Re: New York Court denies Summary Judgement Motion

[Guest guest]

>

> Hi All,

>

> I wanted you all to see this because it is significant on several

levels.

>

I don't have a case pending but did work on a case for a year. I

wonder what the time limit would be, just interested. Especially if

you are living in one place and move into another place. Of course

you would have to go after both home owners, builders, etc. Many

times you are waiting for maintenance to look at damage. Waiting for

the promises they make, etc. Each case is different in the

circumstances. I got out of all places but there were three and it

took time to get out of them when each time you lose money,

belongings, etc.

It is a shame that I have been doing this for nine years and nothing

is better than back then except people atleast have heard of mold by

now. I know people are hard working on this but I would like to hear

more from the creeps running this country. Just once I would like one

of them to mention the word MOLD and its dangers. The excuse seems to

always be not enough scientific evidence, well when are they going to

research and just stop saying the same thing over and over again.

There has been plenty of time and information to do something by

now. So many elections have gone by and nothing. The same thing on

the chemicals in our products. It just get so exhausting. Sorry had

to vent.

[Guest guest]

Quadillian,

What you say is true. I was merely pointing out that if one stays, the

defense will attempt to use it against them to deflect some of the

responsibility

for liability.

Sharon,

(and everybody else)

Its important to point out here that for renters, the act of renting another

apartment in many places is 100% dependent on full employment. many mold

illness victims have lost their jobs, preventing them from being able to

rent another apartment.

This, when combined with the high cost of hotel rooms ($200/day in my city)

is a *very real* barrier to their just moving out.

People have to 1. get better, 2. get a job that pays more than minimum 2 or

3 times one months rent per month, 3. have been there at least a few months.

before they can typically rent in a tight rental market.

(Then, if they complain about mold, the landlord also gives them a bad

reference.)

************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

(and everybody else)

Its important to point out here that for renters, the act of renting another

apartment in many places is 100% dependent on full employment. many mold

illness victims have lost their jobs, preventing them from being able to

rent another apartment.

This, when combined with the high cost of hotel rooms ($200/day in my city)

is a *very real* barrier to their just moving out.

People have to 1. get better, 2. get a job that pays more than minimum 2 or

3 times one months rent per month, 3. have been there at least a few months.

before they can typically rent in a tight rental market.

(Then, if they complain about mold, the landlord also gives them a bad

reference.)

On 6/13/07, snk1955@... <snk1955@...> wrote:

>

> Hi All,

>

> I wanted you all to see this because it is significant on several levels.

> But one of the most important to many on this board, is the following

> argument

> made by the defense.

>

> " Carrasco argued that the Jazylos assumed a risk by staying at the

> residence

> after they learned of the allegedly dangerous conditions. "

>

> Know that if you are aware you are living within a moldy environment and

> you

> are in litigation claiming health damages from that environment, the

> defense

> will use it against you....that YOU have played a part in your illness for

>

> failure to leave a known hazardous situation.

>

>

> Publishing

> COURTROOM NEWS

>

> Date: 5 June 2007

> N.Y. Court Denies Summary Judgment Motions by Building Owners

>

>

> KINGSTON, N.Y. — A New York trial court has denied summary judgment to

> owners of a rental unit who relied on another court's recent Frye ruling

> to argue

> that exposure to mold could not have caused the injuries claimed by their

> tenants. Jazylo, et al. v. Leong, et al., No. 05-2482 (N.Y. Sup., Ulster

> Cty.).

>

> Ulster County Supreme Court Justice B. Ceresia Jr. ruled on May 25

> that attorney affidavits citing Fraser v. 301-52 Townhouse Corp. (13 Misc

> 3d

> 1217[A][sup Ct, N.Y. Cty. 2006]) were insufficient to support summary

> judgment

> on tenants' mold injury claims......

>

> ...motions for summary judgment, each arguing that New York Supreme Court

> Justice Shirley W. Kornreich's ruling on expert testimony demonstrated

> that

> plaintiffs' causation theories were not accepted by the relevant

> scientific

> community.....(This was the case that was the example subject of the Wall

> Street

> Journal article.)

>

> Leong moved for summary judgment on the sole ground that the Jazylos

> failed

> to show that expert opinion supporting their claims is generally accepted

> by

> the scientific community, according to Justice Ceresia. He said the only

> support was an attorney's affidavit referencing Fraser (See

> Columns-Mold, Oct. 2006)....

>

>

> ...The justice also rejected Carrasco's argument that he did not breach

> any

> duty to plaintiffs, noting that Carrasco has testified he was aware of a

> wet

> basement and obtained a price reduction because of it.

>

> Carrasco argued that the Jazylos assumed a risk by staying at the

> residence

> after they learned of the allegedly dangerous conditions.

>

> " Under the circumstances herein, assumption of risk may be considered as

> comparative fault, reducing, but not prohibiting, plaintiffs' recovery, "

> the

> justice explained....

>

>

>

> Document Is Available

> Call (800) 496-4319 or

> Search _www.harrismartin.com_ (http://www.harrismartin.com)

> Order Ref# MOL-0706-04

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

If there is any sanity in this world, a jury would see the logic of people

not being able to move if they have been made sick.

And sick people more than anyone else need safe and healthy places to

recover.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/14/2007 7:22:46 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

quackadillian@... writes:

If there is any sanity in this world, a jury would see the logic of people

not being able to move if they have been made sick.

And sick people more than anyone else need safe and healthy places to

recover.

The courtroom has little to do with logic these days.

************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

[Guest guest]

while I dont understand SOL's that great, I did locate some info. that

may apply if you suffered brain injury. basically saying your SOL is

null at least until tou become aware of what has happened and/or get

proper representation. which makes sence. and xhould apply in some of

these cases.

--- In , LiveSimply <quackadillian@...>

wrote:

>

> If there is any sanity in this world, a jury would see the logic of

people

> not being able to move if they have been made sick.

>

> And sick people more than anyone else need safe and healthy places to

> recover.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Also, the fact that there are major, powerful elements in our society (like

parts of the government) that are trying

to pull the wool over all of our eyes on this, seems to me to make it

virtually impossible for many injured people to sue.

They have created that roadblock intentionally, and it is like an organized

conspiracy to deny people justice.

When that situation *ends*, THAT is when I feel the clock should START

ticking.

Even ignoring that, I think that there is a certain kind of case that should

be able to be brought for a long time.

When there is massive, dishonesty - clear, obviously intentional deception

on the part of the defendant(s) or when the

defendant made promises that were never kept, say to clean a situation up.