inquiry reasonable under the circumstances (1) the presentation of the paper or the contentions
therein are not frivolous as defined in section 130-1.1(c) of this Subpart.
A reasonable inquiry would have disclosed that the rents sought in petitioner's second case
were already included in the judgment obtained in the first case. Seeking duplicative judgments
for the same rents demonstrates a lack of reasonable inquiry and as such, frivolous. The filing of
multiple cases for overlapping rents creates uncertainty and confusion. Which warrant is to be
stayed upon showing good cause may not be obvious to the litigant, the attorney or the court. Had
respondent forgotten to mention the notice of eviction dated July 26, 2019, she would have been
subjected to an unlawful eviction. The uncertainty and confusion arose precisely because two
cases were filed. The notice of eviction of July 26, 2019 was unlawful because the warrant was
vacated pursuant to the Decision/Order of June 20, 2019.
II. Service of Notice of Eviction
The potential for unlawful eviction was compounded when respondent revealed that a notice
of eviction was issued in the first case even though the warrant was vacated.
Petitioner did not disclose that the manager had requested that the marshal send a notice of
eviction after the warrant had been vacated. If respondent did not mention that a notice of
eviction was served on her, the marshal could have gone through with the eviction. If respondent
had not looked inside her bag during the hearing, an unlawful eviction might have occurred.
The manager claimed that she was not aware of the Decision/Order of June 20, 2019. Her
claim lacks credibility. Petitioner's counsel was in court on June 20, 2019 when the warrant of