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

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
HAPPENY,

1:15-cv-164 (BKSIRFT)

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 2 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.

Case 1:15-cv-00164-BKS-RFT Document 5 Filed 03/02/15 Page 3 of 24

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

Case 1:15-cv-00164-BKS-RFT Document 5 Filed 03/02/15 Page 4 of 24

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 reinspection fees shall be assessed to the owner against the property and shall

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

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

Case 1:15-cv-00164-BKS-RFT Document 5 Filed 03/02/15 Page 6 of 24

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

Case 1:15-cv-00164-BKS-RFT Document 5 Filed 03/02/15 Page 7 of 24

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.

Case 1:15-cv-00164-BKS-RFT Document 5 Filed 03/02/15 Page 8 of 24

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,

Case 1:15-cv-00164-BKS-RFT Document 5 Filed 03/02/15 Page 9 of 24

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

Case 1:15-cv-00164-BKS-RFT Document 5 Filed 03/02/15 Page 10 of 24

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.

Case 1:15-cv-00164-BKS-RFT Document 5 Filed 03/02/15 Page 11 of 24

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?"

Case 1:15-cv-00164-BKS-RFT Document 5 Filed 03/02/15 Page 12 of 24

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.

Case 1:15-cv-00164-BKS-RFT Document 5 Filed 03/02/15 Page 13 of 24

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

i.

li&QItJ;&tMtCU .

...,n@iMi ..... S . . "

Case 1:15-cv-00164-BKS-RFT Document 5 Filed 03/02/15 Page 14 of 24

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

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

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..

Case 1:15-cv-00164-BKS-RFT Document 5 Filed 03/02/15 Page 16 of 24

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

AAWPCt ......

Case 1:15-cv-00164-BKS-RFT Document 5 Filed 03/02/15 Page 17 of 24

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 178-2(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

Case 1:15-cv-00164-BKS-RFT Document 5 Filed 03/02/15 Page 18 of 24

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 .....

Case 1:15-cv-00164-BKS-RFT Document 5 Filed 03/02/15 Page 19 of 24

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

64. Plaintiff repeats the allegations set forth in ~~1-63.
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.

Case 1:15-cv-00164-BKS-RFT Document 5 Filed 03/02/15 Page 20 of 24

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

Case 1:15-cv-00164-BKS-RFT Document 5 Filed 03/02/15 Page 21 of 24

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

77. Plaintiff repeats the allegations set forth in ~~1-76.
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

Case 1:15-cv-00164-BKS-RFT Document 5 Filed 03/02/15 Page 22 of 24

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
88. Plaintiff repeats the allegations set forth in ~~1-87.
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.

Case 1:15-cv-00164-BKS-RFT Document 5 Filed 03/02/15 Page 23 of 24

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.

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

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

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

JJf6"'S~/- Jh9~

Mark BroWD
Fire Chief
pavidAllea

Deputy Chief

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

14-06643

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

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 2 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 ?

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

DCBE CONTRACTI NG, INC. 2 Elm Street, Ards ley, New Yo rk, 10502
Phon e - (212 ) 334-5159 Fax - (914)69 3-1478

March 20, 2014

Kingston Department of Buildings
5 Garraga han Drive
Kingston, NY 12401
Attention: Chief David Allen
R:

72 Ga rden Street

Chief Allen,
Good morning. This morning I visited the referenced property with Mr. Kerry Mitras. During m y visit I
was able to walk t he building.

The building is in need of repai nt ing of the masonry fal;ade, a new roof and interior demolition of
existing ceilings and walls. Plumbing and electrica l upgrades are also required. The building structure
showed no signs of failure includi ng foundations, floor joists and load bea ring walls.
Should you have any othe r questions please feel free to call me at 6465230271.

Regards.
DeBE Cont racting, Inc.

Thomas Morris
Principle
tmorrisdcbeinc@gmail.com

Cc:

J. Connelly, DeBE Contracting, Inc.

K. Mitras, Vision for Children

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

Subj :

Dale:
From :
To:

72 Garden Street
3/27/20141:26:54 P.M . Eastern Daylight Time
DURA FLEX@aol com
planning@kin gston-ny .gov, kingsloncma@gmail.com. tomorme .vfc@gmaitcom,
IOffiorme@visioo forchile.org , Imorrisdcbeinc@amail.com, PURAFLEX@aol .com

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

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
duraflex@aol.com

845-240-4744

Thursday, August 14, 2014 AOL: DURAFLEX

Case 1:15-cv-00164-BKS-RFT Document 5-4 Filed 03/02/15 Page 1 of 1

Kingston Fire Department

Mark Brown
Fire Chief

David AUen
Deputy Chief

Building Safety Division

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

April 7, 2014
Marcy Perlmutter
POBox315
West Hurley NY 12491
Re: 72 Garden St
Dear Homeowner,
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;;

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

From: DURAFLEX@aol.com [mailto:DURAFLEX@aol.com]

Sent: Thursday, June 05,20141:12 PM

To: jstaus5@courts.state.ny.u5
Cc: Zweben, Andrew; Allen, David; Lefevre, Mlkej Cahill, Suzannej happ42@msn.com;
tomorme.vfc@gmail.com; duraflex@aol.com
SUbject:
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 loadbearing 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

Case 1:15-cv-00164-BKS-RFT Document 5-6 Filed 03/02/15 Page 1 of 1

Subj:
Date:
From:
To:
CC:

page 1 of2

Re: 72 Garden Street

6/5/2014 2:35:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
DURAFLEX@aol.com
azweben@kingston-ny.gov
dallen@kingston-ny.gov, mlefevre@kingston-ny.gov, scahill@kingston-ny.gov, happ42@msn.com,
tomorme. vfc@gmail.com

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, azweben@kingston-ny.govwrites:
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

Case 1:15-cv-00164-BKS-RFT Document 5-7 Filed 03/02/15 Page 1 of 1

From: azweben@kingston-ny.gov
To: DURAFLEX@aol.com
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: <DURAFLEX@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 11 :06:43 -0400
To: <azweben@kingston-ny.gov>
Cc: <dallen@kingston-ny.gov>; <mlefevre@kingston-ny.gov>; <scahill@kingston-ny.gov>;
<happ42@msn.com>; <tomorme.vfc@gmail.com>
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, azweben@kingston-ny.govwrites:

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

Case 1:15-cv-00164-BKS-RFT Document 5-8 Filed 03/02/15 Page 1 of 3

From: Tim Lynch

Sent: 7/7/2014 1:43 PM
To: 'Steve'
Cc: 'Joseph Happeny'; DURAFLEX@aol.com
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.

Case 1:15-cv-00164-BKS-RFT Document 5-8 Filed 03/02/15 Page 2 of 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:skleinl009@yahoo.com]

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: SHK@KVAtoughlaw.com
Cc: DURAFLEX@aol.com
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

Case 1:15-cv-00164-BKS-RFT Document 5-8 Filed 03/02/15 Page 3 of 3

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

Case 1:15-cv-00164-BKS-RFT Document 5-9 Filed 03/02/15 Page 1 of 1

02/09/2015

13:~6

FAl

f1J001

Case
1:15-cv-00164-BKS-RFT
Document 5-10 Filed
03/02/15
Sequence
No.
003278Page 1 of 1
CITY
OF KINGSTON
CITY HALL CPO BOX 1516
KINGSTON, NY 12402

eUINo.

003278

Page No.

010101

2015 CITY AND COUNTY PROPERTY TAX BILL

, For Fiscal Year 01/0112015 To 1213112015
'Warrant Date 1212B1201~

PAy IN PERMN

MAKE CHECKS PAYABlE TO:

TO

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

Please present this bill

with stubs attached when
paymsnl is made in person.
PIlOn8: (84!S) 334-3935

VisIOn for Children, Inc.

1178 Olde Common Ln
Franklin, TN 37067

CNTY 43,652,114

CITY 3,785,551
PROPERTY VALVATlON
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

TOTAL

TAX LEVY

LEVY DESCRIPTION

.-NON-HOMESTEAD PARCEL
County General Tax
Public Welfare Chgs

City GOn~~a1 Tax

Kingston library
TOTAL
Kingston Libry Debt TOTAL
Demolition

% CHANGE FROM

RAT!!S

PI1ICR YeAR

PEI1S1.000

TAX AMOUNT

77,792,392 -1.0

50,000.00

4.414548

913,403-36.5

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

.6150204
16.9B1357
.736840

Hi,

on, 725

4.0

760,399

1.5

67,031

0.0

or

220.73
33.01

849.07

36.84
3.25
55,618.99

.064954

0.00

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.
66,781.89

SEE REVERSE FOR IMPORTANT PAYMENT INFORMATION

: 1110112015

OF KINGSTON

Vision for Children. Inc.

1178 aide Common Ln
Franklin, TN 37087

BUI No.

RETURN ll1IS PORTION WITH 2ND HALF PAYrd&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

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

BIUNo.
003278
BankCodo
Mortgage:
City 01: KINGSTON
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