Claire Haaga Altman

20. The conditions in Kenmore Hall are so horrendous and egregious as to
constitute additional Predicate Felonies, as well as other violations of Federal,
State, and City Laws, Rules and regulations by petitioner . Literally Hundreds of
open (unfixed) DHPD violations, including two in respondents apartment
(Violations ID # 4957755 & 4957757) since May 2004 and remain willfully
unrepaired as part of harassment and violation of implied Warrant of Habitability.
In the stipulation in a previous court appearance respondent agreed to pay, and
did in fact pay $3,250, if petitioner would would repair violations and other
conditions by Licensed Plumbers & Electricians as required by law (see exhibits F
G). This stipulation was unperformed by the RICO, who at every opportunity
attempted and did in fact use Unlicensed and Undocumented Staff who willfully
destroyed plaintiff's bathroom (Retaliatory Eviction). Staff, instead of making
repairs, created a large hole in respondents bathroom, which was covered with
plastic and became a vector for vermin, as was their desire. After numerous
importunings and many months, a deliberately inept restoration was undertaken
(see photos), which resulted in a grout or cement substance all over said bathroom
and when respondent at that time requested a repair of the leaking toilet it was
instead damaged to were it continuously flushes. Respondent in order to stop
tremendous wast of water and noise keeps toilet float ball raised and flushes toilet
with the water from the tub that will not drain. The same Unlicensed and
Undocumented staff, while snaking a pipe in a different apartment, damaged
respondent's bathroom sink drain, causing a significant leak when used.There is
also considerable lead paint and potentially fatal mold from upstairs leak. The
apartment has not been painted since the Major Capital Improvement of 10 years
ago (the law is every 3 years). Upon information and belief,The RICO interferes
with landline phone service by means of Tap/Tampering/Taping. This was reported
to respondent by Verizon Employee Philip Surachi (VID # 682) on December 23,
2003,who said that two jury rigged illegal taps were on phone line in basement
room assessable only to the RICO staff, causing numerous instances of no dial
tone, up to five days at a time. Respondent neither owns nor possesses a cell
phone. During the most recent phone outage during May-June 2006 (5 days) on
June 6 a Verizon Technician (VID # GIG), visiting said basement room in order to
check for tampering, was bared and told he would need to give at least one days
notice and make an appointment in order to remove illegal devices a priori. No
battery operated smoke detectors have ever been installed in said apartment in
violation of NYC Administrative Code §27-2045, 46, instead a hard wired optical
monitoring device running on alternating current was furnished. During any
blackout or electrical interruption to building or apartment has and will fail and a fire
is presumed more likely at at that time due to possible use of candles matches etc.,
thus the reason for a battery requirement.
d. The occupant of a dwelling unit in which a battery operated smoke detecting device is provided and installed pursuant to this section shall reimburse the owner a maximum of ten dollars for the cost of providing and installing each such device. The occupant shall have one year from the date of installation to make such reimbursement.
Hot water is sporadic (see exhibits).
21. Respondent moved into said building in 1989 and current apartment in 1992,
without a lease i. e. the Rent Stabilization Laws as a lease. In 1996 respondent
was forced to move to a temporary apartment (the current 4th floor lounge) while a
major capital improvement was performed on apartment and a "temporary
relocation agreement " was signed, with no copy given to respondent. On that
move property was stolen by staff. In 1997, at the MCI completion, respondent was
summoned to a building office wherein petitioner confiscated the temporary
apartment keys (constructive eviction). The RICO said that respondent's property
would be moved by staff only again (Threat) and that a multi page "Housing Rider"
by Housing and Urban Development had to be signed in only five minutes (Duress)
. Respondent was told it was a "take it or leave it (meaning apartment)
proposition"and to sign or leave the building and become homeless (Retaliatory
and Constructive Eviction)and have property converted and/or stolen and sold
(duress)(see Rispler v Kenmore). Respondent knew that all renewal leases (as
this was/is) must be made on the same terms or better as well as that the lease
contract was without consideration (Nudum Pactum) and thus null and void, as
respondent was already a Lawful Tenant. In order to prevent additional Looting of
respondent's property respondent signed that contract and was again given no
copy. Respondent considers only the elements and clauses of said contract that
are less restrictive than existing Rent Stabilization Law as being in effect, as a
matter of Law and Precedent.
22. In order to conduct a proper defense, respondent will require the appearance
of all named current and former employees of petitioner at trial, as well as all
named and relevant documents and/or emails, and requests to be informed in reply
as to whether their presence will will require subpoena and if so the named
individuals and documents present location.
First Affirmative Defense : That petitioner has no standing in the instant case to
bring suit as it is not the (proper) owner, but instead the People of the United States
i. e. the Federal government as previously attested to in paragraphs 1, 11 etc. Also
that petitioner (Kenmore Associates a.k.a.Housing & Services Incorporated) is not
an actual legal entity properly registered with the Federal State and Local
government, including the Tax authorities. Also that petitioner has not paid
$102,000,000.00 court judgment against it and thus all assets would revert to
Madigril Rispler. Respondent will require as part of defense all relevant
documents, originals notarized and/or certified as well as chain of custody of said
documents. Petitioner is in violation of any "agreement " with Federal government
(VOID) as well as Nudum Pactum (Naked Contract, no Consideration). All surplus
Federal Property must be put up for lawful, proper advertised Auction. Upon
Information and Belief, Petitioner is a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization as defined by Federal Law.
Second Affirmative Defense : That State Civil Court is not the court of Proper
Jurisdiction, due to Federal Ownership, Federal Questions, Federal Issues and
Federal Laws involved with and as defenses in the instant case. Respondent
moves and/or will move court for a oral MOTION TO DISMISS with prejudice (on
the state court level) and MOVE that the case be transfered to federal court at
petitioners expense or be resubmitted. Respondent asserts that United States
Constitutional Amendments I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XIII, XIV will be used as
lawful defense. The Uniform Commercial Code, Housing and Urban Development
Rules and Regulations and all applicable governing Federal Laws, Rules and
Regulations will be used.
Third Affirmative Defense: Due to enumerated acts of Harassment of respondent
as well as other acts by petitioner and conditions of said apartment and building, a
violation of Warranty of Habitability, respondent owes and would owe no "rent"
under laws including Rent Stabilization Code 2525.5 and Real Property Law §
235-a through §235-f. Any use of restrictive clauses and/or covenants in "Housing
Rider" would violate RPL §235-c (Unconscionable Lease or Clause) as well as the
principle of Nadum Pactum (Naked Contract, No Consideration) which is basic
contract law, as well as the settled law that a lease must be renewed on the same
terms or better than the original lease, in this case no lease.
Fourth Affirmative Defense: Due to the petitioner waiting a full year to file case
against respondent, the Doctrine of Laches (estoppel) will be used. This is also
called "stale rent".
Fifth Affirmative Defense: For the reasons previously enumerated (1-22), the
defenses of Constructive Eviction and Retaliatory Eviction as well as Partial
Constructive Eviction as well as Obstruction of Justice will be used.
Sixth Affirmative Defense: That alleged rent amounts are incorrect. Respondents
lawful rent is $215.00 per Month and after building wide Major Capital
Improvement rent was illegally tripled instead of by correct formula. That
$15,000.00 was paid into court for a pending appeal and sum was illegally and
without Due Process converted for petitioners use. That $3,250 paid to petitioner, in
part to effect repairs by Licensed Contractors was also converted for improper use
and should be applied to any amounts owed.
Seventh Affirmative Defense: All other actual and appropriate affirmative
defenses, Federal, State and City, will be used, especially as may arise from Trial
and/or Reply or Motion.
Eighth Affirmative Defense: The Federal Fair Housing Act and Fair Housing
amendments Act (42 U.S. Code § § 3601-3619, 3631) and Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and §109 of title I of
the housing and Community Development Act of 1974 will be used as defenses.
First Counterclaim: That petitioner, reaching back six years before the filling of the
instant suit through present, engaged in such egregious criminal and civil
violations, (as enumerated in #1-#22) of Federal, State and City Laws, Regulations
and Rules including Predicate Felonies covered under RICO act and Harassment,
and Implied Warranty of Habitability, a fine/penalty of $1,000,000 be imposed on
petitioner and awarded to respondent . Further that Injunctive Relief be granted by
court to stop Harassments, Torts, Crimes and unlawful restrictions and Chattel
status.
Second Counterclaim: That for the reasons aforementioned, including but not
limited to ongoing Harassment and violation of Implied Warranty of Habitability and
§2525.5 of Rent Stabilization Code and Predicate Felony RICO (criminal and civil)

act (pgs#1-22) punitive damages be awarded, to be set by court, as well as treble

damages qualified under said Federal RICO act.
Demand For an H.P. Inspection
Respondent demands an H.P. Inspection be made of subject building and unit
#4R prior to commencement of further appearances (or) any Trial Proceedings.
Jury Demand
Respondent hereby demand a Trial by Jury.
WHEREFORE, Respondent demands judgment against petitioner dismissing the
Petition and awarding the respondent the damages asked for in the First & Second
Counterclaims, and for such and further relief that this court may deem just and
proper.