Landlords followed the court's deadline and filed a motion for summary judgment in the Highbridge House case on February 5, 2009. The motion is now set to be argued on April 13, 2009. Click on "read more" below to read more about the content of the motions.
Click
The papers supporting the motion cite Justice Stone's decision granting the Columbus 95 landlord permission to amend his complaint. (Justice Stone was the original judge on the Columbus 95 case which the Highbridge House landlords joined.) Describing the DHCR regulations as "emasculating" and "eviscerating" landlords' rights Justice Stone noted that DHCR had not yet had a chance to respond to the landlord's claims.
Gluck's lawyer took the opportunity to rehash the landlords' claims that the judge who now has the case, Justice Alice Schlesinger, should have recused herself (stepped back from the case) earlier. The judge had found those arguments unconvincing and denied the landlords' motion for recusal:
The judge's law secretary once worked for the law firm that represents three tenant association intervenors in the case, and once wrote a single letter to the landlord on behalf of one of those tenant associations. That letter concerned when the building would leave Mitchell-Lama, and had nothing to do with "unique or peculiar circumstances."
The judge noted that she - and not her law secretary - made the decisions in her courtroom.
