LI squatters who hadn’t paid mortgage in over a decade appear to move out after being exposed by the Post: ‘It feels like a Christmas Miracle’
By Georgett Roberts and Kathianne Boniello Published Dec. 23, 2023, 8:12 a.m. ET
A pair of allegedly racist Long Island squatters who hadn’t paid their mortgage in more than a decade appear to have finally moved out a week after their “abuse” of the court system was exposed by The Post.
Moving trucks were spotted in the driveway of the four-bedroom, two-bath, 1,536-square-foot home on Friendly Lane in Jericho Wednesday, said Bobby Chawla, whose family purchased the house 22 months ago in a bank auction but have been unable to move in because accused squatters Barry and Barbara Pollack wouldn’t leave.
By Friday, the house appeared empty and the Pollacks were nowhere to be seen.
“It feels like a Christmas Miracle, I can’t believe it,” said Chawla, who cannot officially take over the home without a judge’s approval.
“I did feel a sense of relief. . . . but I won’t be satisfied until I have possession of my home. This guy is not to be trusted.”
Rudy Giuliani files for BANKRUPTCY with debts of $153M just days after going jewelry shopping and getting hit with $148M defamation verdict: Former mayor has less than $10m in assets and also owes money to Hunter Biden
Giuliani filed documents at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
His creditors included two election workers who won $148 million in damages from him last week for defamation
Rudy Giuliani has filed for bankruptcy in New York with staggering debts of $153 million owed to creditors including two Georgia election workers he defamed, lawyers, the IRS, and Hunter Biden.
It was a stunning setback for the man who became known as ‘America’s Mayor’ in the wake of 9/11 and was once a realistic contender for President of the United States.
The former New York Mayor, who led the effort to challenge the 2020 election result on behalf of Donald Trump, filed court documents showing he had less than $10 million in assets.
On Friday, Giuliani, 79, was put on the precipice of financial ruin when a jury ordered him to pay $148 million in damages to election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss for claiming they tried to rig the vote for Joe Biden.
In August, Giuliani admitted having ‘financial problems’ as he battled multiple court cases and said he didn’t have enough money to defend himself.
He filed his petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, court documents showed.
In the filing, Giuliani said he had between $100 million and $500 million in liabilities and $1 million to $10 million in assets.
The filing listed Hunter Biden as one of his creditors, without specifying the amount Giuliani owed him.
‘Unknown’ amounts were recorded as being owed to the president’s son, and the election voting machine companies Dominion and Smartmatic.
Hunter Biden, Dominion and Smartmatic have all filed lawsuits against Giuliani which are ongoing.
In September, Hunter Biden sued Giuliani, accusing the former mayor of violating his privacy over data allegedly taken from his infamous laptop.
Giuliani also listed owing at least $700,000 to the Internal Revenue Service and more than $260,000 to the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance.
Giuliani listed Hunter Biden as a potential creditor after the president’s son sued him for breach of privacy over data from his laptop
In a statement Heath Berger and Gary Fischoff, Giuliani’s bankruptcy lawyers, said the move was predictable after the defamation court case.
They said: ‘The filing should be a surprise to no one. No person could have reasonably believed that Mayor Giuliani would be able to pay such a high punitive amount.’
The lawyers said Chapter 11 bankruptcy would ‘afford Mayor Giuliani the opportunity and time to pursue an appeal, while providing transparency for his finances.’
It would ‘ensure all creditors are treated equally and fairly throughout the process,’ they said.
Giuliani said he had nearly $1 million in tax liabilities and also owes money to his lawyers, and many millions of dollars in potential legal judgements in lawsuits against him.
On Tuesday, Giuliani was spotted at a jewelry shop in Manhattan, although it was unclear if he bought any items.
He walked into Madison Jewelers on 3rd Avenue after leaving his office.
Declaring bankruptcy will not erase the $148 million in damages he owes to the Georgia election workers.
Bankruptcy law does not allow for the dissolution of debts that come from a ‘willful and malicious injury’ inflicted on someone else.
In September, Giuliani’s former lawyer Robert Costello sued him for $1.4 million in unpaid legal bills.
Giuliani has asked a judge to dismiss that case, claiming he never received the invoices at issue.
In August, the IRS filed a $549,435 tax lien against Giuliani for the 2021 tax year.
Rudy Giuliani is shown in a police booking mugshot in Fulton County Georgia where he has pleaded not guilty in an election case
This summer Giuliani was criminally charged in Georgia and accused of trying to overturn the state’s 2020 election result.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis charged him under the same racketeering laws that Giuliani once used to go after the mob as a federal prosecutor in New York City.
He is one of 18 people accused of being part of a ‘criminal enterprise’ and has pleaded not guilty, as has Trump.
After the $148 million defamation ruling last week Giuliani blamed on the ‘fascist system run by the Biden regime.’
He said he didn’t ‘regret a damn thing’ and his lawyers described the damages as the ‘civil equivalent of the death penalty.’
Outside court, Giuliani said his claims ‘were supportable and are supportable today.”
He has since been sued for a second time by the two Georgia election workers.
They are seeking a court order to permanently bar Giuliani from ‘persisting in his defamatory campaign’ against them
What is a Partition Action and How Does It Affect Joint Property Owners in New York?
If you own a property with someone else, you may have different opinions on what to do with it. Maybe you want to sell it and split the money, but your co-owner wants to keep it. Or maybe you want to live in it, but your co-owner wants to rent it out. How can you resolve this conflict?
One option is to file a partition action. A partition action is a legal process that allows a joint property owner to force the sale of the property and get their share of the proceeds. This way, you don’t have to co-own the property if you don’t want to.
However, a partition action can also have negative consequences for both parties. It can be costly, time-consuming, and stressful. It can also result in losing the property at a low price or losing sentimental value. Therefore, before you decide to file a partition action, you should understand how it works and what alternatives you may have.
How Does a Partition Action Work in New York?
A partition action is filed in the Supreme Court of the county where the property is located. The person bringing the action (the Plaintiff) must prove that they are a joint owner of the property and that physical partition (dividing the property into separate parts) is not possible or would cause great prejudice to the parties. For example, if the property is a single-family home or an apartment, physical partition would not be feasible or would destroy its value.
If the plaintiff meets these requirements, the court will usually order the sale of the property and divide the proceeds among the co-owners according to their ownership interests. For example, if two co-owners each own 50% of the property, they will each get 50% of the sale proceeds.
However, there are some exceptions to this general rule. For instance, if there is a prior written agreement between the co-owners that prevents or limits the partition action, such as a contract or a corporation document, then the court will respect that agreement and not order the sale of the property.
Another exception is if the property is inherited by family members as tenants in common. In this case, New York law gives them some protection from partition actions by third parties who buy a share of the property and try to force a sale. The law allows the family members to first buy out each other’s interest before selling the property to a third party.
What Are Some Alternatives to a Partition Action?
A partition action should be considered as a last resort when there is no other way to resolve the conflict between co-owners. There are some alternatives that may be more beneficial for both parties, such as:
Negotiating a voluntary sale or buyout: The co-owners can agree to sell the property together and split the proceeds, or one co-owner can buy out the other’s interest at a fair price.
Creating a co-ownership agreement: The co-owners can create a written agreement that outlines their rights and responsibilities regarding the property, such as how to manage it, how to share expenses and income, how to resolve disputes, and how to exit the co-ownership.
Seeking professional advice: The co-owners can consult with an experienced real estate lawyer who can help them understand their options and guide them through the legal process.
Conclusion
A partition action is a legal remedy for joint property owners who want to end their co-ownership.
However, it can also have drawbacks for both parties. Therefore, before filing a partition action, you should weigh your pros and cons and explore your alternatives.
If you need more information or assistance with your partition action or any other real estate matter in New York, please contact us at legal@bfslawfirm.com. We offer free consultations and affordable fees. We look forward to hearing from you soon!
Your Neighbor Needs Access to Your Property to Complete Their Construction Project
If you are a property owner in New York, you may be facing a situation where your neighbor needs access to your property to complete a construction project. This can be a difficult situation, as it may involve sacrificing some of your own property rights for the benefit of your neighbor. In this situation, it is important to understand the legal requirements and implications of granting a neighbor access to your property. An adjacent real property access license is a written agreement between two property owners that allows one party to access the land of the other for a specific purpose. This type of license is often used when a neighbor needs access to a portion of another’s property to complete a construction project. It is important to note that an adjacent real property access license is different from an easement, which is a permanent right to use another’s land for a particular purpose.
In New York, the requirements for an adjacent real property access license are outlined in the Real Property Law. The law states that the license must be in writing and signed by both parties, and that it must include the following information: 1. The purpose of the access: This must be stated with sufficient detail to describe the nature and extent of the access. 2. The duration of the access: This must be stated as a definite period of time. 3. The area of the access: This must be stated with sufficient detail to describe the boundaries of the area. 4. The compensation: This must be stated in the form of money or other consideration, such as a land exchange. 5. Any other terms and conditions: This may include restrictions on the use of the property, such as limitations on noise, dust, and debris, or any other conditions that the parties agree to in writing.
If you are considering granting access to your property to your neighbor, it is important to consult with an experienced real estate attorney to ensure that your rights and interests are protected. An attorney can help you negotiate a fair and favorable agreement, draft the license, and review the terms and conditions to make sure that they are enforceable and in the best interests of all parties involved. If you do decide to grant an adjacent real property access license, it is important to remember that it is a legally binding agreement and that you may be liable for any damages or injuries that occur on your property. It is also important to remember that you have the right to revoke the license at any time if your neighbor breaches any of the terms or conditions. Adjacent real property access licenses can be complex and difficult to navigate, so it is important to be aware of your rights and obligations if you are asked to grant access to your neighbor to complete their construction project. If you are considering granting access, it is important to consult with an experienced real estate attorney to ensure that your rights and interests are protected.
Everyone Can Benefit: The Bargain Sale Transaction
With the cost of real estate in New York, it is becoming increasingly difficult for religious and non-profit organizations to be able to afford to purchase real estate. One way to reduce the out of pocket costs, is to structure the sale using a Bargain Sale to benefit both the Seller and the non-profit purchaser.
In New York (especially New York City), a seller who sells property significantly higher than when they purchased it, may be required to pay up to 40%-50% in taxes on the difference between their cost basis (the difference between the asset’s cost basis and the current market value) and the sales price. By using a Bargain Sale, a Seller may be able to avoid this tax.
Essentially, a Bargain Sale purchase allows a seller to reduce capital gains on a sale by selling property to a non-profit or religious organization for less than fair market value (FMV). The difference between the FMV and the amount realized, i.e., the “bargain element,” is intended to be a charitable contribution. The seller is donating the difference between the FMV and the sale price to the charity.
Note that while this type of sale can save a taxpayer who donates all or part of a property thousands of dollars in taxes and allows a non-profit or religious organization to obtain property as a donation for less than fair market value, the rules are very detailed and should be done in consultation with a qualified accountant.
Every student who gets special education is covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). That federal law spells out what all states must do to meet the needs of students with disabilities. But in many areas, IDEA leaves room for states to interpret the rules and pass their own laws on how to apply them.
State laws can’t contradict IDEA, and they can’t provide less than the federal law requires. But they can offer more protections to kids and parents. This table shows examples of what IDEA provides for, and how states can add their own special education laws to meet students’ needs.
IDEA says students who have one of 13 types of disabilitiesmay qualify for special education. To be eligible, the disability must “adversely affect” their educational performance.
States must follow IDEA, but they can have guidelines on who qualifies for each disability type.For example, qualifying under the category of “specific learning disability” can differ by state. States can even allow it to vary by school district within the state. States may also use different models for deciding if your child is eligible. That’s why a learning issue that qualifies as a “specific learning disability” in one state may not in another.
IDEA says every child with a disability is entitled to a free and appropriate education.Kids with disabilities must also receive special education in the LRE. There must be a continuum of placements available, from self-contained to inclusion classrooms.
States must provide FAPE, but they have leeway in what instruction or services to provide. For instance, states can decide on the types of educational programs to use. And many different programs could be “appropriate.”States must educate children with disabilities in the LRE. But states can choose how to structure their schools as long as they provide special education in several types of placements.
This is the area where IDEA is the most detailed. IDEA lays out the process and steps that schools and parents go through for evaluation, IEP meetings and dispute resolution.For example, it requires schools to complete an evaluation within 60 days.
As long as states follow the overall process in IDEA, they have leeway to determine some of the details.One example is time limits. For example, instead of the 60-day time limit for evaluations, Washington state law gives schools just 35 days to complete one after parental consent.
IDEA provides for early intervention for kids with developmental delays or specific health conditions. But it doesn’t actually define “delay,” state who is eligible or spell out who pays for what services.
Each state decides what constitutes a delay, who is eligible for services and who pays for what.Some states are more generous than others. Some pay for physical therapy or family training. Others require parents to cover some costs.
Age of eligibility
IDEA says educational services must be provided to students with disabilities who are in school until the age of 21.
States must meet the federal minimum of 21, but they may pass laws that exceed it. Michigan, for instance, provides services until the age of 26.
Federal law says schools must start transition planning for after high school at the age of 16.
Some states choose to start earlier. In Massachusetts, for instance, schools must provide transition services starting at age 14.
How can you find out about your state’s special education laws? Many states offer handbooks or guides. Check online, contact your school district or state department of special education, or visit your state’s Parent Training and Information Center (PTI).
Learn more about your child’s rights in special education. Understanding both the federal and state laws will help you discuss services for your child at school.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously raised the bar for the educational benefits owed to millions of children with disabilities in one of the most significant special-education cases to reach the high court in decades.
The opinion rejected a lower standard set by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and used in a subsequent case by President Trump’s nominee to the high court, Neil Gorsuch, during his tenure on the appeals court. The high court’s ruling quickly became the focus of questions Wednesday at Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing.
In its unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court said that a child’s “educational program must be appropriately ambitious in light of his circumstances” and that “every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives” even if the child is not fully integrated into regular classrooms.
The court stopped short of setting a bright-line rule, deferring to the expertise and judgment of school officials and acknowledging the unique set of circumstances of each child with a disability.
But the justices sent a strong, clear message with their unanimous decision that the 10th Circuit standard was too low.
Any standard, the court said, that is not centered on “student progress would do little to remedy the pervasive and tragic academic stagnation that prompted Congress to act” when it passed the 1975 law that provides federal funds to help states cover the cost of educating students with disabilities.
“When all is said and done, a student offered an educational program providing ‘merely more than de minimis’ progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all,” wrote Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who wrote the 16-page opinion. “For children with disabilities, receiving instruction that aims so low would be tantamount to ‘sitting idly . . . awaiting the time when they were old enough to “drop out.” ’ ”
Lower courts have been split on what level of educational benefit is guaranteed under the federal law known as the Individuals With Disabilities in Education Act, or IDEA. The majority of appeals courts, including the 10th Circuit, say that students are owed “some” benefit, which courts have interpreted to mean just more than trivial. Two appeals courts established a higher bar, calling for a “meaningful” benefit.
The Supreme Court’s decision more clearly defines a uniform nationwide standard for the more than 6 million children with disabilities who qualify for services under IDEA. Advocates said that the ruling would not only affect decisions in the relatively few special-education disputes that go to court but would also more broadly shift the balance of power between families and school officials, pushing schools to set more ambitious goals tailored more carefully to each student’s particular needs.
Gary Mayerson, a board member of the advocacy organization Autism Speaks, said that the timing of the decision “couldn’t be better,” as it comes just before the spring season when many schools draw up individual education plans for students with disabilities.
“School districts will have the perfect opportunity to do the right thing and create programs that are consistent with the new clarified standard,” Mayerson said.
The court did not raise the bar as far as some advocates had hoped, to call for “substantially equal” opportunities for students with disabilities — a standard that critics said could have significantly increased costs. Francisco Negron of the National School Boards Association said the decision was “measured” and set an expectation that “school districts will be comfortable with and reflects in many ways how they’re already operating.”
The justices released their decision Wednesday morning as Gorsuch was testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee during the third day of his confirmation hearings.
Almost immediately, he was asked about his application in 2008 of the lower 10th Circuit standard. He said that standard was set in a 1996 decision, which determined that services have to be “more than de minimis” or, in other words, result in at least minimal progress by the student.
“I was bound by circuit precedent,” Gorsuch told the committee, saying that ruling against a child with autism and his parents was “heartbreaking.”
He added that his circuit was unanimously taking the same position in all such cases. Now that the Supreme Court has said that is the wrong standard, he said, “Fine, I will follow the law.”
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said Gorsuch had read the law the wrong way and made the precedent worse by adding the word “merely” to the standard.
In response to a series of follow-up questions from Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Gorsuch rejected her suggestion that he was “anywhere out of the mainstream” in applying the standard rejected by the Supreme Court. He noted that several other appellate courts had relied on the same standard.
Scheduled to testify at Gorsuch’s hearing later this week is Jeff Perkins, the father of the child with autism whom Gorsuch ruled against in the 2008 case.
The case decided Wednesday involves Endrew F., a Colorado boy who was diagnosed with autism at age 2.
His parents pulled him out of a public schools in Douglas County, south of Denver, after his behavior deteriorated dramatically and he made what they said was almost no academic progress. They placed him in private school, where he made rapid progress, and they sought reimbursement for tuition. They are entitled to that reimbursement if they can prove that the public school failed to provide a “free appropriate public education” under federal law.
The 10th Circuit ruled in 2015 against Endrew, finding that he had made enough progress under his education plan to satisfy the “merely more than de minimis” standard. Gorsuch was not part of the panel that decided that case. The Supreme Court’s decision on Wednesday sends the case back to the appeals court to decide in light of its decision.
William Trachman, a lawyer for the Douglas County schools, said the district is confident that its work already meets the Supreme Court’s standard and looks forward to proving it.
Colorado lawyer Jack Robinson represented both Endrew and the Perkins family in the 2008 case. Robinson said that until now, too many schools have treated parents dismissively, understanding that — because of the 10th Circuit’s rulings — they would not be held accountable for failing to adequately serve a child with a disability.
The College Board announced on Thursday that it would make it easier for students with disabilities to request test accommodations, and that it would provide, for the first time, testing supports to some English-language learners who take the SAT.
The College Board and its competitor, ACT Inc., have increasingly faced criticism—and questions from the U.S. Department of Justice—for testing practices that put students with disabilities at a disadvantage compared to students without disabilities.
Earlier this year, the department’s civil rights division began to look into the testing organizations’ practices after hearing persistent complaints that they reject many requests for accommodations that are routinely provided by schools, such as extra time or frequent breaks. Students who are used to testing accommodations at school typically have to take the exams without them and risk a compromised performance, or, in some states, they can take the tests with their usual accommodations without getting a certified “college-reportable” score.
This has posed challenges for students with disabilities, particularly those in the states that require high school students to take either the SAT or the ACT.
Now, the College Board has announced, starting on January 1, most students who use testing accommodations at their school through an Individualized Education Program (IEP) or 504 Plan will have those same accommodations automatically approved for taking the SAT, the Preliminary SAT/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test, the PSAT 10, SAT Subject Tests, and Advanced Placement exams.
School testing accommodation coordinators must now answer just two questions affirmatively to have most students’ requests be approved—”Is the requested accommodation(s) in the student’s plan?” and “Has the student used the accommodation(s) for school testing?” This change is expected to reduce the approval time for accommodation requests.
In a statement, David Coleman, the president and CEO of the College Board, said educators, students, and families have been asking for a simpler request process.
“The school staff knows their students best, and we want to cut down on the time and paperwork needed to submit a testing accommodations request,” he said.
Also starting January 1, English-learners who take a state-funded SAT during the school day will receive test instructions in their native language (including Spanish, Mandarin, Arabic, and a limited number of other languages initially) and will have access to an approved word-to-word bilingual glossary. In the fall, ELL students taking a state-funded SAT during the school day can also receive more time on the exam (up to time-and-a-half) and will be able to take the test in a room with fewer distractions.
Only a handful of states fund the SAT during the school day: Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, plus the District of Columbia. The College Board expects to expand its ELL-testing supports to students taking the SAT in all states soon.
“We are excited that Colorado’s first statewide SAT administration will mark the first time that English-language learners who use these testing supports on the state’s college entrance exam will receive college-reportable scores,” said Joyce Zurkowski, the executive director of assessment at the state’s education department, in a statement.
This change comes just a few weeks after ACT Inc. announced it would start providing the same accommodations for English-learners in the fall of 2017.
The New York Board of Regents voted Tuesday to make it easier for some students in special education to earn a high school diploma, the latest in a series of changes intended to ease the path to graduation for students with disabilities.
The new regulation requires district superintendents to automatically review a student’s record to see if he or she has demonstrated proficiency in enough subjects to earn a local diploma (New York state also has a Regents diploma, considered more rigorous.)
Yes, it’s definitely OK to ask for self-advocacy goals to be included in your child’s IEP. The IEP needs to include any goals that you and the rest of the IEP team think are important to help your child receive an appropriate education. Schools know that self-advocacy is essential for your child’s success in the classroom and in the working world.
For example, it’s common for students with learning and attention issues to have difficulty asking teachers for help. Many students also struggle to stand up for themselves when interacting with peers. As your child gets older, these kinds of self-advocacy skills will become more and more important.
Just like the academic goals and objectives in your child’s IEP, the self-advocacy goals and objectives should be specific. Let’s say your child has a hard time approaching a teacher for help. The IEP could include a goal like this:
When student does not know what to do, he will ask for help by raising his hand during class and/or asking to see teacher after class. When meeting with teacher, the student will ask for assistance with a specific problem.
As with all the goals in an IEP, self-advocacy goals are most successful when paired with objectives that can be measured. Here’s an example:
By the end of the third quarter, student will ask for assistance with a specific problem during four out of five consecutive meetings with teacher.
Don’t hesitate to ask for one or more self-advocacy goals to be included in your child’s IEP. These are particularly important when designing transition plans for kids who are changing schools or preparing for life after high school.
Keep in mind that there are many ways to reinforce your child’s self-advocacy skills. Parenting Coach has lots of tips on how to teach your child to self-advocate. Something as simple as ordering a pizza can help kids work on figuring out how to approach someone for help and what to say.
