Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/22/2018 at 00:33:43 (UTC).

COMMUNITY REBUILD PARTNERS VS. SAM CHANIN, ET AL

Case Summary

On 01/23/2017 COMMUNITY REBUILD PARTNERS filed a Property - Residential Eviction lawsuit against SAM CHANIN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Van Nuys Courthouse East located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ELIZABETH A. LIPPITT. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5136

  • Filing Date:

    01/23/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Property - Residential Eviction

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Van Nuys Courthouse East

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

ELIZABETH A. LIPPITT

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

COMMUNITY REBUILD PARTNERS LLC

Defendants

DOES 1-5

CHANIN LIEBA

CHANIN SAM

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

NAHEEDY SARA

COHEN BARUCH C.

Defendant Attorney

RILEY DENNIS PATRICK

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/24/2017
  • at 08:31 am in Department NWW, ELIZABETH A. LIPPITT, Presiding; Motion For Attorney Fees (And Costs) - Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2017
  • Reply (TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS ); Filed by Attorney-Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • Opposition (TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS ); Filed by Attorney-Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2017
  • Designation of Record on Appeal; Filed by Attorney-Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2017
  • Notice of Designation of Record; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2017
  • Ntc to Atty re Notice of Appeal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • Motion (FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS ); Filed by Attorney-Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2017
  • Notice of Appeal (WITH FILING FEE CHECK #5123 ); Filed by Attorney-Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2017
  • Notice of Entry of Judgment; Filed by Attorney-Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • Memorandum of Costs (IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,514.68 ); Filed by Attorney-Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
32 More Docket Entries
  • 02/28/2017
  • Opposition (TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ); Filed by Attorney-Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2017
  • Motion to Quash (SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT ); Filed by Attorney-Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2017
  • Motion to Strike (COMPLAINT ); Filed by Attorney-Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2017
  • Request for Judicial Notice; Filed by Attorney-Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2017
  • Notice-Related Cases (BC643158-DEPT.31-CENTRAL ); Filed by Attorney-Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2017
  • Motion to Consolidate (UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION AND TO TRANSFER AND RELATE THEM TO CASE BC643158 ); Filed by Attorney-Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2017
  • Acknowledgement-Receipt; Filed by Attorney-Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2017
  • Summons Issued; Filed by Attorney-Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Attorney-Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2017
  • Notice-Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: LC105136    Hearing Date: September 17, 2020    Dept: W

community rebuild partners llc v. chanin, et al.

motion to increase bond payment and further evidentiary hearing on defendants claim for inability to pay

Date of Hearing: September 17, 2020 Trial Date: N/A

Department: W Case No.: LC105136

Moving party: Judgment Creditor Community Rebuild Partners, LLC; Community Rebuild Asset Holdings, LLC; Community Rebuild Partners

Responding party:

BACKGROUND

On January 23, 2017, Plaintiff Community Rebuild Partners LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a verified unlawful detainer complaint against Defendants Sam Chanin and Lieba Chanin (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 5. On March 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. On May 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).

On May 20, 2016, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a “Residential Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions” for the purchase of the premises located at 5302 Leghorn Avenue, Sherman Oaks, CA 91401. The total purchase price was $2,575,000.00. The purchase agreement’s financing terms called for an initial deposit in escrow of $100,000; a first loan in the amount of $2,060,000; and a balance of $415,000 to be deposited in escrow. The purchase agreement also provided that escrow would close 180 days from acceptance of the buyer’s offer.

Under the “other terms,” the purchase agreement provided: “Buyer shall be moving into the property at the onset of escrow. Buyer shall pay $18,000 a month for rent. $6,000 from each month’s rent paid shall be credited towards the purchase price with a cap of $36,000 to be credited.

It is alleged that defendants were never willing to purchase the property, and that defendants never closed escrow as required and are therefore not entitled to any credits. On June 19, 2017 the court sustained defendants’ demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend. Plaintiff appealed the court’s ruling, and the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of dismissal and remanded the matter. A remittitur was filed on June 25, 2019.

On July 17, 2019, plaintiff filed an ex parte application to allow amendment to the SAC to add names of plaintiffs. The original plaintiff is Community Rebuild Partners, LLC (“CRP, LLC”). That entity is neither the true owner of the property nor the party named on the Interim Occupancy Agreement. As such the plaintiff wished to amend to add Community Rebuild Partners (“CRP”) (entity unknown) who is the party to the occupancy agreement and add Community Rebuild Asset Holdings, LLC (“CRAH”) who is the owner of the property.

On July 18, 2019, the court denied plaintiff’s ex parte application to allow amendment to the SAC but allowed a motion on shortened notice. The court heard and granted the motion on July 26, 2019. A Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) was filed on August 1, 2019. At the time of the hearing re: amendment, the court noted that a demurrer was calendared for August 15. The court noted that the demurrer was moot by the new pleading but allowed a demurrer to the TAC to be filed and heard the same day.

Each side moved for summary judgment. The issue to be determined was whether the Defendants are in possession of the property as a result of a landlord tenant relationship and if so, whether Defendants have demonstrated entitlement to possession and holdover damages.

On September 13, 2019, this court heard cross motions for summary judgement. The motions were extensively briefed and after careful consideration of the legal positions of each side along with the applicable facts and law, the court denied Defendants’ motion and granted plaintiffs motion as it pertains to possession. The court ordered further proceedings as to damages.

Pursuant to this court’s November 12, 2019 Order granting Defendants' Motion to Stay, Defendants were ordered to pay $7,000 each month, by the 5th of the month, directly to the client trust account of plaintiff’s counsel. The court further ordered that if Defendants miss a payment pending appeal, Plaintiff may seek relief from the stay by ex parte application. This order was made pursuant Code of Civil Procedure 1176.

On July 17, 2020, the court heard Plaintiff’s Motion to Dissolve Stay of Execution Pending Appeal and Request Hearing on Increase of Rental Value. The court denied Plaintiff’s request to lift the stay, and allowed for further briefing on whether the court has jurisdiction over the $21,000 in back rent owed.

DISCUSSION

First, defendants submit the declaration of Sam Chanin, who declares that defendants have “have resumed the payment of rent as of July 2020 and will have paid the back rent of $21,000.00 by the date of the hearing on September 17, 2020.” (S. Chanin Decl. ¶ 6.) However, defendants set forth no additional evidence or argument to support their inability to pay. The sole argument raised in the supplemental brief is that this court lost jurisdiction to change the November 12, 2019, Order due to the filing of an appeal by plaintiff.

Chanin attaches heavily redacted bank statements to his declaration. The statements redact all identifying information such as the name of the account holder and the full account number, and leave visible only the total monthly deposits amount. (S. Chanin Decl. Exh. 1.) The statements provided cover the January through June, 2020, period and reflect a progressively dwindling monthly deposit amount of $54,726 in January 2020, to $12,820 in June 2020. (Id.)

However, as noted by Plaintiff in its supplemental opposition, defendants made a total of 458 withdrawals from the account during said period, and although the monthly deposit amount may have diminished, defendants have concealed the total balance of the account so as to render it impossible to assess defendants’ inability to pay.

Here, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate an inability to pay. Defendants appear to concede this fact as they simply argue that the matter will be moot as they will have repaid the $21,000 before this hearing. (S. Chanin Decl. ¶ 6.)

Plaintiff concludes its opposition memorandum by asserting that “Judgment Debtors’ evidence of their inability to pay the Court-Ordered $7,000.00 a month remains woefully insufficient, highly questionable, and provides the Court with the necessary grounds for lifting the stay of execution.” (Supp Opp. 9:19-21.) The stay in question was ordered on November 12, 2019, when the court ordered that

the court orders that defendants pay the amount of $7000 each month, by the 5th of the month, directly to the client trust account of plaintiff’s counsel. The court deems this amount to be the fair rental amount for purposes of the stay based on prior determinations and representations of counsel that this is the fair rental value. This determination is made without prejudice to either party requesting that an evidentiary hearing be set at some future date to modify this amount. If Defendants miss a payment pending appeal, plaintiff may seek relief from the stay by ex parte application.

(11/12/2019 Minute Order p. 7-8.)

The stay was issued “pending appeal” of the summary judgment entered in Plaintiff’s favor. (Id.) However, Defendants contend that the court now has no jurisdiction to modify the Order setting the monthly payment pending appeal because Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the November 12, 2019, Order on January 10, 2020. This appeal was dismissed on March 12, 2020, but reinstated on April 3, 2020.

indeed, Plaintiff’s appeal of the November 12, 2019, Order is still pending. As such, it is axiomatic that said order cannot be modified by this court. This court’s Code Civ. Proc. § 1176’s stay was conditioned upon Defendants not missing a payment as ordered by the court. As payments have been missed, and Defendants have not shown an inability to pay, the stay may be lifted. However, Plaintiff’s subsequent appeal of the order itself imposes a stay on matters embraced or affected by the appeal. (Varian Med. Sys., Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 180, 189, 106 P.3d 958, 964.)

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ have not set forth evidence demonstrating an inability to pay the court-ordered $7,000 a month. The Code Civ. Proc. § 1176 stay of execution may be lifted for Defendants’ failure to pay the April, May, and June payments. Nonetheless, given the unusual circumstances posed by the Covid-19 pandemic and the representation that the unpaid amount will be repaid prior to this hearing, the court declines to lift the stay at this time.

Case Number: LC105136    Hearing Date: July 17, 2020    Dept: W

community rebuild partners llc v. chanin, et al.

motion to dissolve stay of execution pending appeal and request hearing on increase of rental value

Date of Hearing: July 17, 2020 Trial Date: None set.

Department: W Case No.: LC105136

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Community Rebuild Partners, LLC ("CRP-LLC"), Community Rebuild Asset Holdings, LLC ("CRAH"), and Community Rebuild Partners ("CRP")

Responding Party: Defendants Sam Chanin and Lieba Chanin

BACKGROUND

On January 23, 2017, Plaintiff Community Rebuild Partners LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a verified unlawful detainer complaint against Defendants Sam Chanin and Lieba Chanin (collectively, “Defendants”) and Does 1 through 5. On March 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. On May 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).

On May 20, 2016, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a “Residential Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions” for the purchase of the premises located at 5302 Leghorn Avenue, Sherman Oaks, CA 91401. The total purchase price was $2,575,000.00. The purchase agreement’s financing terms called for an initial deposit in escrow of $100,000; a first loan in the amount of $2,060,000; and a balance of $415,000 to be deposited in escrow. The purchase agreement also provided that escrow would close 180 days from acceptance of the buyer’s offer.

Under the “other terms,” the purchase agreement provided: Buyer shall be moving into the property at the onset of escrow. Buyer shall pay $18,000 a month for rent. $6,000 from each month’s rent paid shall be credited towards the purchase price with a cap of $36,000 to be credited.

It is alleged that Defendants were never willing to purchase the property and that Defendants never closed escrow as required and as such, not entitled to any credits. On June 19, 2017, the court sustained Defendants’ demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend. Plaintiff appealed the court’s ruling, and the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of dismissal and remanded the matter. A remittitur was filed on June 25, 2019.

On July 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to allow amendment to the SAC to add names of Plaintiffs. The original Plaintiff is Community Rebuild Partners, LLC (“CRP-LLC”). However, that entity is neither the true owner of the property nor the party named on the Interim Occupancy Agreement. As such, the Plaintiff wished to amend to add Community Rebuild Partners (entity unknown) who is the party to the occupancy agreement and add Community Rebuild Asset Holdings, LLC (“CRAH”) who is the owner of the property.

On July 18, 2019, the court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application to allow amendment to the SAC but allowed a motion on shortened notice. The court heard and granted the motion on July 26, 2019. A third amended complaint was filed on August 1, 2019. At the time of the hearing re: amendment, the court noted that a Demurrer was calendared for August 15, 2019. The court noted that the demurrer was moot by the new pleading, but allowed a demurrer to the TAC to be filed and heard the same day.

Each side moved for summary judgment. The issue to be determined was whether the Defendants are in possession of the property as a result of a landlord tenant relationship and if so, whether Defendants have demonstrated entitlement to possession and holdover damages.

On September 13, 2019, this court heard cross motions for summary judgement. The motions were extensively breached and after careful consideration of the legal positions of each side along with the applicable facts and law, the court denied Defendants’ motion and granted plaintiffs motion as it pertains to possession. The court ordered further proceedings as to damages.

discussion

Pursuant to this court’s November 12, 2019 Order granting Defendants' Motion to Stay, Defendants were ordered to pay $7,000 each month, by the 5th of the month, directly to the client trust account of plaintiff’s counsel. The court further ordered that if Defendants miss a payment pending appeal, Plaintiff may seek relief from the stay by ex parte application. This order was made pursuant Code of Civil Procedure 1176.

In the instant matter, Plaintiffs claim Defendants have not made a payment as required by the court since March 5, 2020. As such, the total amount due and owing as of June 21, 2020 is $21,000.00. The court notes Defendants did make one payment since March 2020 on July 2, 2020. (Cohen Decl. ¶8.) Plaintiffs argue the court should dissolve the stay and allow the eviction to proceed. Defendants counter that they are protected by the moratorium passed by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, which provides specific rules for the repayment of back rent due for March through June, including 12 months for repayment after the moratorium ends, a rent and eviction freeze and

other relief for residential tenants. That temporary moratorium is effective from March 4, 2020 through July 31, 2020 and may be extended by the Board of Supervisors on a month-to-month basis. Defendants also rely on the Judicial Council Emergency Ruling,

dated April 6, 2020, which postpones any set hearings for at least 60 days and prevents courts from accepting any eviction cases until 90 days after the State of Emergency is lifted. California Rules of Court Emergency Rule 1(d)(e). Defendants submit declaration testimony that they have been severely impacted by Covid-19 and are unable to pay the court-ordered $7000.

Plaintiff also contends the EXECUTIVE ORDER N-28-20, dated March 4, 2020, by the Governor of the State of California, Gavin Newsom, relates only to the basis for eviction and enforcement action for the tenants' failure to pay rent. The order contains no reference to Civil Code Section §917.4, any post-judgment enforcement actions, or any matters on appeal. (Exh. 2.) Moreover, the subsequent EXECUTIVE ORDER N-37-20, dated March 27, 2020, clarified the conditions upon which a person could avoid paying rent. Those conditions include the "tenant" having paid rent pursuant to an agreement, which is not relevant here since the “rent” was ordered by the court as a condition for granting the stay on appeal.

As such, according to Plaintiffs, to call the $7,000 “rent” is a misnomer. Plaintiffs also state this is not an eviction subject to moratorium because this is no longer an eviction proceeding.

First, the court notes Plaintiff incorrectly refers to section 917.4 which deals with stay of enforcement and other proceedings. The court on November 18, 2019 did not issue the stay based on section 917.4, but under 1176(a). Section 1176(a), the statute addressing stays of enforcement pending appeal in unlawful detainer actions, is inconsistent with the general provision, section 917.4, which addresses judgments directing the delivery of real property. The action before the court is an unlawful detainer action.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1176 provides:

An appeal taken by the defendant shall not automatically stay proceedings upon the judgment. Petition for stay of the judgment pending appeal shall first be directed to the judge before whom it was rendered. Stay of judgment shall be granted when the court finds that the moving party will suffer extreme hardship in the absence of a stay and that the nonmoving party will not be irreparably injured by its issuance. If the stay is denied by the trial court, the defendant may forthwith file a petition for an extraordinary writ with the appropriate appeals court. If the trial or appellate court stays enforcement of the judgment, the court may condition the stay on whatever conditions the court deems just, but in any case it shall order the payment of the reasonable monthly rental value to the court monthly in advance as rent would otherwise become due as a condition of issuing the stay of enforcement. As used in this subdivision, “reasonable rental value” means the contract rent unless the rental value has been modified by the trial court in which case that modified rental value shall be used. (emphasis added.)

As such, this court ordered rent due as a condition of issuing the stay.

Second, it should be noted that while the Governor’s Executive Order N-37-20 provides that “No writ may be enforced while this Order is in effect to evict a tenant from a residence or dwelling unit for nonpayment of rent who satisfies the requirements of subparagraphs (a)-(c) of paragraph 1,” these Order’s protections were in effect only through May 31, 2020. [1] (Executive Order N-37-20 ¿ 2.) As of June 12, 2020, there is no order extending this timeframe. [2] Thus, the Executive Orders do not provide any protection to defendants.

The Emergency Rules adopted by the California Judicial Council on April 6, 2020 also do not apply to this situation, as they only bar issuance of a summons on a new unlawful detainer action, and entry of default. (Emergency Rule 1, subsections (b) and (c).) They do not govern stays on appeal or post-judgment proceedings.

The City of Los Angeles’s ordinances relating to payment of rent are less easily dismissed. On May 7, 2020, the City of Los Angeles, issued an ordinance (the “LA City Ordinance”) adding Article 14.6 to the Los Angeles Municipal Code (“LAMC”) to “temporarily prohibit certain residential and commercial evictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic.” The LA City Ordinance amendment was codified in LAMC § 49.99. et seq. The LA City Ordinance as amended provides in part,

This ordinance temporarily prohibits evictions of residential and commercial tenants for failure to pay rent due to COVID-19, and prohibits evictions of residential tenants during the emergency for no-fault reasons, for unauthorized occupants or pets, and for nuisance related to COVID-19. This ordinance further suspends withdrawals of occupied residential units from the rental market under the Ellis Act, Government Code Section 7060, et seq.

(LAMC § 49.99.) Regarding residential evictions, LAMC § 49.99.2 provides:

A. During the Local Emergency Period and for 12 months after its expiration, no Owner shall endeavor to evict or evict a residential tenant for non-payment of rent during the Local Emergency Period if the tenant is unable to pay rent due to circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic. These circumstances include loss of income due to a COVID-19 related workplace closure, child care expenditures due to school closures, health-care expenses related to being ill with COVID-19 or caring for a member of the tenant’s household or family who is ill with COVID-19, or reasonable expenditures that stem from government-ordered emergency measures. Tenants shall have up to 12 months following the expiration of the Local Emergency Period to repay any rent deferred during the Local Emergency Period. Nothing in this article eliminates any obligation to pay lawfully charged rent. However, the tenant and Owner may, prior to the expiration of the Local Emergency Period or within 90 days of the first missed rent payment, whichever comes first, mutually agree to a plan for repayment of unpaid rent selected from options promulgated by the Housing and Community Investment Department (“HCID”) for that purpose.

B. No Owner shall endeavor to evict or evict a residential tenant for a no-fault reason during the Local Emergency Period.

C. No Owner shall endeavor to evict or evict a residential tenant based on the presence of unauthorized occupants or pets, or for nuisance related to COVID-19 during the Local Emergency Period.

G. Except as otherwise specified in this article, nothing in this section shall prohibit an Owner from seeking to evict a residential tenant for a lawful purpose and through lawful means.

EXECUTIVE ORDER N-37-20 and the LA County Ordinance both provide tenants must notify their landlord within 7 days after their rent is due, unless extenuating circumstances exist. In opposition, Defendants argue the guidelines do not state that a tenant forfeits the protections under the moratorium if they fail to give notice as required under the guidelines. However, Defendants make no attempt to argue what the extenuating circumstances existed at the time were. The court also notes Defendants do not provide verifiable documentation of their inability to pay rent due to COVID-19.

Defendants also argue there is no language in the original moratorium or in the guidelines that state a tenant forfeits the protections provided if the tenant fails to give the 7 day notice required in those guidelines. As such, a forfeiture “cannot arise by implication, but can be effected only by clear and unambiguous language.” (Balian v. Rainey (1952) 115 Cal.App.2d 10, 18.)

Plaintiffs argue Los Angeles Municipal Ordinance Number Section 49.99.5 expressly states that it is intended to retroactively apply to “nonpayment eviction notices, no-fault eviction notices, and unlawful detainer actions based on such notices, served or filed on or after the date on which a local emergency was proclaimed [March 4, 2020].” Because this matter was filed, served and completed long before March 4, 2020 and the related limitations on evictions only concern those that began by notice on or after March 4, 2020, Plaintiffs contend the courts order related to the payment of rental value predates the emergency by months.

The LA City Ordinance cannot be applied retrospectively before its effective date to other pending actions unless the court determines the legislature plainly intended so. (City of West Hollywood (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1134, 1144.) As stated above, section 49.99.5 expressly states that it is intended to retroactively apply to nonpayment eviction notices, no-fault eviction notices, and unlawful detainer actions based on such notices, served or filed on or after the date on which a local emergency was proclaimed. As such, it appears the LA City Ordinance is inapplicable here.

Nonetheless, while none of the executive orders or ordinances expressly apply to the situation before the court, the court agrees that it may import some of the public policy considerations animating these emergency provisions when fashioning relief under C.C.P. Section 1176. The court finds that these provisions are animated by a recognition of the financial turmoil caused by Covid-19 and the economic shut-down and that, where possible, evictions should not proceed to lock-out during the emergency period. Such protections should be afforded to those who meet the requirement that they give notice of their inability to pay due to Covid-19 and that they retain verifiable documentation. If the court is satisfied with that showing, the court believes that it should maintain the stay with the proviso that rent be paid as soon as possible. Further, the court may consider whether there is sufficient evidence to support an upward adjustment of the rental amount. Even if it cannot be paid at this time due to Covid-19, it may be appropriate to require a higher amount to reflect the actual fair market value of the residence.


[1] Executive Order N-37-20 ¿ 1 prohibits a landlord from evicting a tenant from a residence or dwelling unit for non-payment of rent if (a) prior to March 27, 2020, the tenant paid rent due to the landlord pursuant to an agreement, (b) the tenant notifies the landlord in writing before the rent is due, or within a reasonable period of time afterwards not to exceed 7 days, that the tenant needs to delay payment of rent because of an inability to pay the full amount due to reasons related to COVID-19, and (c) the tenant retains verifiable documentation to support the tenant’s assertion of an inability to pay.

[2] Executive Order N-66-20, which the Governor issued on May 29, 2020, specifically stated that “[t]he timeframe for the protections set forth in Executive Order N-28-20, Paragraph 2 is extended for additional 60 days from the date of this Order.” There is no reference or language in Order N-66-20 extending any of the protections offered in Executive Order N-37-20.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where COMMUNITY REBUILD PARTNERS LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer RILEY DENNIS P