A long running lawsuit has been decided against the City of Hartford, and it may just push the City one step closer to bankruptcy. . In the case ,Serrano Vs. Gaitor, decided last week, a judgement of $6.25 million dollars was awarded against the City of Hartford. Although no one is commenting on the record for the City, it is believed the City of Hartford intends to appeal the verdict
Here is a 2014 document that outlines some of the issues in the case:
"The City of Hartford has signed a legal agreement to provide relocation assistance to tenants displaced by its code enforcement activity. The agreement is the result of a contempt action filed by Greater Hartford Legal Aid, Inc. (GHLA), which charged that the City was not fulfilling its responsibilities under state law and a previous class action settlement reached 30 years ago.
Under the agreement, tenants who are ordered by the City to leave their apartments due to unfit conditions will receive a notice from the City of their right to apply for relocation assistance under the Connecticut Uniform Relocation Assistance Act. The assistance may include help finding replacement housing, reasonable moving expenses, temporary housing, and some rental assistance to secure a comparable new apartment. The City has agreed to accept retroactive applications from tenants who have been displaced by City code enforcement activities since April 10, 2012. Tenants who have been ordered to leave their apartments as a result of City of Hartford code enforcement activities should contact the City of Hartford Department of Health and Human Services, at (860) 757-4700.
GHLA attorneys Thamar Esperance, David A. Pels, and Cecil J. Thomas represent the class of affected tenants. Tenants’ attorney Cecil J. Thomas said, "We are pleased that tenants who are ordered by the City to leave their apartments will now get the help they need during a stressful and disruptive time in their lives."
Several hundred Hartford families are displaced by the City’s code enforcement activities every year. Landlords are responsible for reimbursing the City for relocation expenditures paid to tenants ordered to leave the landlords’ unfit building. Under the terms of the agreement, GHLA and the City of
Hartford will continue to work together to develop policies and procedures that will ensure the provision of relocation assistance to displaced tenants in accordance with state law.
The parties will return to court on April 7, 2014 so that a judge can decide two remaining issues in the case: whether the City must pay tenants who were not offered relocation assistance the value of their lost and damaged property; and what reports are required to ensure compliance with the Relocation Assistance Act. The case is called Serrano v. Gaitor. "
Bronin-Sara's equivalent of Murphy's law.
ReplyDeleteGreat, now the City of Hartford will become a babysitter too.
ReplyDeleteHa! City of Hartford Dept of Housing Code Enforcement cost the City of Hartford millions on this one. Smh! If only people would work for their paychecks we would not be sued so much.
ReplyDeleteHa! City of Hartford Dept of Housing Code Enforcement cost the City of Hartford millions on this one. Smh! If only people would work for their paychecks we would not be sued so much.
ReplyDeleteKevin, you said "has signed" in your opening sentence but I wish you would pay attention to tense. If it is the past, it is "had signed." Or "signed." I had to read it a few times to make sense of it.
ReplyDeleteOn first glance, this seems to be another agreement that a official placed at risk the city unnecessarily. Of course, our biggest dumb dodo is our most recent past mayor, who has far exceeded any other mayor in the history of Hartford placing the city at risk.
Shame on these people. I feel more conservative every day. Since I don't much identify with any of our corrupt political parties, I recognize my fiscal conservatism. I'm sure Cynthia Jennings is in favor of this judicial announcement since she feels that government must employ the people and provide fully for its citizens or should I say, her citizens.
7:27PM
ReplyDeletePlease read the posting once again. The words you are quoting clearly are from a Court document as the posting says. Maybe you can contact the court and ask for the Judge in the case and give him your lesson
Kevin, I did read it again. And you know what? You're right. Oops. Although I think there could be some hair-splitting. But wtf do I know. That's what I hire editors for.
ReplyDeleteThe City lawyers could have settled the case for 1/3 the award,but refused. Corporation Counsel Howard Rifkin,who has no litigation experience and has been a paper pushing beaurocrat all his adult life really bungled this for the City.
ReplyDelete12:29 AM: Howard Rifkin considers himself as one of the smartest man on earth, doesn't he?
ReplyDeleteAs I understand the reading, the city can go after the owners of said property for moving expenses only leaving the city to spend on reasonable expenses, temporary housing and an as-sundry of other expenses. Should this code violation enforcement be suspended? Unless a new statute is written making the expense fully on the owner except when damage has been perpitated by the tenant.
ReplyDeleteI already have a wager the Hartford will be in default by next year. I thought it was a safe bet, yummy. Dinner expenses paid for at Sally's can't wait.
Gosh, what a mess.
11:04 am
ReplyDeleteCan't be too smart if he got charged with a DUI in West Hartford after he crashed into a couple cars. Doesn't sound like the brightest bulb to me.
The trial for this was back in September and October 2015, prior to Rifkin taking office.
ReplyDelete@4:12
ReplyDelete"He who is without sin cast the first stone."
Anonymous 5:39. That is correct that it was tried before the Judge in late 2015 and after both Bronin and Rifkin were sworn in in early 2016,entreaties were made to Rifkin by the lawyers,while all parties were awaiting the decision of the Judge. Rifkin rebuffed all entreaties to settle the matter cheaply and is the main cause that the City is now stuck with a judgment in excess of 6 million dollars and is forced to appeal that judgment. Shall we say INCOMPETENT !!!!!
ReplyDeleteMore for importantly Attorney Darrow Wishful Thinking, what are the grounds for appeal?
ReplyDeleteOnce again, the Courant and Jenna Carlesso are chasing you and ripping stories from your Blog. You had this story last week, and Carlesso finally posted the story at 6:31PM tonight. How do you keep beating the so called "City Hall" reporter? Sad, very sad
ReplyDelete9:22
ReplyDeleteEveryone borrows from each other. What's your beef? It is appropriate to give credit and oftentimes, credit is given.
9:22PM
ReplyDeleteSome say borrow, others might say steal. Let me read the Courant's story again, maybe I missed the line where it said "first reported last week by We the People Blog"
Jenna Carlesso would do better selling fruit and vegetables from a pushcart.
ReplyDeleteTown Crier:
ReplyDeleteAre you referring to Jenna Carlesso who was until recently Segarra's Defender In Chief at the Courant, maybe nervous about losing her job, trying to secure something, anything in Hartford City Hall (example: Hilda Munoz)
Town Crier:
ReplyDeleteAre you referring to Jenna Carlesso who was until recently Segarra's Defender In Chief at the Courant, maybe nervous about losing her job, trying to secure something, anything in Hartford City Hall (example: Hilda Munoz)
6:25 Million Dollars Judgment Against The City of Hartford.
ReplyDeleteReported by WeThePeopleHartford.com :
Mon. August 29, 2016.
Reported by the Courant:
Wed. August 31, 2016.
Carlesso actually shows here, tailing Jeff Cohen at WNPR, too. He posted at 430 or so. Carlesso not until 630.
ReplyDeletehttp://wnpr.org/post/judge-orders-hartford-pay-625-million-tenants-displaced-homes
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteHow about a story on the Hartford DPW worker arrested in connection with a July shooting?
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Hartford-DPW-Worker-Arrested-After-Shooting-Incident-392180081.html
I have a wager that Hartford goes under next year. Mayor Bronin, don't disappoint me.
ReplyDelete