replied 9 months ago.
THANKS ONCE AGAIN FOR YOUR ANSWER .1. SHORT OF HAVING PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR , MY ASSUMPTION ( PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG - I AM NOT A LAWYER ) IS THAT MERE OBSERVATION OF ME AND HOW MANY TIMES THEY SEE ME IN A FIXED TIME PERIOD CANNOT EVEN AND ITSELF BE DETERMINATIVE AND SERVE AS LEGAL GROUNDS TO POSTULATE THAT I DONT LIVE THERE AND/OR THAT IT IS NOT MY PRIMARY RESIDENCE ?2. THANK FOR THOSE DIRECT QUOTES - THEY ARE VERY HELPFUL . I READ THEM CAREFULLY, AND , BASED ON MY SITUATION , I ACOMPLY WITH ALL 4 DETERMINANTS OF WHETHER IT IS PRIMARY RESIDENCE OF MINE OR NOT , I OFFICIALLY FILE TAXES AT THAT ADDRESS , I VOTE AT THAT ADDRESS , ALL MY BUSINESS FILINGS WITH US GOVERNMENT IS FROM THAT ADDRESS , MY DRIVERS LICENSE LISTS THAT ADDRESS , ALL MY BILLS ( CELL PHONE, CREDIT CARDS, BANK STATEMENTS ) ARE FROM THAT ADDRESS . THE ONLY EXCEPTION ARE MY UTILITY BILLS ( GAS , ELECTRICITY BILLS ) WHERE MY MOTHER IS LISTED ( SHE WAS A TENANT THER TILL 2009 AND I NEVER CHANGED THEM , EVEN THOUGH SHE MOVED TO ANOTHER ADDRESS - I NOW FEEL THAT IT MAY COME BACK TO HAUNT ME AND BE USED AGAINST ME IN THAT CASE ) - I TOOK OVER THE LEASE IN 2009 AND SHE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LEASE ANYMORE ( SHE HAS A KEY , AND IF I AM BUSY AND SOMEONE NEEDS TO BE THER , SHE " COVERS FOR ME " ) .3. FROM WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ABOVE , MY TAKE IS THAT THE "MESS" IS HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE DETERMINATION , AND THRESHHOLD FOR IT IS VERY LOW - AND AS SOON AS THEY SHOW PICTURE TO THE JUDGE , THE JUDGE WILL BE CONVINCED THAT IT IS A MESS . AND IF THAT IS THE CASE , WILL THAT SUBJECTIVE NON-LEGAL OPINION EVEN AND ITSELF BE USED AS LEGAL GROUNS TO PROCEED WITH
A . EVICTION AND B . NON-RENEWAL4 . CAN THE FACT THAT THE SUPER , IN MY OPINION , ENTERED TYE APARTMENT ON DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT GROUNDS AND UNDER FALSE PREMISES. HERE HOW IT HAPPENED . HE CALLED ME AND ASKED FOR ME TO GIVE HIM ACCESS SINCE , HE SAID , " THERE WAS A LEAK SEEMINGLY COMING FROM MY APARTMENT " . I SAID , I WILL BE BUSY , BUT I WILL ASK MY MOM TO LET HIM IN . HE NEVER MENTIONED THAT IT IS NOT REALLY A " LEAK " , BUT IT WOULD BE AS AN EXCUSE TO GET INTO APARTMENT , SINCE ONCE HE WAS INSIDE . HE QUICKLY WENT TO " POTENTIAL SITES OF LEAK " - QUICKLY FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO LEAK ( WHICH HE WAS NOT , ACCORDING TO MY MOM , EVEN SURPRISED ABOUT - SINCE IT WAS JUST AN EXCUSE TO START WITH AND THERE WAS NO LEAK - AND , BY THE WAY , I TOLD HIM , THAT BEFORE HIM , PREVIOUS SUPER WAS COMING IN LOOKING FOR LEAK AND FOUND NOTHING - WHICH LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS NO LEAK TO START FROM IN THE BEGINNING ) .
SO , WHEN HE CAME , IMMEDIATELY AFTER FINDING " NO LEAK " WHICH HE WAS NOT SURPRISED BY , SINCE HE REALLY KNEW , HE WAS NOT REALLY LOOKING FOR ONE,
HE QUICKLY PROCEEDED TO TAKE PICTURES , AND WHEN MY MOM ASKED HIM WHY HE WAS TAKING PICTURES AND " MY SON DID NOT AUTHORISE THIS " , HE IGNORED IT , GAVE NO ANSWER TO HER REQUEST FOR TAKING PICTURES EXPLANATION , AND KEPT ON TAKING PICTURES . WHEN HE WAS LEAVING , HE BRIFLY SAID "THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME IN " - WHICH MEANS I COULD HAVE REFUSED HIM THE ENTRANCE ?
4. THE FACT THAT I WAS NOT EVEN PRESENT THERE , DID NOT EXPECT HIM TO TAKE PICTURES ( I WAS UNDER THE " LEAK FINDING EXPEDITION " ASSUMPTION ) , DID NOT AUTHORISE HIM TAKING PICTURES , THAT I ( THE ACTUAL LEASEHOLDER - MY MOM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT - SHE WAS JUST " COVERING FOR ME ") - CAN ALL THAT BE USED TO CRACK AND DISCREDIT THEIR "POTENTIAL STILL" CASE AGAINST ME , AND /OR POTENTIALLY COUNTERSUE .
5. COULD YOU , PLEASE , HELP ME TO INTERPRET THE :
c) Primary residence. The housing accommodation is not occupied by the tenant, not including subtenants or occupants, as his or her primary residence, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction; provided, however, that no action or proceeding shall be commenced seeking to recover possession on the ground that the housing accommodation is not occupied by the tenant as his or her primary residence unless the owner or lessor shall have given 30 days' notice to the tenant of his or her intention to commence such action or proceeding on such grounds. Such notice may be combined with the notice required by section 2524.2(c) (2) of this Title .
I CANT UNDERSTAND WHY ON ONE HAND IT SAYS THAT SOLELY BASED ON WHETHER OR NOT THE UNIT IS OCCUPIED BY THE TENANT CANNOT BE USED AS GROUNDS FOR RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS , BUT ON THE OTHER HAND IT SAYS - " unless the owner or lessor shall have given 30 days' notice to the tenant of his or her intention to commence such action or proceeding on such grounds. Such notice may be combined with the notice required by section 2524.2(c) (2) of this Title " .
AND IT REFERS HERE TO Such notice may be combined with the notice required by section 2524.2(c) (2) of this Title " - WHAT IS THAT section 2524.2(c) (2) of this Title .
6. SO " HOARDING " AS LANLORD REP CALLED IT TODAY AND SHE ALSO USED WORD STARTING WITH "C" ( I FORGOT THE FULL WORD ) THAT IT NECESSARY IS THAT JUDGE AGREE -IS IT LEGAL?