Home | Recent events | Memorandum of Law | Appeal brief
Reply brief | Oral argument | Appellate Division decision

Our Eviction

New York, January 20, 2001

Regrettably, this site remains under construction as Vicki and her domestic partner, Eileen Casey, continue fighting their eviction by their landlord, Columbia University, in Morningside Heights, New York City. We are attempting to appeal pro se — representing ourselves in court — but the court is free to deny us permission to go to a higher court, and most observers agree that we have little chance of gaining permission.

Meanwhile, down the hall from us, a gut-renovated apartment had remained vacant for over four years, until Columbia finally found a tenant for it, several months after this page first went online.

We highly recommend the law firm Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler & Schwartz to any landlord seeking to get rid of a tenant. Borah has successfully evicted us from New York City rent-controlled apartments twice — in 1977, from West 82nd Street & Columbus Avenue; and in 2000, from West 115th Street & Broadway. Each time the firm successfully argued specious interpretations of rent-control law. Each eviction was a "holdover." That means that we paid all rent due the landlord, but were evicted for reasons other nonpayment.

On the earlier occasion, Borah got rid of us by holding that Vicki's taking Casey as her domestic partner violated rent-control law. Now Borah has gained the court's favor by arguing that the time needed by Vicki's mother for medical attention should not count toward the two years of co-residence required to succeed to rent-controlled tenancy after the primary tenant's death or permanent absence. Borah successfully prevailed on the court to ignore that Vicki's mother returned home from rehabilitation and finally died at home, forcing Columbia to acknowledge her lawful tenancy.

However, landlords considering Borah's services should note not only that we are a lesbian couple, but also that Vicki is transgendered. It is not certain that Borah would have been nearly so successful with such worthless cases against more mainstream tenants. In fact, neither landlord would have attempted to evict had it not been for Vicki's orientation.

In the earlier case, Vicki had been living on West 82nd Street for about ten years when she came out as transgendered. In 1976 she and Casey, working together at the feminist newspaper Majority Report, became domestic partners, and Casey moved into Vicki's apartment. Soon after, the landlord charged Vicki with taking an illegal roommate. We argued that our relationship was no different from that of a married couple, but, perhaps overcome by the Borah attorney's jokes about Vicki's appearance and name, the judge laughed and ordered us out.

The present case is The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York v. Vicki Richman, Eileen V. Casey, John and/or Jane Doe. Columbia, as an institution, is remarkably supportive of the gay, lesbian, and transgendered community. However, an employee of Columbia's Institutional Real Estate, Liz Baum, does not share such institutional tolerance, and launched a successful campaign to convince her supervisors that we were liars and impostors. She first tried to evict Vicki's mother, who had lived here for over 60 years; failing that, she went after Vicki and Casey. When Baum's supervisors learned of her duplicitous, double-dealing discrimination, they removed her from service at this building, but made no attempt to withdraw the eviction, possibly believing that another apartment off rent control can't be all that bad. However, Columbia has attempted eviction of no other tenant in our situation.

Landlords will be pleased to learn that the Borah law firm does not shrink even from perjury. The Borah attorney Greg Vail, Esq., assisted by Baum, executed a court paper stipulating the date for upgrading the electrical system in our apartment to support the respirator that enabled Vicki's mother to breathe. They reneged on that stipulation and finished the electrical work over a month late, causing Vicki's mother to suffer a massive stroke over the delay in returning from rehabilitation to her home of 60 years. Then Vail and Baum executed affidavits claiming that the work had been done a month before stipulated and two months before it was actually done, hoping to show that Vicki's mother never really wanted, or was able, to come home.

Vail's orthography in his court pleadings confirm his and Baum's targeting of Vicki as a trannie. Each court paper cited either "John and/or Jane Doe" or "John Doe and Jane Doe" as included respondents, although Vicki's mother and both of us had announced our presence to the landlord in writing long before the case began. The only earlier "and/or" usage was in an eviction of an agency for the developmentally disabled; to conceal their identities and genders, the mentally retarded subtenants were called "John and/or Jane Doe one to five."

Not only was the landlord suggesting to the judges that we are impostors and liars, using fake names to take advantage of a sick old lady, but their insistence on using "John" as well as "Jane Doe" also showed their hope that the outing of Vicki is her greatest fear. Each of our former lawyers confirmed that Vail tried to convince them in phone conversations that Vicki and Casey were phonies and perverts intruding on the primary tenant. That is, Borah uses the favorite tactics of landlords: calumny, fear, extortion — trashing instead of lawyering. The law firm is a perfect choice for profit-hungry landlords.

Unfortunately, after the passing of Vicki's mother, Vicki and Casey had a lawyer provided by Casey's union, CWA Local 1180. With no monetary incentive to present more than a token defense, and perhaps motivated by a gray-flannel wall of silence, our former attorney refused to call the perjury, or the landlord's many other violations against Vicki's mother and us, to the court's attention in our defense.

Users visiting Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler & Schwartz may be amused to learn that the firm cites "Columbia University" as a "representative client" seeking to remove tenants or to evade legal responsibility for repair. Readers might compare Borah's claim with the statement by Columbia President George Rupp in his Report for 1996-7 :


At the Law School, many members of the Class of 1997—the second graduating class subject to a 40-hour minimum pro bono requirement—did far more than the minimum. Several logged over 100 hours in the School clinics that provide free legal services to residents of Harlem and Morningside Heights. Students also worked with Legal Aid lawyers to assist tenant groups and community development associations in the neighborhood. In support of this endeavor, the School's Center for Public Interest Law joined with the Legal Aid Society to establish a new formal connection, the Community Lawyering Project.



Dig deep in the page to find that quote. It was the Legal Aid Society that represented Vicki's mother against Columbia. We are grateful to State Senator David Paterson for writing two protest letters to President Rupp in support of Vicki's mother.

The most recent decision against us, from the Appellate Term, First Department, was truly bizarre. The judges held that an "aged" person — my mother — who goes to the hospital necessarily loses her apartment. The judges did not define "aged." The judges furthermore cited caselaw that denied their argument. The earlier decision — Shaddick v. 430 Realty Co. 250 AD2nd 417 — upheld the tenant seeking succession, saying that rent law takes no notice whether the original tenant was a "senior citizen." Also the three appeal judges miraculously upheld a claim the landlord never made; Columbia had acknowledged Vicki's mother as the tenant of record before she died, after she returned from the hospital.

The judges were apparently unmoved that Bill Scott, the head of Institutional Real Estate, told the New York Times (City Section, May 7, 2000), "We don't replace our 46-year-old tenants that fast," referring to a commercial grocery that had closed shop. The judges were apparently more sympatico with Scott's subordinate, Liz Baum, who had no problem with sending eviction papers to the hospital room of a woman who had lived in the same building for over 60 years — no problem with contributing to the tenant's massive stroke by sabotaging repairs to the electrical system that would have enabled the "aged" woman to come home on schedule.

The court is now considering our Memorandum of Law, as well as other pleadings, to determine whether we have leave to appeal.

We hope to be able to improve this page with happier documents and more on ourselves, but it looks as though we may soon be homeless and unable to maintain a consistent interactive connection.

Meanwhile, check out The Patrimony, a short story by Vicki from about 20 years ago. Or The Restoration of Manion's Coffin Works, another short story by Vicki from about 20 years ago. Or some double-dactyl doggerel by Vicki.Or perhaps visit the American Society for Journalists and Authors. Or send a message to Vicki or Casey while we're still able to receive our email. We'll try to deliver any documentation you may want to back us up. Fax, snail, email attachment — your choice.






Home | Recent events | Memorandum of Law | Appeal brief
Reply brief | Oral argument | Appellate Division decision

[Back to the top.]