This interesting case is about a leak in Henry’s apartment, and his frustration in getting it fixed.
The case was an “inquest”, a one sided case, because the defendant (the managing agent for Henry’s condominium, here called “Henry’s Condo”) did not show up in court.
Under our rules, Henry must still prove his claim for damages with some evidence in order to get a “judgment by default”.
The plaintiff, an earnest man of middle age and calm demeanor (who I will here call “Henry”), told me that he lived in a condo apartment that he owned on the top floor of a small building in Queens.
Henry was a chimney cleaner by trade, and he was helped in his work by his young assistant “Jack”.
In early January of 2013, the roof over Henry’s apartment sprang a leak.
Henry made several complaints to the condo’s managing agent, who promised to repair the leak, but they did nothing. The leak continued into his apartment with each rain and snow through that winter and spring.
Henry’s complaints continued to go unanswered. By then quite exasperated, Henry hired a local roofer to repair the leak, and paid him $850 for his work in August 2013.
Henry then asked that my award against the condo include his legal fees to his absent lawyer, and some lost personal time, as all relevant to his actual damages.
He then made a plea for the inclusion of an additional $250 to his assistant.
He said that for building security reasons, the entrance to the building and also to the roof was locked, and because the condo had no staff person to give the workmen access, he had to hire Jack as his “job coordinator” to give the roofers access to the building and roof, and wanted the award against the condo corporation to include an addition $250 for Jack’s work.
To see my decision, click on the link below – Decision