone holdout in his building for five years, costing Tauber hundreds of
thousands of dollars in lost rent revenues and legal fees, and making greedy
landlords everywhere think twice about trying to cheat legitimate rent
stabilized tenants out of their rights.
In addition to fighting his own case, Dan has devoted his time and
expertise to aid other Tauber tenants in need, and as such he remains a hero
and an example for all of us of what a courageous, dedicated activist can
accomplish. We need more Dan Peckhams in
this City. -- Ed Hamilton
Recent Comments