Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Investigates, Disproves Son’s Succession Claim
Believing that a tenant permanently vacated her apartment and that the tenant’s son may be improperly positioning himself to claim succession, one landlord turned to Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. for guidance. The firm immediately coordinated a detailed investigation, which exposed that the tenant was not residing in the apartment, but was living in a nursing home in the same borough. Although, the son refused to cooperate, the firm ultimately confirmed that the tenant was considered a permanent member of the home and was no longer maintaining the apartment as her primary residence.
Once the firm established that the tenant vacated the apartment, the son immediately asserted succession rights, claiming that he resided at the apartment together with his mother for two consecutive years before she moved out and that he continues to reside there still. Accordingly, after uncovering when the tenant permanently vacated the apartment (including uncovering when she canceled her cable subscription and returned the equipment to the provider), the investigation immediately turned to the son. The result was an overwhelming compilation of documentary evidence which disproved the son’s succession claim.
The son possessed a valid driver’s license reflecting an alternate address and owned property in the state of Florida where he listed the alternate address in the records of the county’s property appraiser’s office. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s investigation also uncovered that the tenant provided the son with a power of attorney during the relevant time period and that the son’s address in the document was listed as the alternate address, not that of the apartment in question. Once the investigation focused on the identified alternate address, it was uncovered that the son had active telephone service there, in his own name. Then, to compile additional proof that the son does not currently reside in the apartment, the firm began mailing letters to the apartment, addressed to the son, by certified mail, return receipt requested. As suspected, although he knew that he was involved in litigation with the landlord and Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.—and therefore, presumably would accept the firm’s correspondence—all the letters came back undeliverable.
Upon completion of the investigation Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. immediately presented the evidence to the judge who denied succession as he was unable to overcome the documentary evidence against him.
Vladimir Mironenko and Courtney Lerias of Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. represented the landlord.