re-entry, the IP failed to return to the premises. The landlord argues that there "has been no harm
in a true legal sense" and, therefore, no cause of action should lie against the landlord.
In reply, New York Foundation points out that contrary to the landlord's claim that the IP's
eviction was legal, Judge McClanahan ruled that the eviction was unlawful and the issue is
res judicata. Moreover, New York Foundation did not stop the eviction because it did not
receive any notice of the eviction.
The application by New York Foundation is hereby granted. The landlord's claim that the
eviction of the IP from his apartment did not take place until after sixty (60) days of the [*3]guardian's qualification is disingenuous. The order and judgement
was clear that the landlord, its agents and the City Marshal were restrained from "instituting any
action or proceeding...or taking any other action to evict" the IP from his apartment until sixty
(60) days after the qualification of the guardian. (Exhibit A). The notice of eviction was alleged
to have been served prior to the expiration of the sixty (60) days in direct contravention of this
court's order. Therefore, as Judge McClanahan has already ruled, the eviction herein was
unlawful.
Since the eviction was unlawful the request by the guardian for any damages incurred by the
IP as a result of the eviction is hereby granted. The judgment and warrant of eviction entered
against the IP is hereby vacated and set aside and the landlord is directed to issue a
rent-stabilized lease to the IP. The award of attorney' fees is hereby granted.
New York Foundation shall submit to this court a detailed estimate of the damages incurred
by the IP as a result of the unlawful eviction as well as a detailed affirmation of legal services