Bailey v. Dixon

• Decision Date: 04 June 2015
• Docket Number: No. L & T51481/15.,L & T51481/15.
• Citation: 18 N.Y.S.3d 577 (Table)
• Parties: Evadine BAILEY, Petitioner, v. Anthony DIXON and Tracy Lloyd, Respondent.
• Court: New York Civil Court

18 N.Y.S.3d 577 (Table)

Evadine BAILEY, Petitioner
v.
Anthony DIXON and Tracy Lloyd, Respondent.

No. L & T51481/15.

Civil Court, City of New York.

June 4, 2015.

Patrick Cato, Esq., Office of Legal Affairs, NYC Human Resources Administration, New York City.

Evadine Bailey, Brooklyn, pro se.

Shani Friedman, GAL, on behalf of Mr. Anthony Dixon, Brooklyn.

Tracy Lloyd, Brooklyn, pro se.

SUSAN F. AVERY, J.

BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CASE

In this no lease holdover, petitioner, Ms. Evadine Bailey, seeks possession of the room she rents to respondents Mr. Anthony Dixon and Ms. Tracy Lloyd. On February 4, 2015, Ms. Bailey and Ms. Lloyd appeared in court for a scheduled court appearance. On that date, Ms. Bailey and Ms. Lloyd appeared in this proceeding without the assistance of counsel (“pro se ”), and entered into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation provided for a possessory judgment and a monetary judgment for a sum certain, against Ms. Lloyd, who agreed to vacate the premises by March 31, 2015.

After the warrant issued and March 31, 2015 passed without Ms. Lloyd vacating the premises, Ms. Lloyd filed an Order to Show Cause seeking to stay execution of the warrant of eviction, stating “I need additional time to seek services for Mr. Dixon through Adult Protective Services ...”¹ The petitioner, a senior citizen, orally opposed the motion.

Subsequently, this proceeding appeared on the court calendar on May 21, 2015, as the New York City Human Resources Administration, Department of Social Services (“HRA”)² moved for the appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem, to protect the rights and interests of the respondent, Mr. Dixon.

MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN ADLITEM

In the instant application before the court, HRA moves for a Guardian Ad Litem to be appointed for respondent, Mr. Dixon. Petitioner does not oppose the application. Accordingly, the application by HRA was granted, and by a decision/order dated May 27, 2015, this court appointed Ms. Shani R. Friedman as the Guardian Ad Litem for Mr. Dixon, to protect his rights and interests in the instant holdover proceeding.

RESPONDENT'S DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR IN THE COURTROOM

It is the responsibility of this court to note on this record, that the co-respondent, Ms. Tracy Lloyd made several outbursts in the courtroom, on the record, while court was in session and was therefore removed from the courtroom. Additionally, the record reflects that, as Ms. Lloyd exited the courtroom, she continued to shout and disrupt court proceedings.³

ALLEGATIONS OF ELDER ABUSE

Following Ms. Lloyd's outbursts and removal from the courtroom, petitioner stated that she has witnessed Ms. Lloyd and/or Ms. Lloyd's guests, throw items such as shoes at Mr. Dixon, a 67 year old senior citizen. Ms. Bailey also stated that she has witnessed Ms. Lloyd and/or Ms. Lloyd's guests physically remove Mr. Dixon from the premises and force him to sleep outside at night in the cold weather, and that Ms. Lloyd confiscates Mr. Dixon's monthly financial benefits assistance and only gives him money to purchase cigarettes. Alarmed by the allegations, the court asked Mr. Dixon if the allegations made by Ms. Bailey were true. Mr. Dixon informed the court that they were.⁴

Concerned, with the serious charge that Mr. Dixon is being abused in his home, as so many elders are,⁵ this court asked the attorney for HRA, as the representative of the administration that is responsible to protect our seniors, if more could be done by the department, beyond requesting that this court appoint a Guardian Ad Litem, to protect Mr. Dixon, a vulnerable senior, in this holdover proceeding.⁶

HRA'S IMMEDIATE RESPONSE

Counsel for HRA, Patrick C. Cento, Esq.,⁷ seemed to share the court's concern, and called his supervisor, who within an hour, dispatched a team of three (3) employees from HRA to conduct an emergency evaluation of Mr. Dixon.⁸ The representatives from HRA met with Mr. Dixon in private, and following their evaluation, proposed several options to protect Mr. Dixon, and keep him safe.

POST EMERGENCY EVALUATION COURT PROCEEDINGS

Upon the completion of the HRA team's emergency evaluation, Ms. Lloyd was permitted back into the court room and the proceedings continued on the record. This court inquired as to the course, if any, Team HRA, deemed appropriate to immediately protect Mr. Dixon.⁹ Team provided several options, including immediately notifying the New York Police Department (“NYPD”) Captain–in–Charge of the Domestic Violence Unit of the local Police Precinct; and to partner with “JASA”¹⁰ to secure an order of protection in favor of Mr. Dixon against Ms. Lloyd, arrange for “unannounced visits” to the subject premises, and commence an Article 81 proceeding.¹¹

The court permitted Ms. Lloyd to make a statement on the record, which was followed by Mr. Dixon's statement that Ms. Lloyd is not abusing him and he does not want to move forward with any charges against her.

THE “IF YOU SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING” & TLRtrade;¹² CAMPAIGN APPLIES TO MORE THAN SUSPICIOUS PACKAGES

It is of no moment to this court that following the emergency examination by Team HRA, Mr. Dixon stated that he did not...