WHAT'S THE DISCH ON ESTATES?

You might want to down-play or edit out the cutesy puns, given that Mr Disch (a writer of some reknown) has since committed suicide, reportedly in part because of his limited prospects as an elderly man on limited income facing court-ordered eviction from his apartment.

This is very sad, Ron. But aren't you advocating censorship?

I doubt this post had anything to do with Mr. Disch's suicide.

Er, I think the suggestion was made to save the esq. the embarrassment of looking like a heartless, classless, juvenile guttersnipe to posterity.

Assuming that's an issue, of course.

If you don't like what you see ... move on.

I grow sick and tired of you republicans telling us what to think.

Oh, and what are YOU leaving to posterity, Hart(less)? If I had to venture a guess ... NOTHING.

too late!

he's MINE!!

hahahahahaha!!!

HW,

With a blog and webpage like yours, you appear to be the West Coast's leading expert on witlessness. Your belief that blog posts somehow stick around for "posterity" is troubling, to say the least, I recommend you seek professional assistance concerning that matter.

Here in New York, we revel in our guttersnipe heritage. So eat my ****, ************.

Um, seriously though, the snarky tone of your post is really ill-advised in this case.

Disch was an extremely talented and important NYC literary figure, whose works within a variety of genres were regularly hailed as "masterpieces" by 40 years worth of critics (and no, I'm not exaggerating, just google the man's name and read his press clippings) prior to his at least partially eviction-motivated suicide.

And you know as well as anyone that the only reason he was being evicted from his rent-controlled apartment was, quite simply, because he was gay (since he and his partner—who were together for 30 years, much longer than many marriages—could not be legally married, so he could therefore not inherit the apartment as any other widower would.)

So given the tragic circumstances of this man's death -- not only from a literary perspective, but from a civil rights perspective and a human perspective as well -- the smarminess you are displaying is really distasteful.

I sure hope I'm not "advocating censorship" by recommending basic good taste, even if only for simple public-relations-type reasons.

Given the common antipathy to lawyers in general and real-estate lawyers in particular, you might want to generate a little good will among the public by at least making the effort to come across as a halfway-decent person.

No offense, counselor. I'm just saying.

McGee:

Thanks for your comments.

We take issue with a number of your observations, but will only respond to the comment that Mr. Disch was somehow deprived of his right to the rent-regulated apartment "because he was gay."

When it comes to succession of regulated apartments, same-sex couples here in New York State are entitled to many of the same protections which are afforded to "straight" or opposite-sex individuals.

If Disch could have shown he had a "financial and emotional interdependence" with the former occupant (and that he resided in the unit with that tenant for the requisite period of time prior to that individual's death or departure), Disch would have had a legal right to remain as a tenant in his own right. (And from all appearances, he should have qualified.)

The news reports, and the appellate court's decision, are silent as to why Disch was unable to demonstrate the requisite elements. And, as a result, ignorance and misinformation abounds.

(That, if you ask us, is the real disservice here.)

Onward!

McGee,

1. Someday you'll get a job writing for a real newspaper people actually pay money to read.

2. Since Disch didn't leave any note behind, saying his suicide was "partially eviction motivated" is conjecture.

3. Under New York law gay life-partners are entitled to succeed to their deceased partner's tenancy if they can prove certain facts about their relationsip. This has been the law for over 20 years.

4. If you weren't such a cheap bastard and shelled out $1.50 to buy the New York Times to read Disch's obituary, you would know that he owned a home in Barryville, New York. That fact alone blows almost any succession claim out of the water. Why should someone who owns their own home be entitled to succeed to a rent regulated apartment? Would you like to explain that one to the 25,000 families in the City's shelters?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/books/08disch.html

4. Who died and appointed you Witchfinder-General and Arbiter of Good Taste?

5. I am unaware of any antipathy to lawyers in general or real estate lawyers in particular. In fact, people call us every day for advice and recommend us to their friends. You haven't got the slightest inkling of what we do, who we do it for, how much of it we do for free and why we do it. If you actually read the posts and commentary on this blog you might get some inkling of who we are and what we are about around here.

6. When you make an ignorant, unsupported ad hominem attack on Lucas, you are ******* with all of us. So **** you, and **** your mother.

CHB:

My thanks for your words of encouragement and support. They are appreciated.

I did want to address the comment you made about Disch's home up in Barryville, New York.

We shouldn't give our readers the impression that New York's regulated tenants aren't permitted to have second homes (or investment property).

While we are certainly in the midst of an affordable housing crisis, that currently has no bearing on whether regulated tenants may own real estate. Here's a quote I gave to the Times, a few weeks back, on that very issue:

* * *

"Many rent-regulated tenants mistakenly believe they may not maintain multiple residences or hold investment property," said Lucas A. Ferrara, a Manhattan real-estate lawyer and adjunct professor at New York Law School. "The key consideration is not the number of apartments or homes a tenant may have, but where that individual 'primarily resides.'"

Mr. Ferrara said that regulated tenants must maintain "an ongoing, substantial, physical nexus" to their apartments. This residency can be demonstrated if a tenant actually occupies the regulated unit 183 days of the year or more (excluding temporary absences for military service, enrollment as a full-time student, employment requiring temporary relocation or hospitalization) and if he or she does not sublease the unit to others.

When occupancy status is challenged, courts will consider several factors, including the testimony of the landlord, tenant and other building residents and employees; the address listed on public documents (like the tenant's voter's and driver's registration records); the address listed on other documents (like tax returns, insurance policies, utility bills and bank and credit-card statements); utility use; and the address where Social Security and other government benefits are received.

While judges are free to give as much weight -- or as little -- to any of these elements as they choose ... mere "ownership" of [another] property is not likely to jeopardize [a] stabilized tenancy.

* * *
Onward!

Doesn't owning the home, at the least, make proving the succession claim more difficult?

What I find interesting is that Disch's lawyer spent so much time and effort on getting the case dismissed for failure to name the estate as a necessary party after termination of the lease term, rather than litigate on the merits. If the succession claim is worth pursuing, why
use time and the client's money litigating technical defenses? A quick peek at your book or ten minutes on Lexis would have foretold the ultimate disposition on appeal. The strategy makes no sense to me unless Disch's actual goal was to either get bought out or to run the clock as long as possible.

This Arts & Letters crowd is really clueless and smug. I've got a study full of artwork I've been given in lieu of fees over the years. I'll be happy to do McGee's sister while Cide does his mother.

Difficult, yes. Insurmountable, no.

As to why Disch didn't prevail, at this point, we can only speculate.

Examination of the court file reveals that Disch was nowhere near eviction.

After the appeal, the LL restored the case fon a motion for leave to conduct pre-trial discovery. The parties stipulated to do so and marked the case off the calendar on August 27, 2007. There was no further calendar
activity. No trial, no judgment, no warrant.

Thanks for looking that up for us, Gines.

Hopefully, your report will put this debate to rest.