Golden v Lynch, 2014 NY Slip Op 50663(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)
From the Appellate Term, Second Department today: “Although defendant claims that she was at a disadvantage because, as a self-represented litigant, she was not advised of various procedures, we note that a party’s status as a self-represented litigant does not entitle the party to greater rights than any other litigant (see Roundtree v Singh, 143 AD2d 995 [1988]). ”
So how come Pro-Se’s do not have to file Notices of Trial? Why doesn’t the 120 day rule apply to them? Why are there special parts for pro-s? Anybody want to work on an Article 78 with me? I think I have it written in my head.
2 Responses
Yeah … you left out the key portion of the quote and citation:
… to greater rights than any other litigant [what you left out] because even if the Defendant had a lawyer we could screw them both over and there is nothing they could do to us because we can do what we want given that we are not subjected to any meaningful review by any court, legislative body or greasy haired governor …[citation omitted]
Signed
The Goddam Hater
Well here is some proof of the above. Judges are f&*king high and mighty corrupt miscreants without a soul and if there is a hell that’s where they’ll go.
If this were the Hater’s House I’d hate to be the f^%king morons that tried to kick the Hater out of the house. What a party the Hater would throw for them. Great media day because the media loves widows and orphans. Here it is.
BEAVER, Pa. (AP) — A widow was given ample notice before her $280,000 house was sold at a tax auction three years ago over $6.30 in unpaid interest, a Pennsylvania judge has ruled.
The decision last week turned down Eileen Battisti’s request to reverse the September 2011 sale of her home outside Aliquippa in western Pennsylvania.
“I paid everything, and didn’t know about the $6.30,” Battisti said. “For the house to be sold just because of $6.30 is crazy.”
Battisti, who still lives in the house, said Monday that she plans to appeal to Commonwealth Court. That court earlier ordered an evidentiary hearing, which led to last week’s ruling.
Beaver County Common Pleas Judge Gus Kwidis wrote that the county tax claim bureau complied with notification requirements in state law before the auction. She had previously owed other taxes, but at the time of the sale she owed just $235, including other interest and fees.
“There is no doubt that (she) had actual receipt of the notification of the tax upset sale on July 7, 2011, and Aug. 16, 2011,” the judge wrote. “Moreover, on Aug. 12, 2011, a notice of sale was sent by first class mail and was not returned.”
The property sold for about $116,000, and most of that money will be paid to Battisti if further appeals are unsuccessful. An attorney for the purchaser did not return a phone message on Monday.
Joe Askar, Beaver County’s chief solicitor, said the judge got the decision right, based on the law.
“The county never wants to see anybody lose their home, but at the same time the tax sale law, the tax real estate law, doesn’t give a whole lot of room for error, either,” Askar said.
Battisti said her husband handled the paperwork for the property’s taxes before he passed away in 2004.
“It’s bad — she had some hard times, I guess her husband kind of took care of a lot of that stuff,” Askar said. “It seemed that she was having a hard time coping with the loss of her husband — that just made it set in a little more.”