weight of the credible evidence, including Plaintiff's own submissions at trial and prior
sworn statements made in 2013 (Pl Exh 10 at 3, Defs Exh 5 ¶¶
6-7).
Footnote 11:This inconsistency
was not explained at trial. Nevertheless, Defendants did not seem to dispute the necessity
of rebuilding.
Footnote 12:Though Plaintiff
switched attorneys several times, the attorney to whom the email was sent was the same
attorney who represented Plaintiff at trial.
Footnote 13:Though the email is
marked "for settlement purposes only," Plaintiff consented to its admission (5/7
933:9).
Footnote 14:There is, however,
an email from Plaintiff on December 13, 2010 asking to inform her when access was
needed, but that is sent in response to a request to examine the terrace for leaks (Pl
Exh 12). A subsequent email on December 30, 2010 reiterates that she is not pleased
with the status of waterproofing "before good money is put into the restoration of the
home property" (id.). Plaintiff did not provide adequate support for this opinion.
Angrist credibly surmised that the delay may have been due, at least in part, to Plaintiff
having changed attorneys several times (5/16 1420:8-17).
Footnote 15:For this reason,
Plaintiff's objection to the June 1, 2009 "prior arrears" entry of $35,348.62, (Defs Exh
20), is moot. The charges are approximately equal to two prior years of maintenance
charges — in other words, the period which would be covered by the abatement.
Footnote 16:Paragraph 47 of the
Lease is cut off in the version submitted as an exhibit. Nevertheless, the parties do not
dispute that the provisions are materially identical.
Footnote 17:Though Plaintiff
objects to this amount on similar grounds as the objection to the Amended Lease