log" binder is kept in the reception area. Housing Assistants, managers and possibly others in the
office have access to the "legal log." Ms. Davis also testified that she looks at the binder very
rarely. She added that she takes the binder whenever there is a meeting with the Borough Office
supervisor, Ms. Theresa Bethea.
Ms. Davis believes that after the warrant is vacated the "case is closed." However, the
Marshal is not asked to return the warrant to the court. Nor is the Marshal notified that the
warrant is vacated. There is no protocol regarding warrants that are vacated.
Discussion:
The manager's testimony indicates that there is little or poor record keeping when it comes to
the disposition of a non-payment proceeding. Notwithstanding that in May 2019 the judgment
and warrant were vacated, and the case was discontinued, petitioner's employee was able to
simply call the Marshal to issue a Notice of Eviction. This practice is of concern because the
Marshal did not know that the warrant was vacated and appears to have relied on a telephone call
from the Housing Assistant. It was clear to the Court that the manager did not understand the
legal consequences of requesting a notice of eviction after the warrant is vacated.
There is no legal basis to issue a Notice of Eviction once the warrant is vacated and the case
is discontinued. It is undisputed that the manager and the Housing Assistant knew that the case
was discontinued. Even though the judgment was vacated, petitioner's agent directed the Marshal
to issue a Notice of Eviction. This conduct is egregious because it could lead to an illegal
eviction. If respondent, correctly believing that the case was discontinued, did not come to court,