You’re taking the word of a woman who didn’t pay rent for 150 days at least, more likely several years. Im sure there’s a looot more to this story than what you’ve received. 
You are on a mission to vilify someone you have never met. Something here strike a nerve?
7 Likes
Do you know more about the situation than the people who have actually been in contact with the involved parties?
If so, how?
7 Likes
I am not a NYS attorney but I am an attorney, and I wouldn’t touch this case with a 10 ft. pole. I am sorry for the horse owner and the new owner of the farm, as this is a giant mess.
It is my opinion based on a very quick survey, that tenant’s attorney is treating this case like a nonpayment case, and the new owner’s attorney is treating it like a holdover tenant situation, which has a 10 day notice to quit in NYS and is treated much more like a squatter situation. I doubt that tenant has a lease with the new owner, and definitely hasn’t been paying rent because that would invalidate the holdover tenancy. It is quite possible she was paying the previous owner; doesn’t matter.
I hope she can afford to get the horses back, but I doubt very much there is a grand conspiracy afoot. Just a spiral of unfortunate circumstances.
14 Likes
This. I feel like there are 2 separate issues.
What does the purchaser of a foreclosed property need to do to evict a tenant who dates from the former owner? I expect this is often an issue with buying foreclosed properties.
Is there a difference in notice needed between evicting a person from a residence and evicting livestock from a farm? At what point is livestock considered abandoned after the person is evicted?
This all seems like a giant mess with mistakes made by everyone.
I also think that the question of whether the eviction itself was legal and properly executed has a great deal of impact on whether the seizure of the horses was legal and properly executed. If the eviction was done wrong then the seizure of horses was also done wrong.
Whether the tenant did or did not continue paying rent to the previous owner who failed to keep up mortgage payments is irrelevant. The tenant had no contract with the new owner.
4 Likes
She is incorrect Syrynx.
The 10 Day Notice was given in May 6th.
The Notice of Petition/Petition are dated June 3, 2022
Originally scheduled for hearing on 6/20/22 but NY/Federal Holiday of Juneteenth.
Hearing on 6/26/22
Warrant of Eviction served in July 2022
Appeal filed shortly after 6/26/22.
Appeal heard on 8/5/22 - given 10 days to pay $4,500 undertaking to the court. Stay of eviction granted stayed on condition of $4,500 pending appeal
8/19/22 the stay is lifted for failure to pay the undertaking
8/26/22 or thereabouts the horses are loaded without legal authority. Warrant of Eviction would have been required to be reserved - cannot rely upon the original Warrant of Eviction, but did not thus failing to give the required 14 day notice.
Tenant not informed of whereabouts of the horses contrary to NY law.
6 Likes
Yes!!! You’ve got it
2 Likes
I also think there is a misunderstanding of what a stay is, because, based on the summary, the Notice of Eviction was served and was temporarily stayed. When the stay was removed, they seem under the impression that a new, second Notice of Eviction has to be issued. That isn’t accurate to my knowledge; the clock usually just starts ticking again. A stay is a pause, not a redo.
2 Likes
The Tenant’s attorney is treating as a Holdover.
New Owner’s attorney treating it as a squatter. In NY there is a distinction after a foreclosure between a squatter and a bonafide tenant. A Bonafide Tenant has legal rights which require due process. Squatter gets a hearing, but on only 10 days’ Notice.
There was a conspiracy. The Rescue in question has been in contact with the person that removed the horses (Gentleman in the 2nd comment on this post). Due to the rules and regulations of the Saddlebred Registry, a Rescue can redeem registration on horses sold at auction and purchased by the rescue. The intent behind the rule was to help people get unknown horses identified and reunited with their papers. Unfortunately, those Rescues that are unscrupulous are using this new rule to make it simpler to transfer the horses. In the past, they would have had to file a legal action and be declared the owner of the horse and entitled to registration papers. This process is far less costly (DNA sample), certified letter and then a transfer if the owner does not respond.
2 Likes
No.
Warrant of Eviction was stayed. A second notice given by the Sheriffs as to the date of the Eviction (14 day notice ahead of the eviction) would have been required to be served. NY is blissfully liberal on this point. No new warrant would have had to be issued, however, a 2nd notice by the sheriff’s would have been the proper way to do it.
1 Like
Based on this, I think the tenant expected to get a second Notice of Eviction instead of just lifting a stay, but that isn’t how it works. She likely does not have a good case which is why no one will take it.
2 Likes
name the rescue!
It’s the illegal taking of the horses that is the cause of action. Not the eviction per se. That is on appeal.
In NY the landlord is required to store personal property including livestock for 30 days and inform Tenant as to where it can be retrieved. That was not done here.
And even if that were done, there should have been a Stableman’s Lien authorizing Gentleman to sell the horses. No public notice was posted. Tenant received no Notice of Sale or of an amount due. No judicial action was taken to grant Gentleman the right to sell the horses.
2 Likes
I’d prefer not to be sued. [edit]
7 Likes
How do they argue against eviction when a property forecloses? Just curious.
1 Like
Do you agree the case was pursued as a holdover tenant instead of nonpayment? So the 10 days might apply?
IANAL, but a couple of thoughts …
I’m not asking for names, but what type of entity actually picked up/held/sold the horses? Was it another farm owner? Do you know who (local law enforcement, court, new property owner?) told them to pick the horses up?
I think it’s unlikely that the sale would have any liability. If they’re like the typical sale, they would have had wording in their consignment contract that required the consignor certify that they are the legal owners and have authority to sell the horses (“warranty of ownership”). Unless there is some proof that the sale barn knew or had reason to know that the horses were not owned by the consignor, the contract usually indemnifies the sale barn.
Again I am not a NYS attorney but a cursory look says the holdover tenancy could be a valid argument. Apparently they lost on that and are appealing.
OP—judicial action usually isn’t necessary, there will be procedures in place like Knight’sMom said early in the thread. Unfortunately the case looks shaky at best.
A stableman’s lien is for unpaid board, not a tenant. You originally said they weren’t boarding but it was a tenancy instead. Eviction rules apply to evictions, not stableman’s lien rules IME.
But you are the NY judge apparently, so maybe that is wrong in your state. I have questions because this isn’t adding up.
I believe that one of the Leone brothers has an equine law practice in NJ, he might be licensed in NYS.
1 Like
@FoxyFizz, thanks for pointing out the case info. The documents give a bit more insight as to how this unfolded.
The information about how the $4500 was derived is in CI2022-14814.
What is the NY law that requires 30 day storage of property? Is that requirement different for evicted “squatters” vs tenants? And I know that the laws in some states for livestock differ from other property. Are there any specific requirements for the disposal of livestock in NY?
