orphanage lawsuit

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------)( VISION FOR CHILDREN, INC.,

ECFCASE

Plaintiff, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

-against- DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY

CITY OF KINGSTON, NEW YORK, ANDREW ZWEBEN, DAVID ALLEN and JOSEPH 1:15-cv-164 (BKSIRFT) HAPPENY,

Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------)(

Plaintiff, VISION FOR CHILDREN, INC., by its attorneys, ROBERT N. ISSEKS

and BLOOM & BLOOM, P.C., complaining of the defendants, alleges as follows:

THE PARTIES

I. The plaintiff, Vision for Children, Inc., is a foreign not-for-profit corporation

with its principal offices located 1176 aide Cameron Lane, Franklin, Tennessee, 37067.

Plaintiffs mission statement reads: "In the name of Jesus, Vision for Children is helping

meet the physical, emotional, spiritual and educational needs of children and young

people, enabling them to change their world around them by breaking the cycle of

darkness and poverty. Vision for Children has been called to rise up to meet this

challenge - changing the future now!"

2. The defendant City of Kingston is a municipality located within the Northern

District of New York.

3. The defendant Andrew Zweben is, upon information and belief, an individual

Case 1:15-cv-00164-BKS-RFT Document 5 Filed 03/02/15 Page 1 of 24

residing in the County of Ulster, New York and at all times relevant to this action was

acting as the Corporation Counsel of the City of Kingston.

4. The defendant David Allen is, upon infonnation and belief, an individual

residing in the County of Ulster, New York and at all times relevant to this action was

acting as the Deputy Fire Chief of the City of Kingston Fire Department.

5. Defendant Joseph Happeney is, upon infonnation and belief, an individual

residing in the County of Ulster, New York.

NATURE OF ACTION AND JURISDICTION

6. This is a civil action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, 3613 and 2000cc-2

seeking injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages against the above

named defendants for committing acts or omissions under color of law which deprived

plaintiff of rights secured under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution and under 42 U.S.C. 3604 and 2000cc.

7. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 USC 1331 and 1343.

8. This Court's supplemental jurisdiction is also invoked to assert plaintiffs

claims against the defendants of the torts of negligence, trespass and wrongful demolition

under the common law of the State of New York.

9. Each and all of the acts of the defendants Zweben and Allen alleged herein

were done by them under the color and pretense of the statutes, ordinances, regulations,

customs and usages of the State of New York and under the authority of their respective

offices with the City of Kingston.


10. Each and all of the acts of the defendant Happeny were done by him in concert

with the defendants Zweben, Allen and the City of Kingston (the "City defendants").

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

11. On May 22, 2014, plaintiff became the owner, through donation, of the real

property known as 72 Garden Street, Kingston, NY; section 56.26, block 7, lot 52. That

property then consisted of a 3-story, 5-unit apartment building, a 3-car garage, a paved

driveway and a 3-car paved parking area.

12. On January 27, 2014, a "Violation Notice and Order to Remedy" (Exhibit A)

was sent by defendant Allen to the then owners of 72 Garden Street, addressed to

Theodore Perlmutter, which stated the following:

According to our records you are the owner of the property located at:

72 Garden St Tax Map No. 56.26-7-52

On 1127/2014 an apparent Zoning/Ordinance Violation was observed on your property, specifically:

Our office received a complaint regarding code violations on your property. Upon inspection it was found the soffits and facias on the front of the house, the right side of the house and the left side of the house must be repaired. Also, the roof on the right side of the house must be repaired and the trim on the entire house must be painted.

You are hereby notified that the above property is in Violation of:

Ordinance Code .304 Exterior Structure 304.8 PM3 Minimum Conditio [sic]

Which states:

PM304.8 Decorative features. All cornices, belt courses, corbels, terra cotta


trim, wall facings and similar decorative features shall be maintained in good repair with proper anchorage and in a safe condition.

Ordinance Code 304 Exterior Structure 304.7 PM3 Minimum Conditio [sic]

Which states: PM304.7 Roofs and drainage. The roof and flashing shall be sound, tight and not have defects that admit rain. Roof drainage shall be adequate to prevent dampness or deterioration in the walls or interior portion of the structure. Roof drains, gutters and downspouts shall be maintained in good repair and free from obstructions. Roof water shall not be discharged in a manner that creates a public nuisance.

Ordinance Code 304 Exterior Structure 304.2 PM3 Minimum Conditio [sic]

Which states: PM304.2 Protective treatment. All exterior surfaces, including but not limited to, doors, door and window frames, cornices, porches, trim, balconies, decks and fences shall be maintained in good condition. Exterior wood surfaces, other than decay-resistant woods, shall be protected from the elements and decay by painting or other protective covering or treatment. Peeling, flaking and chipped paint shall be eliminated and surfaces repainted. All siding and masonry joints as well as those between the building envelope and the perimeter of windows, doors and skylights shall be maintained weather resistant and water tight. All metal surfaces subject to rust or corrosion shall be coated to inhibit such rust and corrosion and all surfaces with rust or corrosion shall be stabilized and coated to inhibit future rust and corrosion. Oxidation stains shall be removed from exterior surfaces. Surfaces designed for stabilization by oxidation aFe exempt from this requirement.

It is hereby ordered that you either eliminate the violation(s) or file plans with this office for corrective action by:

2110/2014

A re-inspection will be conducted on the above date. Failure to correct the violation(s) by the date ofre-inspection will result in a $200.00 [sic] for each re-inspection that needs to be done without compliance. All unpaid re-inspection fees shall be assessed to the owner against the property and shall


be added to the tax bill for said property.

13. In February, 2014, plaintiff, by its Vice-President Kerry Mitras, met with

defendants Allen and Happeney at 72 Garden Street. Mitras told Allen and Happeney

about plaintiffs religious ministry and what plaintiff would like to do with the building if

it was to be donated to plaintiff. Happeney stated that he did not want a group home next

door to his property. Mitras asked Allen what plaintiff would need to secure a permit to

repair the roof and falling gutter and Allen answered that proof of insurances would have

to be provided along with a building permit application and application fee.

14. On March 20, 2014, Mitras inspected the structures at 72 Garden Street with a

commercial contractor, Tom Morris of DC BE Contracting, Inc. in anticipation of the

building being donated to plaintiff.

15. Also on March 20, 2014, DeBE Contracting, Inc. on behalf of plaintiff wrote

a letter to defendant Allen (Exhibit B) which contained the following:

Good morning. This morning I visited the referenced property with Mr. Kerry Mitras. During my visit I was able to walk the building.

The building is in need of repointing of the masonry fa~ade, a new roof and interior demolition of existing ceilings and walls. Plumbing and electrical upgrades are also required. The building structure showed no signs of failure including foundations, floor joists and load bearing walls.

Should you have any other questions please feel free to call me at 6465230271.

16. On March 25, 2014, Mitras called Suzanne Cahill, Planning Director of the

City of Kingston Planning Department, and explained what plaintiff was looking to do

and asked for her advice on submitting an application for a variance. Cahill told Mitras to


-send her an e-mail explaining plaintiffs ministry and she would get back to Mitras within

a couple of days.

17. On March 27, 2014, plaintiff sent an email to Cahill (Exhibit C) which

contained the following:

This is a follow up on the phone conversation we had earlier.

The owners of the home at 72 Garden St. Marcy and Barry Pennutter, Wish to gift their property to Vision for Children, 501c3 non for profit. VFC wishes to turn the home into "House of Hope, Kingston". HOH is a Christ centered ministry that provides housing and college education to orphans and children forgotten. Our intent is to have this HOH accommodate 8 children and a couple as Directors. The house fonnerly had 5 apartments and was non confonning pre existing. The lot size is 4000 sq. ft. I believe we will need a variance or special use pennit as this is in a residential zone. I appreciate your willingness to point us in the right direction and look forward to working with you and your department on this project. We have a HOH you can check out at: visionforchile.org.

18. In the days that followed Mitras did not hear back from Cahill and therefore

made several follow-up calls to her. Cahill did not return any of those calls.

19. On April 7, 2014, defendant Allen wrote a letter to Marcy Perlmutter (Exhibit

D) regarding 72 Garden Street containing the following:

The premises located at 72 Garden St, Kingston NY 12401, a multiple dwelling consisting of 5 separate residential units which has been inspected under the provisions of Chapter 178 of the City of Kingston Code and has been deemed to constitute an "Unsafe Building" as per code.

As of this date no effort has been made to repair the aforementioned property. You are hereby notified that as an unsafe building this structure constitutes an unsafe and unsanitary condition with respect to the dilapidated roof and soffits and interior hazards.

Please be advised that a hearing will be held on April 28, 2014 at 9:00am at the Building Safety Division offices located at 5 Garraghan Drive, Kingston


NY 12401, whereupon you will be given the opportunity to present evidence to rebut the findings of the building department that the above premises constitutes an unsafe building as defined in Chapter 178. Please be further advised that you are obligated to present a plan to remedy the unsafe building and obtain a pennit for said plans, or to submit a plan and obtain a pennit for the removal of the unsafe building on or before May 30th, 2014.

In the event of your failure to submit a plan to remedy or remove the unsafe building, the City of Kingston will proceed to remove the unsafe building. All costs and expenses incurred by the City of Kingston with the proceeding to repair or remove the unsafe building, including but not limited to the cost of actually removing the unsafe building and the disposal of the materials so removed, shall be assessed against the land on the unsafe building is located.

20. Upon infonnation and belief, on April 28, 2014 the hearing referenced in

Allen's April 7, 2014 was adjourned to June 3, 2014.

21. On May 22,2014, the property at 72 Garden Street was donated to plaintiff

and at the closing on that date all of the back taxes (3 years) were paid to the City of

Kingston and a $100,000 lien against the property was settled with M&T Banlc

22. On May 30, 2014, Mitras submitted a building pennit application on behalf of

plaintiff to the City of Kingston's Building Department to remedy the problems

referenced in the January 27,2014, "Violation Notice and Order to Remedy" and Allen's

April 7, 2014 letter to Perlmutter, and Mitras was told to come back on June 1, 2014 and

submit the application directly to defendant Allen.

23. On June 1,2014, defendant Allen told Mitras to come back the following day

with authorization from plaintiff to conduct business on its behalf.


24. On June 2, 2014, Mitras submitted the building permit application to Allen

along with proof of worker's compensation and liability insurance, review phases and

authorization to do business on plaintiffs behalf.

25. On or about June 3, 2014, the aforementioned Violation Notice and Order to

Remedy then pending against the previous owners of 72 Garden Street was heard before

the Kingston City Court and disposed of with the previous owners being fined $250.00.

26. On June 5, 2014, Mitras wrote to Hon. Lawrence Ball (Exhibit E) and copied

Zweben, Allen and the Planning Board chairperson setting forth his concern that the City

of Kingston Building Department was not acting on plaintiffs pennit application. The

email to Judge Ball read:

Hon. Lawrence Ball,

I'm writing you because I am concerned about the safety of our property at 72 Garden Street as well as the safety of our neighbor, Joe Happeny.

The roof and eaves on the house are in need of immediate repair and the building department has instructed us that we cannot make any repairs without a building permit. I donlt believe this is the case citing Kingston building code:

172.5, section B, 10(a) which states; No permit required for: (Repairs, provided that such repairs do not involve, (a) Removal or cutting away of a load-bearing wall, partition, or portion thereof, or of any structural beam or load bearing component.) There is a hole in the roof and the built in gutters are leaking which has caused the eaves to deteriorate and fall on the neighbors property. The remaining eaves will continue to fall if not addressed.

I filed a permit application with Deputy Chief Allen on June 2 and have not received a reply which concerns me as we are in the midst of our second major rain event this week. I tried submitting a pennit application on May 30 with the building department and was told I had to come back on June 2 and file directly

_OM ,w. m2 l oM Nil': J!!2&( 3 ( mz::G6!06.y, .


with Deputy Chief Allen. The previous owners, Marcy and Barry Perlmutter, were before your court Tuesday of this week and were fined for not complying with the order to remedy these very code violations. We do not want to be put in this same situation of paying fines for a situation that your building department controls.

We feel that the city of Kingston has placed a huge liability on itself for the continuing damage to our building, as well as the continuing threat of damage to our neighbor by not responding to our application.

I write this letter out of grave concern and I pray that you will allow us to protect our property and the property of our neighbor before something catastrophic happens.

27. Later on June 5, 2014, defendant Zweben sent plaintiff an email (Exhibit F)

which stated:

The application filed by you for a building permit was incomplete. It did not include building plans signed by a licensed professional for a job of this magnitude. In anticipation of the acquisition of this building you have had months to have plans drafted and failed to do so. Your inadequate preparation is not an excuse for the building department to violate the law. The liability for this situation is entirely on you and the Perlmutters. In addition, I have a serious concern about your effort to influence the outcome of a judicial proceeding by sending an out of court communication to Judge Ball. I will be communicating my concern in an appropriate and formal manner.

28. Plaintiff responded to Zweben's email.alsoonJune5.2014(ExhibitF).as

follows:

I thank you for a timely response. I was not informed by the building department that we needed plans from a licensed professional to do the roof and eave repairs which is the only pennit I seek at this time. I asked the building department several months ago what was needed and was told proper insurances and a building permit application which I provided. I also contacted the planning department in March to see how many children we would be able to accommodate at this house of hope with no response. Interior plans cannot happen until we know how many orphans we will be


housing. It seems that none of your agencies want to work with us and it has me at a loss. I understand your frustration for the long process this building has put your city through but that was the previous owner, not us. We are trying to step up and do the right thing for the city and it's residents. This project is for your orphans and their futures of becoming responsible citizens. I ask you to let us fix the roof which has been your desire for a long time. Our greatest concern is for the safety of Mr. Happeny. The e-mail was not sent to Judge Ball.

29. Zweben immediately replied that day in an email (Exhibit G) stating:

Firstly, the email was sent to jstaus at the Court web address and the email was addressed to Judge Ball.

Secondly, as I understand you are a contractor I would have assumed, and Chief Allen would rightly have assumed, that you are familiar with the building code and the State Education Law requirement for stamped plans for structural construction of this magnitude. More significantly what is entirely missing from your rudimentary email addressing phases of construction are any safety measures to protect the neighboring properties.

The City does not give gratuitous legal advice. I suggest you retain an attorney to review our code with respect to any use you hope to make of the building. In the absence of knowledge of what your intentions were with respect to the work on the building it would have been impossible for anyone to tell you what you needed to obtain a building permit.

30. On June 6, 2014, Mitras emailed Zweben (Exhibit G) stating:

I thank: you for your advice and I will take the appropriate steps needed to secure a permit to fix our roof. In the mean time I will put a tarp on the roof to prevent further damage. When we heard you tell Judge Kirshner at the hearing that the building will be demolished and that we were dreaming to think the outcome would be different, we knew then this would be a difficult process. Again, thank: you for your input.

31. On that same day Zweben replied in an email (Exhibit G) stating:

I have not been in court on this matter. Dan Gartenstein appeared on the City's behalf. The building has been inspected by a structural engineer and the City's position is based on his advice.


32. On June 12,2014, plaintiff hired Red Hook Engineering, P.C., to develop the

engineer's plan pursuant to Zweben's instruction.

33. On June 27,2014, Mitras and plaintiffs engineer, Timothy A. Lynch, a NYS

Professional Engineer and Registered Architect with Red Hook Engineering, P.C., met

with Zweben and Allen with the engineer's plan and were asked by Zweben to provide a

more detailed plan.

34. Also on June 27, 2014, Mitras telephoned and wrote to Happeney to ask

permission to use his driveway for one week to do the repairs on the south side of the 72

Garden Street building. Happeny never responded.

35. On July 3, 2014, Mitras and Lynch again met with Zweben and Allen, this

time with revised plans, and were told by Zweben that plaintiff needed to either get

permission from its neighbor, Happeny to use Happeny's property to do the repairs or

develop a plan to do the work without using Happeny's property.

36. On July 7, 2014, Lynch sent an email on behalf of plaintiff to Steven Klien,

Esq., Happeny's attorney, which contained:

I am developing plans for work at 72 Garden Street, adjacent to your client's residence at 70 Garden. We had a meeting with City of Kingston representatives last Thursday and, as part of our work plan, need to come to some agreement with Mr. Happeny in order to access the South side of our building - or at least access the driveway in order to clean up any debris that may fall beneath the work area. I realize you are on vacation this week. Please advise if there is someone else that could assist with negotiation of some sort of agreement while you are away as we need to respond to the City this week.

37. On the same day, July 7, 2014, Klien sent a responding email to Lynch

(Exhibit H) which said, '"What do you plan to do other than demolish the structure?"


38. Later that day, Lynch emailed his answer to Klien (Exhibit H) stating:

Our plan is to rehabilitate the structure as a residence. In order to remove the deteriorated roof and gutter and make the necessary repairs to the building on the South side, we would like to come to an agreement regarding access to Mr. Happeny's driveway.

We can design the work to be completed by working from the side of the building, but we would like to have access in order to protect his property and keep the driveway clean. Our preference would be to work from a scaffold, but it is understood this could be intrusive. Working from a scaffold would also lead to a quicker job. Ifwe need to hang off the side of the building, erection of brackets, placement of netting and eventual removal would all take longer.

We understand the City has gone through a long process to be able to demolish the building and Mr. Happeny has endured quite a long period with the hazard adjacent to his property. The primary structure of the building is in surprisingly good condition however, and we believe that demolition would be a mistake.

I am hopeful that we can work out a plan for access and completion of the work that is acceptable to you and your client.

39. On July 9, 2014, plaintiff presented revised plans (Exhibit I) to the City's

Building Department with a safety plan and a plan to do the repairs without using

Happeny's property.

40. On July 11,2014, Zweben requested that claimant provide the plans in PDF

fonnat which plaintiffs engineer forwarded to Zweben that day.

41. On July 23,2014, not having heard from the City defendants, Lynch called

Zweben to find out the status of plaintiffs application and to see if anything else was

required of plaintiff in order to secure a permit. Zweben did not return the engineer's

call.


42. On July 25,2014, Mitras received a letter dated July 23,2014 from Allen

stating:

Please be advised that I have detennined that the structure located at 72 Garden Street is an imminent danger to human life and must be removed immediately.

The plans submitted by the building owner to remedy the hazardous condition are incomplete in that, inter alia, there is no engineered design for a significant element of the plan as reviewed by professional engineer. In addition, the consent of the adjoining neighbor for use of his property and air space has not been obtained.

Work should commence when authorized by N.Y. State Department of Labor.

Ifin the opinion of the City of Kingston Engineer it is necessary, in order to protect the pUblic, that the structures adjacent to 72 Garden Street be vacated or that barricades or other means be utilized on Garden Street I am directing that same be done.

43. The statement in Allen's July 23, 2014 letter that there was "no engineered

design for a significant element of the plan as reviewed by professional engineer" failed

to provide plaintiff with adequate notice of the reason for Allen's stated detennination

that the building "must be removed immediately" in that (1) the "significant element of

the plan" was not specified, (2) the substance or report of the professional engineer's

"review" was not provided, (3) the "professional engineer" was not identified and (4)

there was no explanation as to how the purported absence of an "engineered design" for

such "significant element" required the immediate demolition of the building.

44. The statement in Allen's July 23, 2014 letter that "the consent of the adjoining

neighbor for use of his property and air space has not been obtained" was used by the

defendants as pretextual support for the letter's implication that repairs to the building

Q i. li&QItJ;&tMtCU . ...,n@iMi ..... S .. "


were not an option and thus the building "must be removed immediately", since, under

City of Kingston Code 178-2(L) the adjoining neighbor's consent was not required if the

repairs that had to he made were in fact emergency repairs.

4S. On August 7,2014, the City demolished plaintiffs 3-story, S-unit apartment

building on 72 Garden Street.

46. In February, 201S plaintiff received its 201S City and County Real Property

Tax Bill (Exhibit J) from the City of Kingston which included, as part of the total201S

tax levy of$56,76 1.89, an item in the amount of$SS,618.99 representing the City's cost

for the demolition of the 72 Garden Street building.

47. Prior to August 7, 2014, plaintiff did everything it could to make its intention

to repair the building's defects known to defendants and defendants did in fact know that

this was plaintiffs intention and desire when defendants caused the building to be

demolished.

48. The City defendants' detennination to demolish claimants' building

constituted an arbitrary, capricious and pretextual invocation of the City's emergency

procedures as it was made ( 1) after the City defendants had been provided with notice

that the building structure showed no signs of failure including foundations, floor joists

and load bearing walls and (2) without any reasonable basis or evidence that the building

presented the sort of imminent danger to the public requiring the building's demolition.

49. The City defendants made the detennination to demolish plaintiffs building

without any competent evidence to allow them to reasonably believe that an emergency


did in fact exist or that affording plaintiff pre-deprivation process would be either unsafe

or impractical.

50. The defendants never afforded plaintiff a hearing before they demolished the

building on 72 Garden Street and therefore never afforded plaintiff a meaningful

opportunity to appeal the City's detennination to demolish the bUilding.

51. At no time from May 22, 2014, when plaintiff took title to the 72 Garden

Street property to August 7, 2014 when the building was demolished did defendants ever

provide plaintiff with notice, as provided to the property's prior owners, that a hearing

would be held on a specified date, time and place at which plaintiff would "be given the

opportunity to present evidence to rebut the findings of the building department that the

above premises constitutes an unsafe building as defined in Chapter 178."

52. At no time prior to the demolition of plaintiffs building did the defendants, or

anyone on their behalf, give plaintiff notice as to the purported reason(s) (if any) why

plaintiffs building had to be demolished without affording plaintiff the opportunity to be

heard in the same manner afforded to the property's prior owners.

53. At no time prior to the demolition of plaintiffs building did the defendants, or

anyone on their behalf, explain to plaintiff why the defects that purportedly rendered the

building "an imminent danger" could not be repaired and why such defects required that

the building "be removed immediately."

1..


AAWPCt ......

54. The defects that did exist in or about the building on and before August 7,

2014, could have been repaired by plaintiff and defendants' demolition of the building

was completely unnecessary.

55. Plaintiffs permit application submitted prior to July 23,2014, addressed all of

the defects and violations set forth in Allen's January 27,2014, "Violation Notice and

Order to Remedy" (Exhibit A) that then remained outstanding and it complied with the

letter and spirit of the requirements set forth in the City of Kingston Code.

56. Defendants arbitrarily and capriciously refused to entertain plaintiffs permit

application or to give plaintiff the opportunity to make the necessary repairs.

57. The City defendants' demolition of plaintiff s building without providing

plaintiff with proper and effective notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard or to

remediate was in violation of Chapter 178, Article I of the City of Kingston Code.

Specifically, the City defendants' acts, conduct and omissions violated:

City Code 178-2(C) which provides: "Whenever the Fire Officer shall find

any building or structure or portion thereof to be an unsafe building, the Fire Officer shall

serve or cause to be served upon the owner ... a notice as provided herein. .. The notice

shall contain a description of the premises, a statement describing the specific unsafe

condition and an order of the Fire Officer requiring that the building or structure be

repaired or removed within a stated time. The notice shall also specify the date, time and

place of a hearing to be held with respect to the order to repair and/or remove the


structure. The notice shall be served no less than 20 days prior to the date of the hearing

provided therein."

City Code 178-2(D) which provides in part: "The owner and any lien

holder shall have 30 days within which to provide the Fire Officer with acceptable plans

to remedy the unsafe building and obtain a permit for said plans ... "

City Code 1 78-2(F) which provides: "Such owner shall have the right to a

hearing with respect to the notice to repair or remove before the Deputy Chief in charge

of the City of Kingston Fire Department Building Safety Division at a time and place

specified in the notice to repair and remove."

City Code 178-2(G) which provides: "The decision ofthe Deputy Chief in

charge of the City of Kingston Building Safety Division may be appealed to the Chief of

the Kingston Fire Department. A request for an appeal shall be served upon the Chief of

the Kingston Fire Department, the Corporation Counsel of the City of Kingston and upon

the Deputy Chief in charge of the City of Kingston Fire Department Building Safety

Division, and the City Clerk within 10 days from the date of the notice of determination

made following the hearing ... "

City Code 178-2(H) which provides: "If a determination is made following

the hearing and the appeal, if any, that the building or structure is an unsafe building and

the owner or lien holder fails or refuses to comply with the order to repair or remove

within 30 days from the date of the determination of the Deputy Chief in charge of the

City of Kingston Fire Department Building Safety Division or the Fire Chief in the event


of an appeal to the Fire Chief. the City of Kingston may proceed to remove the unsafe

building."

City Code 178-2(L) which provides: "In cases of emergency which, in the

opinion of the Fire Officer, involve imminent danger to human life or health, the Fire

Officer shall promptly cause such building, structure or portion thereof to be made safe or

removed. For this purpose, the Fire Officer may at once enter such structure or land on

which it stands, or abutting land or structure, with such assistance and at such cost as may

be necessary. The Fire Officer may vacate adjacent structures and protect the public by

appropriate barricades or such other means as may be necessary and, for this purpose, .

may close a public or private way."

58. The City defendants acted arbitrarily and capriciously by refusing to apply the

same interpretation of Chapter 178, Article I of the City Code to plaintiffs permit

application that they have consistently applied to the permit applications submitted by

others similarly situated.

59. All of the acts, conduct and omissions on the part of City defendants as set

forth above were performed in concert with defendant Happeny in that, upon information

and belief, it was agreed or understood among all of the defendants that Happeny's

refusal to grant plaintiff permission to enter Happeny's property to repair plaintiffs

building would be used by the City defendants as a pretext for demolishing the bUilding.

60. As a result of the forgoing plaintiff suffered the following damages: loss of

the fair market value of the 3-story, 5-unit apartment building at the time of its

. ; A tw = ;::::::~**. &::w4 1M ;;Alm%:U;:;:;:;:;;;;X;;UnOi.m .....


demolition; loss of plaintiffs intended use of the property, the cost to replace the building

with a building suitable for plaintiffs intended use and the $55,618.99 real property tax

levy for the demolition of the 72 Garden Street building.

61. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

42 U.S.C. 1983

Fourteenth Amendment Due Process

62. Plaintiff repeats the allegations set forth in ~~1-61.

63. The concerted acts, conduct and omissions of the defendants as described

above deprived plaintiff of the right to pre-deprivation due process secured by the

Fourteenth Amendment.

First Amendment Free Exercise of Religion


65. Defendants' concerted acts, conduct and omissions were perfonned with the

intent to prevent plaintiff from carrying out its religious mission to tum the building on 72

Garden Street into "House of Hope, Kingston", a Christ centered ministry that would

have provided housing, spiritual support and college education to orphans and children

forgotten.

66. The concerted acts, conduct and omissions of Defendants as described herein

deprived plainti ff of the right to the free exercise of religion as secured by the First

Amendment.


Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection

67. Plaintiff repeats the allegations set forth in ~~ 1-66.

Religious Discrimination

68. Defendants' disparate treatment of plaintiff in contrast to the City defendants'

treatment of others similarly situated, including the prior owners of 72 Garden Street, was

based upon plaintiffs religious mission.

69. Defendants' concerted acts, conduct and omissions constituted discrimination

on the basis of religion in violation of plaintiffs right to equal protection secured by the

Fourteenth Amendment.

Class of one Discrimination

70. By virtue of defendants' concerted acts, conduct and omissions, plaintiff was

intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated.

71. The disparate treatment that plaintiff received from defendants was irrational

and wholly arbitrary.

72. The disparate treatment that plaintiff received from defendants was with

animus and with the improper intent to rid the neighborhood surrounding 72 Garden

Street of plaintiffs building and the prospect of its housing House of Hope, Kingston.

73. The City defendants knew that they were treating plaintiff differently from

other City property owners similarly situated.

74. By reason of the aforesaid plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief in the fonn of

an order directing the City defendants to (1) pennit plaintiff to replace the building that


defendants demolished with a building that may be used for plaintiffs intended purpose

of running House of Hope, Kingston as described above and (2) reduce the 2015 tax levy

on the 72 Garden Street real property by $55, 618.99.

75. By reason of the aforesaid plaintiff is entitled to awards of compensatory

damages against the defendants for the losses set forth above.

76. The concerted acts, conduct and behavior of the individual defendants were

performed intentionally and with deliberate indifference to plaintiffs rights by reason of

which plaintiff is also entitled to awards of punitive damages against the individual

defendants.

42 U.S.C. 3604 and 3613


78. The building that defendants demolished was a "dwelling" within the meaning

of 42 U.S.C. 3602(b).

79. The acts, conduct and omissions of defendants as described herein made the

dwelling on 72 Garden Street unavailable to plaintiff because of plaintiffs religious

mission in violation of 42 U.S.C. 3604(a).

80. The acts, conduct and omissions of Defendants as described herein denied the

dwelling on 72 Garden Street to plaintiff because of plaintiffs religious mission in

violation of 42 U.S.C. 3604(a).

81. By reason of the aforesaid and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 3613(1) and (2)

plaintiff is entitled to awards of actual and punitive damages and costs and attorney fees


against defendants.

42 U.S.C. 2000cc and 2000cc-2

82. Plaintiff repeats the allegations set forth in ~~ 1-81.

83. The defendant City of Kingston is a "government" within the meaning of 42

U.S.C. 2000cc-5(4)(a)(i).

84. Plaintiffs intended use of the dwelling on 72 Garden Street constituted a

"religious exercise" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 2000cc-5(7).

85. The demolition of the dwelling on 72 Garden Street constituted a "substantial

burden" with the meaning of42 U.S.C. 2000cc(a)(I) and (2)(c) and said burden was not

in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and/or was not the least restrictive

means of furthering a compelling governmental interest.

86. The acts, conduct and omissions of defendants as described herein constituted

discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. 2000cc(b)(I) and (2).

87. By reason of the aforesaid plaintiff is entitled to awards of actual and punitive

damages and costs and attorney fees against defendants.

NYS Common Law Claims


89. Based upon the foregoing, the acts, conduct and omissions of the defendants

constituted the torts of negligence, trespass and wrongful demolition under the common

law of the State of New York and the defendants are liable to plaintiff for the damages

sustained by plaintiff as described above.


90. On or about the 7th day of October, 2014, and within ninety days after the

claim upon which this action is based, the plaintiff served a Notice of Claim upon the

defendant, City of Kingston, New York, in full compliance with the provisions of the

N.Y.S. General Municipal Law 50-e.

91. The one year and ninety day requirement with respect to the service of

pleadings has been complied with.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants:

I. Declaring violations of plaintiffs rights guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 3604(a) and 2000cc.

2. Awarding plaintiff compensatory damages against the defendants on plaintiffs

constitutional, statutory and common law claims;

3. Awarding plaintiff punitive damages against the individual defendants on

plaintiffs constitutional, statutory and common law claims;

4. Directing the City defendants to allow plaintiff to construct a building on 72

Garden Street that will enable plaintiff to conduct its religious mission in the same

manner intended by plaintiff prior to the building's demolition.

5. Directing the City defendants to reduce the 2015 tax levy on the 72 Garden

Street real property by $55, 618.99.

6. Awarding plaintiff the reasonable costs and expenses of this action and

attorneys fees; and

7. Granting plaintiff such other and further relief as may be just.


Dated: March 2, 2015 Yours, etc.

/ ...

ROBERT N. ISSEKS, ESQ. (507486) Attorney for Plaintiff 6 North Street Middletown, New York 10940 (845) 344-4322

BLOOM & BLOOM, P.C. 530 Blooming Grove Turnpike New Windsor, New York 12553 (845) 561-6920

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs


Mark BroWD Fire Chief

pavidAllea Deputy Chief

JJf6"'S~/- Jh9~

Kingston Fire Department Building Safety Division

5 Garraghan Drive Kingston, NY 12401

Phone (845) 331-1217 Fax (845) 331-1224

VIOLATION NOTICE AND ORDER TO REMEDY 1/2712014

Perlmutter. Theodore 72 Garden St Kingston NY 12401

Dear Property OWner: According to our records you are the owner of the property located at: 72 Garden St Tax Map No. 58.28-7-52

14-06643

On 112712014 an apparent Zoning/Ordinance Violation was observed on your property. specifically: Our office received a complaint regarding code violations on your property. Upon inspection It was found the soffits and facias on the front of the house, the right side of the house and the left side of the house must be repaired. Also, the roof on the right Iide of house must be repaired and the trim on the entire house must be painted. ' You are hereby notified that the above property is in Violation of: ------,-,.--- -- _ .... --_._------------Ordinance Code 304 exterior Structure 304.8 PM3 Minimum Conditio Which atates: PM304.8 Decorative features. AU comlces. belt courses. corbels. terra cotta trim, wall facings and similar decorative features shall be maintained in good repair with proper anchorage and in a safe condition.

Ordinance Code 304 exterior Structure 304.7 PM3 Minimum Conditio Which etatae: PM304.7 Roofs and drainage. The roof and fiashlng shall be sound, tight and not have def~cts that admit rain. Roof drainage shall be adequate to prevent dampness or deterioration In the walts or Interior portion of the structure. Roof drains, gutters and downspouts shall be maintained In good repair and free from obstructions. Roof water shall not be discharged In a manner that creates a public nuisance.

Ordinance Code 304 exterior Structure 304.2 PM3 Minimum Conditio

Case 1:15-cv-00164-BKS-RFT Document 5-1 Filed 03/02/15 Page 1 of 2

Which states: PM304.2 Protective treatment All exterior surfaces, including but not limited to, doors, door and window frames, cornices, porches, trim, balconies, decks and fences shall be maintained in good condition. Exterior wood surfaces, other than decay-resistant woods, shan be protected from the elements and decay by painting or other protective covering or treatment Peeling. flaking and chipped paint shall be eliminated and surfaces repainted. All siding and masonry jOints as waH as those between the building envelope and the perimeter of windows, doors and skylights shall be maintained weather resistant and water tight All metal surfaces subject to rust or corrosion shall be coated to Inhibit such rust and corrosion and .11 surfaces with rust or corrosion shall be stabilized and coated to inhibit future rust and corrosion. Oxidation stains shall be removed from exterior surfaces. Surfaces deSigned for stabilization by oxidation are exempt from this requirement

It Is hereby ordered that you either eliminate the vlolation(s) or file plans with this office for corrective action by: 2110/2014 A re-lnsp8ction will be conducted on the above date. Failure to correct the vlolation(s) by the date of re-inspection will result In a $200.00 for each re-Inspectlon that needs to be done without compliance. All unpaid fe-Inspection fees shall be assessed to the owner against the property and shall be added to the tax bDI for said property.

Sincerely,

Dav/dAllen Deputy Chief Inspector: Troy Ashdown

Pa"j:Io ? nf ?


DCBE CONTRACTI NG, INC. 2 Elm Street, Ards ley, New York, 10502 Phone - (212) 334-5159 Fax - (914)693-1478

March 20, 2014

Kingston Department of Buildings 5 Garragahan Drive Kingston, NY 12401

Attention: Chief David Allen

R: 72 Garden Street

Chief Allen,

Good morning. This morning I visited the referenced property with Mr. Kerry Mitras. During my visit I was able to walk the building.

The building is in need of repaint ing of the masonry fal;ade, a new roof and interior demolition of existing ceil ings and walls. Plumbing and electrica l upgrades are also required. The building structure showed no signs of failure including foundations, floor joists and load bearing walls.

Should you have any other questions please feel free to call me at 6465230271.

Regards.

DeBE Cont racting, Inc.

Thomas Morris Principle [email protected]

Cc: J. Connelly, DeBE Contracting, Inc. K. Mitras, Vision for Children


Subj : Dale: From: To:

72 Garden Street 3/27/20141:26:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time DURAFLEX@aol com [email protected], [email protected]. tomorme.vfc@gmaitcom, IOffiorme@visioo forchile.org , [email protected], PURAFLEX@aol .com

Hello Susan,

This is a follow up on the phone conversation we had earlier.

Page 1 of 1

The owners of the home at 72 Garden St. Marcy and Barry Perlmutter, Wish to gift their property to Vision for Children , 501c3 non for profit. VFC wishes to turn the home into " House of Hope, Kingston ". HOH is a Christ centered ministry that provides housing and college education to orphans and children forgotten . Our intent is to have this HOH accommodate 8 children and a couple as Directors. The house formerly had 5 apartments and was non conforming pre existing. The lot size is 4000 sq. ft. I believe we will need a variance or special use permit as this is in a residential zone. I appreciate your willingness to pOint us in the right direction and took forward to working with you and your department on this project. We have a HOH you can check out at: visionforchiJe.org.

Respectfully ,

Kerry Mitras V FC Board Member [email protected] 845-240-4744

Thursday, August 14, 2014 AOL: DURAFLEX


Mark Brown Fire Chief

David AUen Deputy Chief

April 7, 2014

Marcy Perlmutter POBox315 West Hurley NY 12491

Re: 72 Garden St

Dear Homeowner,

Kingston Fire Department Building Safety Division

5 Garraghan Drive Kingston, NY 12401 Phone (845) 331-1217 Fax (845) 331-1224

The premises located at 72 Garden St, Kingston NY 12401, a multiple dwelling consisting ofS separate residential units which has been inspected under the provisions of Chapter 178 of the City of Kingston Code and has been deemed to constitute an "Unsafe Building" as per code.

As of this date no effort has been made to repair the ~orementioned property. You are hereby notified that as an unsafe building this structure constitutes an unsafe and unsanitary condition with respect to the dilapidated roof and soffits and interior hazards.

Please be advised that a bearing will be held on April 28. 2014 at 9:00am at the Building Safety Division offices located at S Garraghan Drive, Kingston NY 1240 I, whereupon you will be given the opportunity to present evidence to rebut the findings of the building department that the above premises constitutes an unsafe building as defined in Chapter 178. Please be further advised that you are obligated to present a plan to remedy the unsafe building and obtain a permit for said plans, or to submit a plan and obtain a permit for the removal of the unsafe building on or before May 30th ,2014.

In the event of your failure to submit a plan to remedy or remove the unsafe building, the City of Kingston will proceed to remove the unSafe building. All costs and expenses ioCUtTed by the City of Kingston with the proceeding to repair or remove the unsafe building. including but not limited to the cost of actually removing the unsafe building and the disposal of the materials so removed, shall be assessed against the land 00 the unsafe building is located.

Sincerely,

-=..9 ~ Deputy Chief David Allen Kingston Fire Dept. Building Safety Division

... n_._ ..... P;;;~m;;


From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 05,20141:12 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Zweben, Andrew; Allen, David; Lefevre, Mlkej Cahill, Suzannej [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] SUbject: n Garden Street

Hon. Lawrence Ball,

I'm writing you because I am concerned about the safety of our property at 72 Garden street as well as the safety of our neighbor, Joe Happeny.

The roof and eaves on the house are in need of immediate repair and the building department has instructed us that we can not make any repairs without a building permit. I don't believe this is the case citing Kingston building code:

172.5, section B, 10(a) which states; No permit requ,ired for: (Repairs, provided that such repairs do not involve, (a) ,Removal or cutting away of a load-

bearing wall, partition, or portion thereof, or of any structural beam or load bearing component)

There is a hole in the roof and the built in gutters are leaking which has caused the eaves to deteriorate and fall on the neighbors property. The remaining eaves will continue to fall if not addressed.

I filed a permit application with Deputy Chief Allen on June 2 and have not received a reply which concerns me as we are in the midst of our second major rain event this week. I tried submitting a permit application on May 30 with the building department and was told J had to come back on June 2 and file directly with Deputy Chief Allen.

The previous owners, Marcy and Barry Perlmutter, were before your court Tuesday of this week and were fined for not complying with the order to remedy these very code violations. We do not want to be put in this same situation of paying fines for a situation that your building department controls.

We feel that the city of Kingston has placed a huge liability on itself for the continuing damage to our building, as well as the continuing threat of damage to our neighbor by not responding to our application.

I write this letter out of grave concern and I pray that you will allow us to protect our property and the property of our neighbor before something catastrophic happens.

Respectfully,

Kerry Mitras

Monday. July 28.2014 AOL: DURAFLEX

Page 3 of4 Case 1:15-cv-00164-BKS-RFT Document 5-5 Filed 03/02/15 Page 1 of 1

of2

Subj: Re: 72 Garden Street Date: 6/5/2014 2:35:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time

[email protected] [email protected]

From: To: CC: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],

tomorme. [email protected] MrZwben,

I thank you for a timely response. I was not informed by the building department that we needed plans from a licensed professional to do the roof and eave repairs which is the only permit I seek at this time. I asked the building department several months ago what was needed and was told proper insurances and a building permit application which I provided. I also contacted the planning department in March to see how many children we would be able to accomidate at this house of hope with no response. Interior plans cannot happen until we know how many orphans we will be housing. It seems that none of your agencies want to work with us and it has me at a loss. I understand your frustration for the long process this building has put your city through but that was the previous owner, not us. We are trying to step up and do the right thing for the city and it's residents. This project is for your orphans and their futures of becoming responsible citizens. I ask you to let us fix the roof which has been your desire for a long time. Our greatest concern is for the safety of Mr. Happeny. The e-mail was not sent to Judge Ball.

Kerry Mitras Vision for Children

In a message dated 6/5120141:57:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected]:

The application filed by you for a building permit was incomplete. It did not include building plans signed by a licensed professional for a job of this magnitude. In anticipation of the acquisition of this building you have had months to have plans drafted and failed to do so. Your inadequate preparation is not an excuse for the building department to violate the law. The liability for this situation is entirely on you and the Perlmutters. In addition, I have a serious concern about your effort to influence the outcome of a judicial proceeding by sending an out of court communication to Judge Ball. I will be communicating my concern in an appropriate and formal manner.

Andrew Zweben

Corporation Counsel

City of Kingston


From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: 6/61201410:17:15 A.M. Eastern Standard Time Subj: Re: 72 Garden Street

I have not been in court on this matter. Dan Gartenstein appeared on the City's behalf. The building has been inspected by a structural engineer and the City's position is based on his advice. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

From: Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 11 :06:43 -0400 To: Cc: ; ; ; ; Subject: Re: 72 Garden Street

Mr. Zweben,

I thank you for your advice and I will take the appropriate steps needed to secure a permit to fix our roof. In the mean time I will put a tarp on the roof to prevent further damage. When we heard you tell Judge Kirshner at the hearing that the building will be demolished and that we were dreaming to think the outcome would be different, we knew then this would be a difficult process. Again, thank you for your input.

Respectfully, Kerry Mitras Vision for Children, Inc.

In a message dated 615/20143:37:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected]:

Firstly, the email was sent to jstaus at the Court web address and the email was addressed to Judge Ball.

Secondly, as I understand you are a contractor I would have assumed, and Chief Allen would rightly have assumed, that you are familiar with the building code and the State Education Law requirement for stamped plans for structural construction of this magnitude. More significantly what is entirely missing from your rudimentary email addressing phases of construction are any safety measures to protect the neighboring properties.

The City does not give gratuitous legal advice. I suggest you retain an attorney to review our code with respect to any use you hope to make of the building. In the absence of knowledge of what your intentions were with respect to the work on the building it would have been impossible for anyone to tell you what you needed to obtain a building permit.

Andrew Zweben

Corporation Counsel

City of Kingston


From: Tim Lynch Sent: 7/7/2014 1 :43 PM To: 'Steve' Cc: 'Joseph Happeny'; [email protected] SUbject: RE: 72 Garden Street, Kingston

Mr. Klein,

Our plan is to rehabilitate the structure as a residence. In order to remove the deteriorated roof and gutter and make the necessary repairs to the building on the South side, we would like to come to an agreement regarding access to Mr. Happeny's driveway.

We can design the work to be completed by working from the side of the building, but we would like to have access in order to protect his property and keep the driveway clean. Our preference would be to work from a scaffold, but it is understood this could be intrusive. Working from a scaffold would also lead to a quicker job. If we need to hang off the side of the building, erection of brackets, placement of netting and eventual removal would all take longer.

We understand the City has gone through a long process to be able to demolish the building and Mr. Happeny has endured quite a long period with the hazard adjacent to his property. The primary structure of the building is in surprisingly good condition however, and we believe that demolition would be a mistake.

3


I am hopeful that we can work out a plan for access and completion of the work that is acceptable to you and your client.

Regards,

Tim

From: Steve [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, July 7,2014 10:07 AM To: Tim Lynch Cc: Joseph Happeny Subject: RE: 72 Garden Street, Kingston

What do you plan to do other than demolish the structure?

From: Tim Lynch Sent: 7/7/20149:27 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: 72 Garden Street, Kingston

Mr. Klein,

I am developing plans for work at 72 Garden Street, adjacent to your client's residence at 70 Garden. We had a meeting with City of Kingston representatives last Thursday and, as part of our work plan, need to come to some agreement with Mr. Happeny in order to access the South side of our building -or at least access the driveway in order to clean up any debris that may fall beneath the work area.

I realize you are on vacation this week. Please advise if there is someone else that could assist with negotiation of some sort of agreement while you are away as we need to respond to the City this week.

Thank you,

Tim Lynch

4


Timothy A. Lynch

NYS Professional Engineer

and Registered Architect

AlA; ASCE - SEl; LEED AP

Red Hook Engineering. PC

Office: (845) 758-5434

Cell: (845) 750-5985

www.RedHookEng.com

5


02/09/2015 13:~6 FAl CITY OF KINGSTON CITY HALL CPO BOX 1516 KINGSTON, NY 12402

2015 CITY AND COUNTY PROPERTY TAX BILL , For Fiscal Year 01/0112015 To 1213112015 'Warrant Date 1212B1201~ MAKE CHECKS PAYABlE TO: TO PAy IN PERMN CITY OF KINGSTON Please present this bill CITY HAll with stubs attached when CPO BOX 1516 paymsnl is made in person. KINGSTON, NY 12402 PIlOn8: (84!S) 334-3935

VisIOn for Children, Inc. 1178 Olde Common Ln Franklin, TN 37067

PROPERTY VALVA TlON

Sequence No. eUINo. Page No.

003278 003278 010101

f1J001

CNTY 43,652,114 CITY 3,785,551

TIle essesaor e&1ImateB the Full MB/llal Value of 1111$ property lIS of ~uly 1. 2013 Will $ 000,050.000 The Uniform Pelcemage of Value used to mablish assessment was: , 00.00 % II you feel your property Is overvalued. pklase see Ihelnstnsctlon& In thl bcokllll 'H to File a COmplaint on Your Assessment". To oblaln a co \10111116 boGklllt, cDnlact ur assea6Ol1l office.

eXEMPTION YA1.Y MARKET VALUE

PBOPEm TAxes LEVY DESCRIPTION .-NON-HOMESTEAD PARCEL County General Tax Public Welfare Chgs City GOn~~a1 Tax Kingston library TOTAL Kingston Libry Debt TOTAL Demolition

TOTAL % CHANGE FROM TAX LEVY PI1ICR YeAR

77,792,392 -1.0 913,403-36.5

Hi, on, 725 4.0 760,399 1.5

67,031 0.0

50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 !SO,OOO.OO

0.00

RAT!!S PEI1S1.000

4.414548 .6150204

16.9B1357 .736840 .064954

TAX AMOUNT or

220.73 33.01

849.07 36.84 3.25

55,618.99

THIS TAX BILL MAY BE PAlO ONLINE AT WWW.KINOSTON-NY. OVJPAYMENTS IF YOU HAVE AN ESCROW ACCOUNT, PLEASE FORWARD THI BILL TO YOUR BANK.

SEE REVERSE FOR IMPORTANT PAYMENT INFORMATION

Vision for Children. Inc. 1178 aide Common Ln Franklin, TN 37087

RETURN ll1IS PORTION WITH 2ND HALF PA Yrd&NT. IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE A RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF THIS TAX BILL, PLACE AN X IN THIS BOXOAND RETURN ENTIRE BILL WITH PAYMENT. WRITE BILL NUMBER ON CHECK. MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO:

CITY OF KINGSTON CITY HALL CPO BOX 1516 KINGSTON, NY 12402

2

OF KINGSTON

66,781.89 : 1110112015

BUI No. 003278 Bank Code Mortgage:

City of: KINGSTON School: KINGSTON CONSOLIDA Pl'Cperty AddreS&: 72 Gardon St

~~l'lfYpUE 2ND HALF: S 28,380.94 DATE DUE: 0413012015

Ilm~II~III~U~~ Vision lor Children, Inc. 1178 OIde Common Ln Franklin. TN 37067

2015 GENERAL TAX LEVY CI OF KINGSTON RECEIVER'S ST B

RETURN nns PORTION WITH 1ST HALF PAYMENT. IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE A RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF nilS TAX BILL, PI.ACE AN X IN THIS BOXO AND RETURN ENTIRE BILL WITH PAYMENT. wtUTE BILL NUMBER ON CHIICK. MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO:

CITY OF KINGSTON CITY HALL CPO BOX 1516 KINGSTON, NY 12402

1

BIUNo. BankCodo Mortgage:

City 01: KINGSTON

003278

School: KINGSTON CONSOLICA Property Address: 72 Garden SI TOTAL DUE 1ST HALF: $ 28,380.96 PENALTY: DATE DUE: 02117/2015 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE FOR FULL PAYMENT S 56,761.89


orphanage lawsuit

Documents

city defendants

state of new york

defendant city of kingston

defendants zweben

jury city of kingston

named defendants

defendant andrew zweben

defendant david allen