Motion to Be Relieved or Withdraw as Counsel in The City Of New York v. The Land And Building Known As 525 Hunter Avenue, Tax Block #3790, Tax Lot #9, County Of Richmond, City And State Of New York, Teresa Politis, John Doe, Jane Doe| Trellis.Law

On December 28, 2022 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between The City Of New York, and Jane Doe, John Doe, Teresa Politis, The Land And Building Known As 525 Hunter Avenue, Tax Block #3790, Tax Lot #9, County Of Richmond, City And State Of New York, for Torts - Other (Nuisance Abatement) in the District Court of Richmond County.

Preview
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2023 09:34 AM INDEX NO. 152344/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2023

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF RICHMOND

THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION
Plaintiff,
Index No.:
-against-

Filed:
THE LAND AND BUILDING KNOWN AS 525
HUNTER AVENUE, TAX BLOCK #3790, TAX
LOT #9, COUNTY of RICHMOND, CITY and
STATE of NEW YORK; TERESA POLITIS; "JOHN
DOE" DOE,"
and "JANE fictitiously named parties,
true names unknown, the intended being the owners,
lessees, operators or occupants of the single family
residential property located at 525 Hunter Avenue,
Staten Island, New York; and any person claiming
any right, title or interest in the real property which is
the subject of this action,
Defendants.

Mohamed D. Quhshi, an attorney admitted to practice before the courts of this State, affirms

the truth of the following under the penalties of perjury pursuant to Section 2106 of the Civil

Practice Law and Rules:

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

1. I am an attorney in the office of the Legal Bureau of the New York City Police

Department and of counsel to Carrie B. Talansky, designation of Hon Sylvia O. Hinds-
acting by

Radix, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, attorney for plaintiff herein. I make this

affirmation based upon my review of records maintained by, and information obtained from,

various departments of the City government and from statements made to me by certain officers or

agents of the City of New York.

1 of 12
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2023 09:34 AM INDEX NO. 152344/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2023

2. This affirmation is submitted in support of plaintiffs Order to Show Cause for a

preliminary injunction pursuant to Section 7-707 of the New York City Administrative Code

("Administrative Code") and Sections 6301 and 6311 of the CPLR, enjoining and restraining

defendants and allpersons acting in concert with them during the pendency of this action from

conducting, maintaining, operating, or permitting a public nuisance inside the single family

residential property located at 525 Hunter Avenue, Staten Island, New York (hereinafter the

"subject premises"), by prohibiting defendants from using or operating said premises for the

purpose of selling and/or possessing controlled substances, or any other illegal activity. Plaintiff's

application includes a request for the issuance of preliminary injunction in the form of an order

prohibiting the use and/or occupancy of the subject premises, for any purpose whatsoever, by

individuals arrested within the subject premises within the past year, as well as all persons acting

individually or in concert with them.

3. In the event that the Court adjourns the first return date for the hearing of plaintiff's

motion for a preliminary injunction, plaintiff respectfully submits that the Court should issue a

temporary restraining order enjoining and restraining defendants and all persons acting in concert

with them, until the hearing of plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion, from conducting,

maintaining, operating, or permitting a public nuisance inside said premises, by prohibiting

defendants from using or operating said premises for the purpose of selling and/or possessing

controlled substances, or any other illegal activity, including prohibiting the use and/or occupancy

of the subject premises, for any purpose whatsoever, by individuals arrested within the subject

premises within the past year, as well as all persons acting individually or in concert with them.

2 of 12
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2023 09:34 AM INDEX NO. 152344/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2023

BACKGROUND FACTS

4. Plaintiff THE CITY OF NEW YORK is a municipal corporation incorporated under

the laws of the State of New York.

5. Defendant THE LAND AND BUILDING KNOWN AS 525 HUNTER AVENUE,

TAX BLOCK #3790, TAX LOT #9, COUNTY of RICHMOND, CITY and STATE of NEW

YORK is the real property which is the site of the subject premises. The single family residential

property located at 525 Hunter Avenue, Staten Island, New York is the subject premises where the

unlawful activities described herein have taken place.

6. Defendant TERESA POLITIS is the last known owner of the real property which is

the site of the subject premises according to a deed recorded in the Office of the Richmond County

Clerk. See, copy of deed, annexed hereto as Exhibit 1.

DOE" DOE"
7. Defendants "JOHN and "JANE are fictitiously named parties, true

names unknown, the parties intended being any person or entity who is an owner, lessor, lessee,

operator, employee, agent and/or occupant of the subject premises, and any other person or entity

claiming any right, title or interest in the real property which is the siteof the subject premises.

VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 220 OF THE
NYS PENAL LAW AT THE SUBJECT PREMISES

8. On three (3) dates since August 4, 2022, inclusive, a male individual operating out

of the subject premises (hereinafter "male individual") has used the subject premises in furtherance

of the sale and possession of controlled substances in violation of Article 220 of the New York

State Penal Law. Specifically, on two (2) dates, an Undercover Detective purchased controlled

substances from the male individual, and on a third, most recent date, members of the NYPD

executed a search warrant within the subject premises that resulted in the recovery of a quantity of

3 of 12
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2023 09:34 AM INDEX NO. 152344/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2023

controlled substances, drug paraphernalia and the arrest of the male individual on charges of

violating various provisions of Articles 220 of the New York State Penal Law.

9. On August 4, 2022, members ofNYPD's Narcotics Borough-Staten Island ("NBSI")

"buy" "buy"
conducted a operation involving the male individual. During this operation, an

Undercover Detective purchased a quantity of alleged cocaine from the male individual in exchange

for a sum of United States currency. The purchased substance was subsequently vouchered under

Property Clerk's Invoice Number 5000212900. The NYPD Police Laboratory subsequently

analyzed the vouchered substance, which was identified as cocaine, an illegal controlled substance.

See, Affidavit of Undercover Detective Number CO210, annexed hereto as Exhibit 2 at ¶¶ 5-7. See

also, Property Clerk Invoices and corresponding chemical analysis reports, copies of which are

annexed collectively hereto as Exhibit 3.

"buy"
10. On August 22, 2022, NBSI conducted a operation involving the male

"buy"
individual. During this operation, an Undercover Detective purchased a quantity of alleged

cocaine from the male individual in exchange for a sum of United States currency. The purchased

substance was subsequently vouchered under Property Clerk's Invoice Number 5000213839. The

NYPD Police Laboratory subsequently analyzed the vouchered substance, which was identified as

cocaine, an illegal controlled substance. See, Exhibit 2 at ¶¶ 8-9 and Exhibit 3.

11. On August 29, 2022, pursuant to the execution of a search warrant within the subject

premises, members of the NYPD recovered a quantity of alleged controlled substances, prescription

drugs and narcotics paraphernalia. The recovered items were vouchered as arrest evidence under

Property Clerk's Invoice Numbers 5000214185 and 5000214186. Subsequent analysis by the New

York City Police Department Laboratory of samples of the vouchered substances determined that

4 of 12
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2023 09:34 AM INDEX NO. 152344/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2023

such samples contained heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and buprenorphine, controlled substances.

Consequently, the male individual was arrested and charged with violating various provisions of

Article 220 of the New York State Penal Law. See, Affidavit of Detective James Malpeso, annexed

hereto as Exhibit 4 at ¶¶ 5-8 and Exhibit3.

12. The annexed affidavits and laboratory reports establish that on each above-described

incident dates, controlled substances were sold by a male individual operating out of the subject

premises or controlled substances were recovered from within the subject premises.

13. As the subject premises has been used in furtherance of the sale and possession of

dangerous drugs, ittherefore constitutes a public nuisance.

14. Upon information and belief, the individual involved in the illegal activity may still

have access to the subject premises, thus the opportunity for illegal activity and the consequential

negative effect on the surrounding community still exists. Accordingly, a preliminary injunction is

necessary to abate this serious public nuisance.

APPLICABLE LAW

15. In 1977, the New York City Council enacted the Nuisance Abatement Law (Section

7-701 et seq. of the Administrative Code) with the express purpose of addressing the serious

problem created by:

public nuisances [existing] in the city in flagrant violation of the . . . laws relating to

. . .controlled substances and dangerous drugs . .. all of which interfere with the

quality of life, property values and the public health, safety and welfare . .. .

Administrative Code § 7-701 (as amended by Local Law 41 of 2017).

16. Pursuant to Sections 7-703(g) and (1) of the Administrative Code, a public nuisance

includes:

5 of 12
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2023 09:34 AM INDEX NO. 152344/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2023

erection or one- or
(g) Any building, place, including two-family dwellings,
wherein, within the period of one year prior to the commencement of an action under
this chapter, there have occurred three or more violations of one or any combination
of the provisions of article 220, except for section 220.03; [or] article 221, except
for sections 221.05, 221.10, 221.15, 221.35, and 221.40 . .. provided that at least
one such violation was personally witnessed by a police or peace officer.

erection or one- or wherein
(1) Any building, place, including two-family dwellings,
there is occurring a criminal nuisance as defined in section 240.45 of the penal law;

17. Section 240.45(2) of the Penal Law states, in relevant part, that "[a] person is

guilty of criminal nuisance in the second degree when . .. [h]e knowingly conducts or maintains

any premises, place or resort where persons gather for purposes of engaging in unlawful conduct.

18. Pursuant to Section 7-706 of the Administrative Code, the Corporation Counsel is

explicitly authorized to bring and maintain an action in the Supreme Court to permanently enjoin

the above public nuisances, as well as to permanently enjoin the person or persons conducting,

maintaining or permitting such public nuisances from further conducting, maintaining or permitting

such public nuisances.

A PUBLIC NUISANCE EXISTS AT THE SUBJECT PREMISES

19. A public nuisance, as defined by Section 7-703 of the Administrative Code, exists

at the subject premises. As stated above, Nuisance Abatement Law § 7-703(g) declares a premises

to be a public nuisance where three or more violations of Articles 220 and/or 221 of the Penal Law

(excluding certain sections) have occurred inside a premises within the year preceding

commencement of an action, provided that at least one of the violations was observed by a police

officer. Additionally, Nuisance Abatement Law § 7-703(1) declares a premises to be a public

nuisance where it is conducted or maintained for persons to gather for purposes of engaging in

unlawful conduct.

6 of 12
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2023 09:34 AM INDEX NO. 152344/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2023

20. The evidence set forth in support of this Order to Show Cause clearly demonstrates

that the subject premises is a public nuisance under both Section 7-703(g) and Section 7-703(1) of

the Administrative Code. The supporting affidavits and exhibits demonstrate that on two (2)

separate dates within the past year an undercover officer purchased controlled substances from the

male individual operating out of the subject premises. Further, on a third most recent date, a search

warrant was executed by members of the New York City Police Department which resulted in the

recovery of a quantity of controlled substances as supported by chemical analysis, and the arrest of

the male individual on charges of violating various provisions of Article 220 of the Penal Law.

21. On allthree (3) dates actual controlled substances were purchased from the male

individual operating out of the subject premise and/or recovered from within the subject premises

as demonstrated by the annexed affidavits, the corresponding Property Clerk Invoices and NYPD

Police Laboratory reports. See, Exhibits 2-4.

22. The aforementioned incidents of illegal activity clearly demonstrate that the subject

premises has a history of criminal activity. The propensity for this criminal activity and the

consequential threat to public safety with such activity stillexists. An injunction order is the only

effective remedy to immediately abate this serious public nuisance and protect the safety and

welfare of the surrounding community.

PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
AND, IF APPLICABLE, A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
PENDING A HEARING ON THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

23. The annexed affidavits and supporting exhibits demonstrate that the subject

premises has been used in furtherance of the sale and/or possession of controlled substances by the

male individual operating out of the subject premises in violation of Article 220 of the New York

7 of 12
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2023 09:34 AM INDEX NO. 152344/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2023

State Penal Law, and that as a result, defendants have created a criminal nuisance pursuant to

Section 240.45(2) of the Penal Law. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to a judgment permanently

enjoining defendants from continuing their illegal use and occupancy of the subject premises.

Pending an action for a permanent injunction the Court may grant a preliminary injunction to enjoin

the public nuisance. If the Court is not going to hear the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary

injunction on the firstreturn date for such motion, the Court may, and we submit should, on that

return date, issue a temporary restraining order until such time as the motion for a preliminary

injunction can be heard.

24. The Nuisance Abatement Law itselfspecifically provides for preliminary injunctive

relief ancillary to an action for a permanent injunction. Section 7-707(a) of the Administrative Code

states, in relevant part:

Pending an action for a permanent injunction as provided for in section 7-706 of this

subchapter, the court may grant a preliminary injunction enjoining a public nuisance
within the scope of this subchapter and the person or persons conducting,

maintaining or permitting the public nuisance from further conducting, maintaining
or permitting the public nuisance, where the public health, safety or welfare

immediately requires the granting of such injunction. . ..

25. Temporary relief pending the hearing on the motion for the preliminary injunction

is authorized pursuant to Section 7-707(a) of the Administrative Code, and may remain in effect

pending further order of the Court. Section 7-707(a) states, in relevant part, as follows:

A temporary restraining order may be granted pending a hearing for a preliminary
injunction where itappears by clear and convincing evidence that a public nuisance

within the scope of this subchapter is being conducted, maintained or permitted.

26. Since plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief pendente lite under the Nuisance

Abatement Law, a showing of immediate and irreparable injury is not a prerequisite to the

injunctive relief sought herein. See, People ex rel. Bennett v. Laman, 277 N.Y. 368 (1938); City of

8 of 12
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2023 09:34 AM INDEX NO. 152344/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2023

Rochester v. Gutberlett, 211 N.Y. 309 (1914); City of New York v. Castro, 143 Misc.2d 766 (1989),

affd, 559 N.Y.S.2d 508 (1st Dept. 1990); City of New York v. Bilynn Realty Corp., 1 18 A.D.2d 511

(1st Dept. 1986); Town of Islip v. Clark, 90 A.D.2d 500 (2d Dept. 1982); City of Utica v. Ortner,

256 A.D. 1039 (4th Dept. 1939); City of New York v. Narod Realty Corp., 122 Misc.2d 885 (Sup.

Ct. Bronx Co. 1983). Rather, since injunctive relief is specifically authorized by the Nuisance

Abatement Law, plaintiff need only show that the statutory conditions have been satisfied.

Therefore, a prima facie showing that defendants are indeed violating the relevant law is sufficient

to entitle plaintiff to a preliminary injunction pendente lite.

27. In the case herein, there can be no doubt that the subject premises has been used for

the criminal sale and/or possession of illegal drugs. Indeed, the affidavits of Detective James

Malpeso and Undercover Detective Number CO210 sufficiently establish by clear and convincing

evidence that defendants have maintained a public nuisance as defined Sections and 7-
by 7-703(g)

703(1) of the Administrative Code, and thus plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction pursuant

to Section 7-707 of the Administrative Code.

28. The legislative declaration by the Council of the City of New York finds that public

nuisances such as the sale and possession of controlled substances and dangerous drugs interfere

with the quality of life, property values and the public health, safety and welfare. Further, it fmds

that the continued occurrence of such activities and violations is detrimental to the health, safety

and welfare of the people of the City of New York and of the businesses thereof and visitors thereto.

See, Administrative Code § 7-701.

29. Even if the Nuisance Abatement Law provisions for preliminary injunctions did not

exist, this Court could nonetheless grant a preliminary injunction pursuant to CPLR § 6301. In

9 of 12
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2023 09:34 AM INDEX NO. 152344/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2023

determining whether a preliminary injunction is warranted under CPLR § 6301, the courts have

traditionally employed a three-pronged test, requiring that the moving party demonstrate: (1) a

likelihood of ultimate success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury absent the granting of a

preliminary injunction; and (3) that the balancing of equities favors its position. See, Gambar Ent.,

Inc. v. Kelly Serv., 69 A.D.2d 297, 306 (4th Dept. 1979); Paine & Chriscott v. Blair House Assoc.,

70 A.D.2d 571, 572 (1st Dept. 1979). Plaintiff respectfully submits that, since the evidence satisfies

this traditional three-pronged test, a preliminary injunction is wholly appropriate.

30. First, plaintiffs likelihood of success on the merits is strongly supported by the

evidence submitted in support of this motion. The Court is respectfully referred to the fact that on

two (2) separate dates controlled substances were purchased from the male individual operating out

of the subject premises. In addition, on a third date, a search warrant was executed at the subject

premises which resulted in the recovery of a quantity of controlled substances, as per the analysis

of the Police Laboratory and the arrest of the male individual for violating relevant provisions of

Article 220 of the New York State Penal Law. See, Exhibits 2-4.

defendants'
31. Second, illegal use of the subject premises constitutes irreparable harm

to the City ofNew York, itsresidents and visitors. Indeed, in the legislative declaration incorporated

into the Nuisance Abatement Law, the City Council recognized that the continued occurrence of

violations of the law deemed to be a public nuisance is harmful to the public. See, Administrative

Code § 7-701.

32. Third, the equities are balanced in favor of plaintiff. The subject premises has been

operated, occupied and used illegally and thus, no legitimate interest of defendants will be harmed

by an injunction. In contrast, the City of New York, and the public at large which itis required to

10 of 12
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2023 09:34 AM INDEX NO. 152344/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2023

protect, will benefit greatly if the threat of continued criminal sale and/or possession of controlled

substances is eliminated from the subject premises.

33. Accordingly, plaintiff has established a prima facie case that defendants have

maintained a public nuisance, and has satisfied the traditional three-pronged test used to determine

whether a preliminary injunction is appropriate. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary

injunction pursuant to Sections 7-707 of the Administrative Code as well as under CPLR § 6301.

34. Upon information and belief, given that on two (2) separate dates an undercover

officer purchased controlled substances from the male individual operating out of the subject

premises, and an additional quantity of controlled substances and drug paraphernalia were

recovered from inside the subject premises during the execution of the search warrant, the

individually named defendant TERESA POLITIS, the owner of the property, was aware, should

have been aware of, or had a reason or a duty to be aware of the use of the subject premises for

illegal drug activity.

35. Upon information and belief, given the repeated incidents of criminal activity that

have occurred at the subject premises, defendant TERESA POLITIS has a duty to protect the public

from this criminal activity.

36. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction pursuant to Section 7-707

of the Administrative Code and CPLR § 6301.

37. No prior application for this relief has been made to this or any other court or justice.

No other provisional remedy has been served or sought in the same action against the same

defendant.

[The remainder of this page intentionally left blank]

11 of 12
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2023 09:34 AM INDEX NO. 152344/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2023

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that plaintiffs application be granted in all

respects.

DATED: New York, New York

January 10, 2023

MOH MED D. QUHSHI, ESQ.

12 of 12

Case Info

Judge

Lisa Grey Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

January 11, 2023

Case Filing Date

December 28, 2022

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: The City Of New York v. The Land And Building Known As 525 Hunter Avenue, Tax Block #3790, Tax Lot #9, County Of Richmond, City And State Of New York, Teresa Politis, John Doe, Jane Doe

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties