|
he main question here is whether or not this situation is considered
to fall under the crime of "conspiracy" in the State Of New York.
====================================================================================================
On a day in the recent past; an emergency phone call was made to a
mental health orientated "crisis team" situated in a hospital. The
phone call was in regards to a resident of an apartment building who
allegedly was carrying out erratic behavior. This alleged behavior
included; tossing heavy objects from a high location of the building to
the ground and arguing with neighbors; all while this resident was
allegedly "covered in blood".
The resident, "Joe", in fact, did not engage in ANY of this behavior AT
ALL. Joe is a law-abiding resident who doesn't bother anyone else.
It is important to note that Joe had made a number of complaints to the
property management of the building and to the persons he sublets the
apartment from; all of these complaints - which are reasonable and
fully in his right to make - both parties have refused to address for
over 2 and 1/2 years. Joe believes the following act of conspiracy was
a convenient solution to get rid of Joe - instead of helping Joe with
his original complaints.
One of the persons he subleases from, ('person subletter'- "PS"), had
casually and pleasantly contacted Joe via phone voice message earlier
that day, saying that she was "just seeing how you were doing" and
requesting that Joe call back when he "gets a chance". Joe did not
return the call.
About 3 and 1/2 hours after leaving the message, PS stopped by Joe's
apartment during the evening. She loudly knocked on his door,
requesting to know if Joe was home or not. Joe opened the door and PS
immedietly stated that she had "received information", but in seeing
that Joe was "alright", that the "information must be about someone
else". (No details were provided.) PS then suddenly changed her story
to that she "just happened to be in the neighborhood" and, in reality,
it was just an "impromptu visit". Additionally, PS stated thet she
"just wanted to check up" on Joe, because PS had claimed to not have
heard from him in awhile.
In the late evening, Joe received a phone call from the mental health
crisis team. A nurse from the hospital stated the reason for the call
was that they were following through on a complaint made about Joe. The
nurse stated to Joe that PS had called them earlier in the day claiming
to have received information via someone from property management,
"PM", of Joe's building regarding the alleged erratic behavior.
Joe assured the nurse that he had no idea what she was talking about
and that he had nothing to do with this incident. The nurse, without
any question, immedietly accepted his explanation. The nurse stated
that she would contact the persons who sublet the apartment to clear up
the misunderstanding as the brief phone call ended.
To review: PS left the casual non-urgent phone message, then contacted
the crisis team, then stopped by Joe's apartment in person - all
without even hinting that she made this urgent call or there was some
problem.
The next day, Joe contacted PS by phone demanding to know why he was
falsely reported regarding this alleged behavior at his residence.
PS apologized, claiming that she was just going by the information PM
gave her. She additionally stated that the resident in the building who
ACTUALLY did these acts, "Bill", had "similar apartment number digits"
as Joe - thus, the "mistake" was made. (PS also sublets to Bill.)
Joe immedietly mailed a letter to property management demanding an
explanation which should include complete details; which residents saw
this, what are their names, which employees received the information,
what are their names, etc. Joe requested that each party involved
submit to him, (as collected by PM), written and signed statements of
the events which led them to conclude Joe was the perpetrator.
PM sent Joe back a response letter, (entirely in capital letters),
stating that PM was sorry for the "misunderstanding". PM explained that
it was just a "miscommunication" between PM and PS. None of the
detailed information, which Joe requested, was provided to Joe in PM's
response letter. Contained in the response letter was; an apology, an
assurance of that this would never happen again, an explanation that
the actual resident who was "causing so much trouble and scaring other
residents" lived in a different section of the building. PM also stated
that Joe can call PM on the phone or write back for "further
information".
PM was blaming PS for "miscommunication" and PS was blaming PM for bad
information - yet neither of them were accountable.
Although Joe is not a personal friend of Bill, Joe is aquainted with
Bill, (the person PS and PM were claiming to have actually been the
erratic resident). In actuality, Joe and Bill do share "similar digits"
in their apartment numbers - although located in different sections of
the building. Joe recently asked Bill whether the actual incident
involved him.
Bill informed Joe that, yes, large objects were hurled from out of his
window; but by his girlfriend and a FULL MONTH before the date Joe was
accused of the same behavior.
Additionally, Bill informed Joe that, (a couple of days after the
actual window incident ocurred), Bill's girlfriend was arrested for
"Grand Theft Auto" - taken away by the police while on the premises of
the apartment building. Bill said that there was even a story about her
as reported by the local newspaper, (which Joe wasn't aware of).
Other residents of the building have provided verbal accounts to Joe,
stating that they personally witnessed the window incident and the
arrest of Bill's girlfriend.
Bill informed Joe that, these were the only two incidents he knew of
happening - and NOTHING EVER HAPPENED AGAIN. (Bill was recently
evicted. According to Bill - it was because of his girlfriend's
behavior.)
Although Joe accepted Bill's seemingly genuine account of the incidents
as credible - Joe believes that EVEN IF THERE WAS ANOTHER SIMILAR
INCIDENT that Bill did not inform Joe of; both PM and PS must have had
knowledge of the original incidents involving Bill's girlfriend.
The incidents involving Bill's girlfriend happened a full month before
the day of the emergency phone call to the crisis team regarding Joe's
alleged behavior.
Building management and the persons subleasing the apartment to Bill
must have had FULL KNOWLEDGE of the original incidents a month before;
especially because it involved the police.
The fact that they evicted Bill means that they knew EXACTLY what
apartment this had occurred.
Regarding the day that Joe was falsely reported; Joe inquired to other
residents if anything happened. Apparently there WEREN'T ANY incidents
that occurred on that day AT ALL. The detail of Joe being "covered in
blood" was not even part of the detail in Bill's actual incident with
his girlfriend.
Although the crisis team at the hospital originally claimed to Joe that
there was "no record" of this report involving Joe; Joe eventually was
granted a copy of the record. In the record, it states that PS claimed
to be contacted by PM regarding Joe's behavior.
Joe feels that because of his complaints about building conditions to
PS and PM - PS and PM conspired agains
|
| |
| |
On 19 Dec 2004, a165789@lycos.com wrote:
[ Has there been a crime of "conspiracy" in N.Y. if, as
the result of an erroneous tip from a residential tenant's
landlord and building management to the effect that the
tenant is behaving in an erratic manner possibly damaging
to himself and to others, a nurse affliated with a nearby
hospital's psychiatric "crisis team" telephones the tenant
to ask whether there are problems warranting intervention
and if, in reliance on the tenant's response that he is not
experiencing or acting out any behavior other than to be
peaceful and otherwise reasonable, the hospital then does
not take any further action? ]
No
[ If promptly after such a telephone exchange the tenant's
landlord and also the in-building management representative
acknowledge to the tenant that they initiated the hospital's
call but only because they were mistaken and so as the result
of "miscommunication" and a "misunderstanding" and yet if
if the tenant continues to speculate that the call to the hospital
actually resulted from some sort of pretexual scheme to have
him evicted in retaliation for his having complained to his
landlord and the building's manager about a lack of proper
maintenance of his apartment, does his acknowlegement that
he is not sure of any of the details of any such "conspiracy"
in light of the further fact that no eviction proceedings have
been initiated make probably at best foolish and deflective
his dwelling on being furious at his landlord and the building's
management and asserting that the existence of a "conspiracy"
is "blatant"? ]
Yes
[ If the tenant then consulted two different attorneys and
also a police officer to each of whom he has fully relayed
his version of the facts and if each, in separately arrived
at professional opinions, advised him in substance that not
merely has no realistically prosecutable crime been committed
in connection with the calls to/from the hospital referred to
above, but, because the tenant was not subjected thereby
to any dollar measurable damage, there is no legitimate basis
to sue the landlord or the building's managment, except
insofar as the tenant may have grounds to prove breach of
his lease or of the city's or state's housing maintenance
codes, does it make any sense for the tenant nevertheless
to dwell on his being "furious" about the call to/from the
hospital and on whether there is been a "criminal 'conspiracy'"
while not reporting anything whatever about what (if any)
steps he has actually taken to seek relief in connection with
the underlying landlord-tenant dispute while also implying
that, even though his city's housing court makes available
procedures for tenants with well-founded such complaints
comparatively easily to sue, that he has chosen not to do
this and instead to allow that dispute to fester for more
than two and one-half years? ]
No.
[Would an actually self-dilligent tenant in such circumstnaces
have paid and, if need be, now pay more attention to what his
housing court remedies may be than dwelling on whether there
has been "conspiracy" in connection with one now moot and, in
tems of what the "crisis team" did and did not do, entirely
reasonable event? ]
Yes
|
| |
| |
|
