Comment #: NY13719
Rating:3.0
Comments:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Petitioner-Complainant Pro Se hereby would file a Verified Complaint to the ‘NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct’ against the Manhattan Housing Court Judge (Judge Evon Asforis, and the staffs of the Supervising Judge Norma Jean Jennings). Their Misconduct involving “Ethical violations; bias/prejudice; racial discrimination; abuse power; intimidation of Petitioner Pro Se, misleading Plaintiff to sign an unreasonable ‘Settlement Agreement’ at the Courtroom 583 at 11:55AM on 4/15/2024. Other tort including “knowingly expunge Plaintiff’s Filing Documents” (25 pages of Verified Statement) etc. This Verified Complaint is the Asian Petitioner reported receiving differential treatment from the Housing Court; and I do not understand the reasons for this distinction.

I regard every Judge in the Court. I would believe that the Judge has only the best intentions to be fair and impartial, but in fact, the judge seems believe the Ownwe's Attorney's one-sided
story in the hearing. (especially in the Petition of HP Action). In the past hearings, I felt that the Judge refused to listen to the Petitioner’s interests; and always relies on landlords attorney’s one-sided statement. In the last hearing two days ago, I believe that the landlords’ new Attorney (Mr. James Notice, Esq) once had an Ex-parte communication with Judge Asforis (and the staffs of Supervising Judge Norma Jean Jennings) and they are “old acquaintances” with ‘conflict of interest’ in Manhattan/Bronx Housing Court. This leads to detrimental outcomes for the LEP (Limited English Proficiency, in oral English).Petitioner Pro Se, who currently has been living in the apartment (with 85 open violations for few years).
In the Matter of Housing Discrimination of the long-suffering Asian tenant-Petitioner Pro Se, who would respectfully request file the ‘Verified Petition in Support of an Order to Show Cause’, requesting an Order Finding Harassment and Restraining Respondent(s) from Harassing Tenant(s)/Petition(s), Pursuant to the Law/Rule of ‘Section 27-2115 Administrative Code of the City of New York’; and that Petitioner has such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

Harassment based on discrimination is illegal. The first of all laws is to respect the law. These law-breakers should be punished severely by the law. This is a basic requirement for modern civilization and nations subject to the rule of law. I view the landlord/owner’s conduct in the gravest light. Bystanders who did not participate in the actual bullying act might give approval and support simply by their presence, thereby, encouraging the perpetrator and might lead to more serious and continuous act of bullying. The relevant authorities should be cited violence and bullying as important challenges.

Comment #: NY13463
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
I represented myself pro se in a case against my landlord. The judge may has well have just walked over and kissed the landlord’s attorney on the behind. She was hostile towards me and the officers of the court were very unhelpful. It was a disgrace.

Comment #: NY4720
Rating:2.2
Comments:
Whether she is aware of it or not, Judge Asforis has a distinct bias in favor of attorneys who appear before her on a daily basis. And given the nature of Housing Court, this is a bias mostly in favor of landlords. Regarding motions, it is not clear to me that she actually carefully reads the briefs of tenant attorneys, or that she reads them with an open mind to the possibility that they may be correct on the law and the facts. For a judge who has been on the bench for at least seven years, she has very few reported decisions. The number of Appellate Term decisions reviewing her Housing Court decisions outnumbers her reported decisions. I surmise that is because she decides most motions in handwritten decisions which do not get reviewed for publication. This practice keeps her decisions out of the public eye. She also puts enormous pressure on tenant attorneys to settle cases on terms favorable to a landlord in the interest of reducing caseload. Overwhelmed assigned counsel appearing before her on a semi-regular basis may feel compelled to go along to get along. This may clear her docket, but it tends not to work substantial justice.

Comment #: NY12101
Rating:2.0
Comments:
Judge Asforis is like a man-- she doesn't listen. Her Honor is currently a judge in Manhattan Housing Court, and Her Honor has a terrible habit of cutting me off and refusing to listen to my clients' interests. This leads to detrimental outcomes for my clients, who are often poor, black, brown, and immigrant tenants.

Her Honor's demeanor on the bench is rude and condescending, and she often relies on landlords' attorney's interpretation of the facts and the law, even when they are patently false. For example, one landlord's attorney accused me of an exparte communication with Judge Asforis, when this was patently false. I explained that all parties were included in the e-mail, and the e-mail showed all parties were in fact included in the e-mail. But, Judge Asforis insisted the e-mail was an exparte communication. Perhaps Her Honor doesn't know the definition of an "exparte communication," or perhaps Her Honor just wasn't listening to me.

There are always remedies for a bad legal outcome, such as appeals and motions to reargue/renew, etc., but these vehicles are not easily accessible to poor tenants and their attorneys who work for legal service providers that are not robustly funded.

I have no doubt Judge Asforis has only the best intentions to be fair and impartial, but currently, she lacks the experience, knowledge, and training to balance out the inherent unfairness between landlords and tenants in New York City Housing Courts.