Rental inspection challenge rejected Schenectady wins case brought by landlord, who says he will appeal By Lauren Stanforth Published 07:25 p.m., Wednesday, February 1, 2012
SCHENECTADY – A state Supreme Court justice has rejected a landlord's request to throw out the city's rental certificate requirements because he claimed the process was unconstitutional.
Andrew Wisoff, who filed the lawsuit five years ago, argued that the city's mandate that all rental properties must be inspected when new tenants arrive causes landlords "to submit to warrantless inspections" and is a violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and also the state constitution.
The case languished as the city requested a transfer of the matter to federal court and claimed Wisoff was unduly delaying the case because he would only accept documents personally.
But on Jan. 19, Justice Vito Caruso rejected Wisoff's arguments on the state Constitution claim, saying that Schenectady's ordinance requires inspection of the property only with the landlord's consent. The city would have to obtain a search warrant if the landlord refused....................>>>>...................>>>>..............Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/loca.....77.php#ixzz1lDo3tED8
That DEM mayor of BS - ex mayor Stratton sold THREE houses to him when he was already MANY MANY YEARS BIG TIME tax delinquent??????
Why?????
Mr Stratton and all the dems in the city owe the financially struggling taxpaying homeowners and explanation: 1. Why do they sell houses--at any price---to people who are already delinquent on property taxes in the city thus forcing the taxpaying homeonwers to cover the cost of those taxes 2. WHy do they exempt rich developmers and millionaires from paying taxes downtown thus forcing that HUGE share of the tax burden on the homeonwers?
If one owns a house with a low assessment, the tax bill is lower. Go back a decade and figure low assessed houses with an annual combined tax bill of $3,000. The tax bill will NOT become $20,000 in only a year or so.
The dems MUST explain to the homeowners in the city WHY, when this guy was delinquent his three, JUST THREE properties, in 2004 to the tune of a WHOPPING $59,000, why did Stratton sell him more properties???????????????
Why did Stratton sell him more properties when he was already LONG LONG TIME, BIG BIG TIME delinquent??????????
Here is a link to a Ch 6 report from May of 2004 so you can read the whole thing
However, here is an excerpt about this Andrew Wisoff.
Quoted Text
Andrew Wisoff owns three properties with a total tab of 56-thousand bucks...and he told us on the phone that: "My plan is to sell some houses that I own in Schenectady in order to pay the property taxes that I owe." He filed for bankruptcy soon after.
Taxpayers we talked to were not sympathetic. Ed Cavanaugh/Schenectady: "If you have a lot of property in the city...I think you thought of that beforehand." Tom Meaney/Schenectady: "They should go after those people."
Mayor Brian Stratton couldn't agree more. Stratton "They're huge..." He wants to sell these tax liens to a private firm that will hire a collection agency to get the money. And he says that seven million....
So since the guy was delinquent several years, and Stratton claims he sympathizes with what Cavanaugh and Meaney said, then what is the reasoon Stratton sold him three houses FROM the city?????? Notice the sale date of June 17, 2004 which was AFTER the news report which already reflected MANY MANY years of him being tax delinquent? Notice at the bottom the blurb that two other parcels were included, i.e, two more houses on this street.
.
Optimists close their eyes and pretend problems are non existent. Better to have open eyes, see the truths, acknowledge the negatives, and speak up for the people rather than the politicos and their rich cronies.
The other thing that is interesting here is Wisoff's address. See the Oregon Ave address. That's owned by someone else with a PO box address in Albany. Seems there was lots of maneuvering back and forth between Wisoff and the current owner (and then owner) of the Oregon Ave address.
Wisoff is married and lives with his wife in Niskayuna. "They" own a house in her name only. So that way, the tax delinquent and most likely a slumlord probably lives like a king in hotsy totsy Niskayuna and bankruptcy and tax delinquencies can't put him out of the place he lives and enjoys his life, collecting rents and never paying taxes
You see how Ch 6 report says the guy filed bankruptcy "shortly after." Note, this report was May 26, 2004, that is BEFORE THE CITY SOLD HIM THREE MORE HOUSES !!!!! Mr Stratton and the dems owe the homeonwers an eplanation of WHY they sold three properties to a tax delinquent slumlord who had filed bankruptcy!!!!!!!!
Optimists close their eyes and pretend problems are non existent. Better to have open eyes, see the truths, acknowledge the negatives, and speak up for the people rather than the politicos and their rich cronies.
There is so much corruption in this city it is unbelievable. I still can't figure out how they get away with it but they sure do. The corruption goes right the line including the judicial system.
There is so much corruption in this city it is unbelievable. I still can't figure out how they get away with it but they sure do. The corruption goes right the line including the judicial system.
Oops. Thanks Cel
Oh, I never did comment on the "question" Only the slumlords think the inspections are unconstitutional
Optimists close their eyes and pretend problems are non existent. Better to have open eyes, see the truths, acknowledge the negatives, and speak up for the people rather than the politicos and their rich cronies.
As for that deal landlord Frank Popolizio says he's making with the city — Stratton says there is and will be no deal.
Quite obvious Stratton and his dems gave Popolizio a real sweetheart deal. How come almost 8 years later he is still tax delinquent? Great work dems! And of course, how much are the rest of the homeonwers paying to make up for Pop's delinquencies and the rest of the big time absentee landlords?
Why is it that some long time homeowners who maintain their houses and have had a life time of prompt tax payment; but can no longer afford the high taxes when the dems slapped them with the obligation to pay the taxes of downtown millioniares - those such homeowners get no sweetheart deals, the city taxes their homes from them.
And of course, the guy in the news last week who never got a bill, the city won't forgive him.
But the big time absentee owners, owning multiple properties riddled with code violations, yeah, the dems don't do anything about them. And if anyone DARE say that the city DOES do something about them, then answer WHY did the city allow Popolizio to keep his property at McClellan and Eastern and WHY isn't the city seizing his home to recoup the cost for the demolition of that burned out building.
Inspections should be done of course.
Secondly, they should be mandated to maintain insurance on their properties AND provide a copy of the insurance binder to the city every six months!!!!!!
Optimists close their eyes and pretend problems are non existent. Better to have open eyes, see the truths, acknowledge the negatives, and speak up for the people rather than the politicos and their rich cronies.
Logged
