CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS FIELDBRIDGE ASSOCIATES, L.L.C, Index No.: 74020/13 AFFIRMATION IN Petitioner, OPPOSITION -against? ROBIN TAYLOR, Respondent. David Lyle Stern, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the courts of the State of New York, af?rms the following under penalties of perjury: I. I am a member of STERN 81. STERN, ESQS. the attorneys for Petitioner. I am fully familiar with the facts contained herein by virtue of my review of the ?le materials that this of?ce maintains to prosecute (this case. 2. This af?rmation is submitted in opposition to respondent?s Article 81 guardian?s application before the Housing Court to further stay the execution of the warrant of eviction herein. 3. This Order to Show Cause is as abusive of the judicial process as any that your af?rmant has seen in my almost 30 years in the practice of law. The movant, who was appointed under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, King County, Justice Ruchelsman presiding, has manipulated to bring this motion before this Court as Justice Ruchelsman has emphatically indicated that he has stayed the execution of the warrant from this case long enough and will not stay it any longer. The Supreme Court Justice did an in knowledge that respondent now owes petitioner Fifty Eights Thousand jinn? Hundred and Forty Five Dollars and Twenty?Eight cents Moreover while this case has lingered, and while respondent has had both a guardian ad litem and an Article 81 guardian, appointed on her behalf respondent has thelf ?led a rent overcharge complaint against petitioner at DHCR and served notice that she is intending to institute a personal injury case against petitioner. 4. This summary proceeding was commenced as a holdover case by petitioner June 3, 2013, more than 2 years and 2 months ago. The basis of the case was that respondent had failed to sign a properly tendered renewal lease. A copy of the holdover petition is annexed hereto as Exhibit 5. The case came to be settled by stipulation dated July 29, 2013 whereby respondent would sign a renewal lease and would thereafter pay her rent arrears in installment payments over the course of 6 months. A copy of the July 28, 2013 stipulation is annexed hereto as Exhibit Suffice it to state, respondent did not make her installment payments. Indeed respondent paid no rent at all from October 2013 until July 2015. As discussed more fully below, the little monies which were paid by JASA in July 2015 were only tendered when petitioner accepted plea to stay respondent?s eviction under July 31, 2015 so that they could relocate respondent by July 31, 2015, which was promised to be a ?nal date. The amount paid by JASA was $2,800.00. At the time respondent owed $58,832.56. 6. By Decision/Order of this court dated March 31, 2014 a ?nal judgment came to be entered for petitioner for the $18,707.98 that respondent then owed. A warrant of eviction was permitted to issue forthwith with execution of the warrant stayed ?ve (SJ days. See Exhibit 7. Through a procession of Orders to Show Cause, by petitioner?s count there have now been 12 before this Court alone, and through applications for both a guardian ad litem and an Article 81 guardian, this ?ve (5) day stay has now been extended approximately seventeen (17) months. All the while respondent has not paid any rent. 8. This situation is particularly galling as in paragraph of the instant Order to Show Cause, the JASA Program Director states, ?Ms. Taylor?s present income is suf?cient to enable her to afford a private apartment?! Respondent can afford a private apartment yet has paid no rent to petitioner in almost 2 full years. 9. By Order dated December 4, 2014 Michael Valentine was appointed by this Court as the guardian ad litem for the respondent. See Exhibit Suf?ce it to state the Program Director of JASA neglects to mention this fact and did not request that service of this Order to Show Cause be served upon Mr. Valentine. On information and belief it service was not effected upon Mr. Valentine. 10. Almost before the ink was dry on the appointment of the guardian ad item, an application was made to the Supreme Court for an Article 81 Guardian for respondent. This further stayed respondenlls 15M removal from this apartment. 11. The movant, JASA, was appointed the Guardian for respondent. A copy of the Order appointing the Article 81 Guardian is annexed hereto as Exhibit 12. Suf?ce it to state, July 6, 2015 has come and gone. Respondent was scheduled to be evicted shortly thereafter. It was at that time the JASA representative began pleading with petitioner to be afforded until July 31 2015 to relocate Ms. Taylor. Petitioner ultimately relented on condition that $2,800.00 be paid towards the almost Sixty Thousand Dollars that respondent owed, that respondent?s DHCR complaint be withdrawn and that July 31, 2015 be a ?nal date. Copies of the emails which were exchange con?rming the same are annexed hereto as Exhibit 13. Petitioner honored its commitment the same cannot be said of the movant. Respondent was scheduled to be evicted on August 10, 2010. The eviction was ?re?scheduled? by DOI to August 12, 2015 for reasons unstated. The reasons became clear when the instant Order to Show Cause followed soon thereafter. 14. What makes this offensive and incredible situation almost comical is the further representation in Order to Show Cause that, ?We are in the process of terms to relocate another apartment both in Brooklyn and in other continues . . . However, we have been faced with certain road blocks when we contact renting agencies. Mr. Taylor?s credit history is not [emphasis added] Respondent is attempting to evoke sympathy and obtain relief for MS. Taylor because her credit is not good. Respondent owes petitioner $58,445.28. 15. Petitioner, as a private litigant and a private actor, has carried the burden for Ms. 'I?ylor long enough. It is well past time that petitioner be afforded the relief that it was long ago entitled to. Justice demands that this motion be denied and that no further Marshal?s Notice be required to be served. WHEREFORE petitioner respectfully requests that an Order be entered denying respondent?s motion in its entirety together with such other and further relief as this court may deem just proper and equitable. Dated: Brooklyn New York August 13, 2015