Preview
(FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 0271772014) INDEX NO. 151313/2014
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2014
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
nwa nananann
enna nanan nnn nnn nnn nen nn ne nen en nn nnn nenenene! X
HELEN SILLER,
Plaintiff,
-against- Index No. 151313/2014
THE THIRD BREVOORT
CORPORATION, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION FOR ORDER
Defendant. TO SHOW CAUSE
nee xX
Helen Siller, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1 I am over the age of 21 and make this Affidavit of my own free will. I am the
Plaintiff in this action. I make this Affidavit because if defendant can do to me and at least one
of our other neighbors, as described in the Complaint and in the Affidavit of Ms. Joanne Gallo,
defendant can do the same to every shareholder of defendant and thereby unilaterally abrogate
any contract defendant makes with its shareholders, a result that defies common sense and, as we
understand it, the law.
2. I confirm and affirm everything in my Complaint as true or that which was
asserted on information and belief is true based on that information and belief. In particular,
while I don’t see the logic behind defendant’s limitation in its 2012 House Rules that washers
and dryers must be selected from among three brands, I would gladly buy one of those three
brands if they made a gas dryer that vents to the exterior. Because I have an existing vent
through the bricks that defendant (and the NYC Department of Buildings and The Landmark
Preservation Commission) previously approved, it would be an enormous hardship to comply
with a new House Rule that post-dates my approvals in order to reverse this pre-existing hole in
the bricks. The hardships are all addressed in the questions we asked defendant in our emails
which defendant never answered — who would procure and pay for new architect’s and
engineer’s plans, file them with the NYC department of Buildings and Landmark preservation
Commission, deal with any changes required by any of them, tear out the cabinets and duct
inside my Apartment, tear out the vent, brick up the existing hole in the bricks, put in new cinder
or cement clock on the inside of the bricks, plaster the interior wall, paint that wall, fabricate and
install new interior cabinets, and clean up and pay for all of this?
3 My husband and I took the attached seven photos which depict the washers and
dryers in the Building’s laundry room, the exhaust vent from those dryers outside of the
Building, and the dryer vent on my terrace. Some of the photos were taken on Saturday night at
about 8:10 pm, February 15, 2014, and some on Sunday morning, February 16, 2014 at about
8:25 am.
4. Photos #1 and #2 depict the vent outside the Building that the exhaust ducts from
the Building’s dryers connect to. It is obvious from photos #1 and #2 that the Building vent
reaches from the street or from the basement to the second story in the Building, is wider than
the width of a window, and extends out from the Building’s brick wall by about two feet, or
more than the exterior depth of a window air conditioner. Photo #3 depicts the 23 year old vent
on my terrace. The vent for the dryer in my Apartment is substantially smaller, connects to a
four inch duct from my dryer, and flush mounts to the bricks on my terrace with a few inch
overhanging tented roof to prevent rain and snow from entering the vent. Unlike the Building’s
vent depicted in photos #1 and #2, mine is not visible from the street as proscribed by The
Landmarks Preservation Commission. It would appear that defendant can vent out the exhaust
from defendant’s dryers but cooperators cannot, even cooperators such as me who obtained
permission from defendant to install, maintain, repair and replace that vent. Why would that be
the case?
5. Photo #4 shows the Building’s laundry room ducts that connect to the vent
depicted in photos #1 and 32. Unlike the ducts depicted in photo #4, the four inch duct from my
dryer to my vent is hidden behind cabinets and is not visible for a photo to be taken.
6 Photos #5, #6 and #7 depict the brands of washers and dryers in the Building’s
laundry room. Interestingly, none is an Asko, Miele or Bosch washer or dryer. Photo #5 shows
that one of the brands of machines in the Building’s laundry room is Wascomat, which is owned
by Electrolux which also makes non-commercial home washers and dryers.
http://wascomat.wordpress.com/
7 Although the Electrolux stacked washer and dryer are too tall for our space,
Electrolux owns Frigidaire which makes Frigidaire washers and dryers.
http://group.electrolux.com/en/electrolux-unveils-new-appliances-for-north-america-18465/ I
want to buy and install a Frigidaire washer and dryer and that is what we told defendant, which
defendant rejected by telling us Frigidaire was not an approved brand. Defendant thus uses
dryers in its laundry room that vent to the outside that are made by the same company that
manufactures Frigidaire, the very same appliances I want to buy and install but defendant has
refused to allow me to do that. It seems that the Gallo-Kellers likewise wish to buy a new
Frigidaire washer and defendant has refused their request as well and is doing to the Gallo-
Kellers what they are doing to me.
8 The brand depicted in photos #6 and #7 is Speed Queen. Speed Queen also
makes home washers and dryers, including stacked units. http://www.speedqueen.com/home/en-
us.aspx Defendant has not included Speed Queen in its list of approved washers and dryers in
the 2012 House Rules. If Speed Queen is good enough for defendant, why is it, or any other
comparable brand, not good for defendant’s cooperators? It appears, however, that the stacked
Speed Queen washer/dryer are also too tall for my existing space where I have my broken
Maytag.
9 There thus seems to be no valid reason, let alone any reason other than that
defendant adopted an arbitrary 2012 House Rule, to prohibit me from buying and installing a
Frigidaire washer and dryer (or even another brand) that vents to the existing duct and vent for
which defendant gave its written approval in 1990.
10. This case is not about defendant refusing to allow a vent to be installed through
the Building’s bricks where no vent presently exists and has not been previously approved by
defendant. | have an existing and approved vent for my clothes dryer. The 2012 House Rule
prohibiting vents as applied to me makes no sense and is neither “reasonable” nor has anything
to do with the “maintenance and operation of the Building” as my Lease requires a House Rule
to be. My dryer vent has existed since 1990 and there is no earthly reason to spend time, money
and effort to undo what was already approved by defendant, the Landmarks Preservation
Commission, the NYC Department of Buildings and is perfectly functional today.
11. Defendant is not prejudiced in any way by this motion because it cannot make any
difference to anyone what brand washer and dryer we have as long as it is Energy Star rated
which the units we propose to buy and install are. It also cannot make any difference to anyone
if we connect a new dryer to the existing duct and vent that defendant approved in 1990 and is
still water and weatherproof and perfectly functional. There is no difference to anyone if we
could repair what we have and have it remain in place or if we buy a new washer and dryer and
connect them to the exact same connections as exist now. No alterations are being done, period.
12. We purchased our second apartment and told defendant we were doing so in order
to combine it with our first apartment and to create a laundry room and install a washer and dryer
that vented out to our terrace. Defendant approved that.
4
13. There is no logical reason the 2012 House Rule should apply here because the
washer-dryer I have used for 23 years and wish to replace with like machines actually use less
water, less gas, and less electricity than the machines in defendant’s laundry room. I pay for all
electricity I use in my Apartment and the cost to the defendant for water and gas would actually
be less as a result of my using my own washer/dryer than using defendant’s washers and dryers
which, being commercial units, use more water, electricity and gas than home units.
14. There is no reason for defendant to hide behind an arbitrary and unreasonable
House Rule created in 2012 after the Gallo-Kellers, Sillers and others questioned the President of
defendant in 2009-2011 as to many of the projects she undertook for the Building. Upon
information and belief, defendant acting through its President created this 2012 House Rule and
is applying it to me and to the Gallo-Kellers to “get even” with those who disagreed with or
questioned her, and for no other reason. House Rules promulgated after conditions in my
apartment were approved and created cannot be made to apply to me regardless of defendant’s
reason.
15. In 2013 when an air conditioner facing our on my terrace that was installed
through the bricks ceased working, I replaced it with the consent of defendant that required me to
obtain an insurance certificate from the supplier and nothing more, no new alterations agreement,
nothing else. Defendant was well aware of this as that was the subject of the email referred to in
Paragraph 52 of the Complaint. How is replacing my washer and dryer and connecting it to the
same connections as presently exist any different from replacing the air conditioner in 2013? I
submit to the Court that it is no different. Defendant in 2013 was concerned that I might make a
claim against defendant for the damage to the air conditioner that caused me to need to replace it,
as described in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint, but defendant’s concern that I might do that does
not change the fact that no alterations were being done in 2013 when I replaced my air
5
conditioner and no alterations are proposed to be done now in replacing my washer and dryer,
and thus no new alterations agreement was required in 2013 and none should be required now.
16. There is one more thing I need to clear up. Paragraph 51 of the Complaint quotes.
defendant’s President’s February 3, 2014 6:36 pm email to Mr. Siller, which was her first email
to us on the subject of this action: “I note that you completely circumvented that [Alterations]
Committee by going directly to Brenda Ballison.” Defendant’s 2012 House Rules state in
Paragraph 4: “Lessee shall have an affirmative obligation to determine from Lessor’s Managing
Agent [Brenda Ballison of Douglas Elliman] whether an Alterations Agreement is necessary for
the installation of any device or machine covered by this paragraph.” Paragraph 4 covers
“washing machines, clothes dryers” and other devices. Contrary to what defendant’s President
wrote in her first email to Mr. Siller, we followed her 2012 House Rules and contacted
defendant’s managing Agent. It would thus seem that defendant’s President either did not read
her own 2012 House Rules, makes up the rules as she goes, enforces the 2012 House Rules for
some and not for others, or just might have a vendetta.
17. My husband and J are not getting younger. He has had three spinal surgeries. |
have had spinal problems of my own that required physical therapy and other medical treatment,
none of which I need get into here. The in-apartment washer dryer that I have used for the past
23 years have become a necessity to me, and defendant is denying that to me for no valid reason.
18. Further Affiant sayeth not.
Meo
ap Aili
Helen Siller
Sworn to before me this | 7 th day of February, 2014.
Notary Public
NAIMA ALOM
[NOTARY PUBLIC SEAL] Notary Sebi, Sito of New Yor
Qualifiedin
Jen
6, 2018
BY
red —
ee)
cs
|
Ay
meee Te
asker |
See
arene —
ee
a
=
eee
~B)
rt
woe
femal re
ae a ae
| ae
ee
aa eae
Ee
| dated
a ea
CN en
Sle Lit
ij 15
ae
Oe a
i
aay
ram
hk tal
cae
.
c=
we
SS wy
=
ca uw
a
ae
=
aa
= ae
ee
— a
—————
#2?
as
|
aa |
| \
|
ee OES SP
arene
|
oe
Waly
1
rm
at
i
on
es
a EJ
a
a a a | yf
es)7 ae rs
a
a
an
{
iz
a} bo
1 ae
en
im \ yl mh
ii
ff
ifell
neesa
epeess
Spat \—4 - E
-?
am
pare
meet
ess
so
=r
a
me
ss.
a as
i
=
ce
er
rr
~e
— e
~e
es
om —.
-
am fal
=
=r
~ =
a
ey
CE
==
==
— a
=
(a
a
Or)
asl Be
et
aye) =
Pas
pTG Ted
Be
Cr
mies)
bia
a>
So
Cie
Ge
de
ae
ge Ea]
Gilad
phar
0
£3 Tl
Be
pan TF
(oma
f a ee
a os a
rep ez
£/
Ree
ey er
=
fo? es
a a a
|
Pa
per
<2: Pe
€
oa bas
bar Ee|
adOH
wal Si
ye% ae vA
a
Py.
9) = at
C4 srr=
oes
a>]
=<
ees
Ch
ey
aS
ES
ey
eT
ey
ae
BES
SS
Sey
os cS
Vil32N val Ss
fut
Preview
(FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 0271772014) INDEX NO. 151313/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK nwa nananann enna nanan nnn nnn nnn nen nn ne nen en nn nnn nenenene! X HELEN SILLER, Plaintiff, -against- Index No. 151313/2014 THE THIRD BREVOORT CORPORATION, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER Defendant. TO SHOW CAUSE nee xX Helen Siller, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1 I am over the age of 21 and make this Affidavit of my own free will. I am the Plaintiff in this action. I make this Affidavit because if defendant can do to me and at least one of our other neighbors, as described in the Complaint and in the Affidavit of Ms. Joanne Gallo, defendant can do the same to every shareholder of defendant and thereby unilaterally abrogate any contract defendant makes with its shareholders, a result that defies common sense and, as we understand it, the law. 2. I confirm and affirm everything in my Complaint as true or that which was asserted on information and belief is true based on that information and belief. In particular, while I don’t see the logic behind defendant’s limitation in its 2012 House Rules that washers and dryers must be selected from among three brands, I would gladly buy one of those three brands if they made a gas dryer that vents to the exterior. Because I have an existing vent through the bricks that defendant (and the NYC Department of Buildings and The Landmark Preservation Commission) previously approved, it would be an enormous hardship to comply with a new House Rule that post-dates my approvals in order to reverse this pre-existing hole in the bricks. The hardships are all addressed in the questions we asked defendant in our emails which defendant never answered — who would procure and pay for new architect’s and engineer’s plans, file them with the NYC department of Buildings and Landmark preservation Commission, deal with any changes required by any of them, tear out the cabinets and duct inside my Apartment, tear out the vent, brick up the existing hole in the bricks, put in new cinder or cement clock on the inside of the bricks, plaster the interior wall, paint that wall, fabricate and install new interior cabinets, and clean up and pay for all of this? 3 My husband and I took the attached seven photos which depict the washers and dryers in the Building’s laundry room, the exhaust vent from those dryers outside of the Building, and the dryer vent on my terrace. Some of the photos were taken on Saturday night at about 8:10 pm, February 15, 2014, and some on Sunday morning, February 16, 2014 at about 8:25 am. 4. Photos #1 and #2 depict the vent outside the Building that the exhaust ducts from the Building’s dryers connect to. It is obvious from photos #1 and #2 that the Building vent reaches from the street or from the basement to the second story in the Building, is wider than the width of a window, and extends out from the Building’s brick wall by about two feet, or more than the exterior depth of a window air conditioner. Photo #3 depicts the 23 year old vent on my terrace. The vent for the dryer in my Apartment is substantially smaller, connects to a four inch duct from my dryer, and flush mounts to the bricks on my terrace with a few inch overhanging tented roof to prevent rain and snow from entering the vent. Unlike the Building’s vent depicted in photos #1 and #2, mine is not visible from the street as proscribed by The Landmarks Preservation Commission. It would appear that defendant can vent out the exhaust from defendant’s dryers but cooperators cannot, even cooperators such as me who obtained permission from defendant to install, maintain, repair and replace that vent. Why would that be the case? 5. Photo #4 shows the Building’s laundry room ducts that connect to the vent depicted in photos #1 and 32. Unlike the ducts depicted in photo #4, the four inch duct from my dryer to my vent is hidden behind cabinets and is not visible for a photo to be taken. 6 Photos #5, #6 and #7 depict the brands of washers and dryers in the Building’s laundry room. Interestingly, none is an Asko, Miele or Bosch washer or dryer. Photo #5 shows that one of the brands of machines in the Building’s laundry room is Wascomat, which is owned by Electrolux which also makes non-commercial home washers and dryers. http://wascomat.wordpress.com/ 7 Although the Electrolux stacked washer and dryer are too tall for our space, Electrolux owns Frigidaire which makes Frigidaire washers and dryers. http://group.electrolux.com/en/electrolux-unveils-new-appliances-for-north-america-18465/ I want to buy and install a Frigidaire washer and dryer and that is what we told defendant, which defendant rejected by telling us Frigidaire was not an approved brand. Defendant thus uses dryers in its laundry room that vent to the outside that are made by the same company that manufactures Frigidaire, the very same appliances I want to buy and install but defendant has refused to allow me to do that. It seems that the Gallo-Kellers likewise wish to buy a new Frigidaire washer and defendant has refused their request as well and is doing to the Gallo- Kellers what they are doing to me. 8 The brand depicted in photos #6 and #7 is Speed Queen. Speed Queen also makes home washers and dryers, including stacked units. http://www.speedqueen.com/home/en- us.aspx Defendant has not included Speed Queen in its list of approved washers and dryers in the 2012 House Rules. If Speed Queen is good enough for defendant, why is it, or any other comparable brand, not good for defendant’s cooperators? It appears, however, that the stacked Speed Queen washer/dryer are also too tall for my existing space where I have my broken Maytag. 9 There thus seems to be no valid reason, let alone any reason other than that defendant adopted an arbitrary 2012 House Rule, to prohibit me from buying and installing a Frigidaire washer and dryer (or even another brand) that vents to the existing duct and vent for which defendant gave its written approval in 1990. 10. This case is not about defendant refusing to allow a vent to be installed through the Building’s bricks where no vent presently exists and has not been previously approved by defendant. | have an existing and approved vent for my clothes dryer. The 2012 House Rule prohibiting vents as applied to me makes no sense and is neither “reasonable” nor has anything to do with the “maintenance and operation of the Building” as my Lease requires a House Rule to be. My dryer vent has existed since 1990 and there is no earthly reason to spend time, money and effort to undo what was already approved by defendant, the Landmarks Preservation Commission, the NYC Department of Buildings and is perfectly functional today. 11. Defendant is not prejudiced in any way by this motion because it cannot make any difference to anyone what brand washer and dryer we have as long as it is Energy Star rated which the units we propose to buy and install are. It also cannot make any difference to anyone if we connect a new dryer to the existing duct and vent that defendant approved in 1990 and is still water and weatherproof and perfectly functional. There is no difference to anyone if we could repair what we have and have it remain in place or if we buy a new washer and dryer and connect them to the exact same connections as exist now. No alterations are being done, period. 12. We purchased our second apartment and told defendant we were doing so in order to combine it with our first apartment and to create a laundry room and install a washer and dryer that vented out to our terrace. Defendant approved that. 4 13. There is no logical reason the 2012 House Rule should apply here because the washer-dryer I have used for 23 years and wish to replace with like machines actually use less water, less gas, and less electricity than the machines in defendant’s laundry room. I pay for all electricity I use in my Apartment and the cost to the defendant for water and gas would actually be less as a result of my using my own washer/dryer than using defendant’s washers and dryers which, being commercial units, use more water, electricity and gas than home units. 14. There is no reason for defendant to hide behind an arbitrary and unreasonable House Rule created in 2012 after the Gallo-Kellers, Sillers and others questioned the President of defendant in 2009-2011 as to many of the projects she undertook for the Building. Upon information and belief, defendant acting through its President created this 2012 House Rule and is applying it to me and to the Gallo-Kellers to “get even” with those who disagreed with or questioned her, and for no other reason. House Rules promulgated after conditions in my apartment were approved and created cannot be made to apply to me regardless of defendant’s reason. 15. In 2013 when an air conditioner facing our on my terrace that was installed through the bricks ceased working, I replaced it with the consent of defendant that required me to obtain an insurance certificate from the supplier and nothing more, no new alterations agreement, nothing else. Defendant was well aware of this as that was the subject of the email referred to in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint. How is replacing my washer and dryer and connecting it to the same connections as presently exist any different from replacing the air conditioner in 2013? I submit to the Court that it is no different. Defendant in 2013 was concerned that I might make a claim against defendant for the damage to the air conditioner that caused me to need to replace it, as described in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint, but defendant’s concern that I might do that does not change the fact that no alterations were being done in 2013 when I replaced my air 5 conditioner and no alterations are proposed to be done now in replacing my washer and dryer, and thus no new alterations agreement was required in 2013 and none should be required now. 16. There is one more thing I need to clear up. Paragraph 51 of the Complaint quotes. defendant’s President’s February 3, 2014 6:36 pm email to Mr. Siller, which was her first email to us on the subject of this action: “I note that you completely circumvented that [Alterations] Committee by going directly to Brenda Ballison.” Defendant’s 2012 House Rules state in Paragraph 4: “Lessee shall have an affirmative obligation to determine from Lessor’s Managing Agent [Brenda Ballison of Douglas Elliman] whether an Alterations Agreement is necessary for the installation of any device or machine covered by this paragraph.” Paragraph 4 covers “washing machines, clothes dryers” and other devices. Contrary to what defendant’s President wrote in her first email to Mr. Siller, we followed her 2012 House Rules and contacted defendant’s managing Agent. It would thus seem that defendant’s President either did not read her own 2012 House Rules, makes up the rules as she goes, enforces the 2012 House Rules for some and not for others, or just might have a vendetta. 17. My husband and J are not getting younger. He has had three spinal surgeries. | have had spinal problems of my own that required physical therapy and other medical treatment, none of which I need get into here. The in-apartment washer dryer that I have used for the past 23 years have become a necessity to me, and defendant is denying that to me for no valid reason. 18. Further Affiant sayeth not. Meo ap Aili Helen Siller Sworn to before me this | 7 th day of February, 2014. Notary Public NAIMA ALOM [NOTARY PUBLIC SEAL] Notary Sebi, Sito of New Yor Qualifiedin Jen 6, 2018 BY red — ee) cs | Ay meee Te asker | See arene — ee a = eee ~B) rt woe femal re ae a ae | ae ee aa eae Ee | dated a ea CN en Sle Lit ij 15 ae Oe a i aay ram hk tal cae . c= we SS wy = ca uw a ae = aa = ae ee — a ————— #2? as | aa | | \ | ee OES SP arene | oe Waly 1 rm at i on es a EJ a a a a | yf es)7 ae rs a a an { iz a} bo 1 ae en im \ yl mh ii ff ifell neesa epeess Spat \—4 - E -? am pare meet ess so =r a me ss. a as i = ce er rr ~e — e ~e es om —. - am fal = =r ~ = a ey CE == == — a = (a a Or) asl Be et aye) = Pas pTG Ted Be Cr mies) bia a> So Cie Ge de ae ge Ea] Gilad phar 0 £3 Tl Be pan TF (oma f a ee a os a rep ez £/ Ree ey er = fo? es a a a | Pa per <2: Pe € oa bas bar Ee| adOH wal Si ye% ae vA a Py. 9) = at C4 srr= oes a>] =< ees Ch ey aS ES ey eT ey ae BES SS Sey os cS Vil32N val Ss fut