Re:NYC Man Spent $200 for a Five-Year Stay at the New Yorker...
by SOLAR_FIELDS on Sunday March 24, 2024 @11:45PM
(#39812700)
Yes it certainly does. Had he been not so crazy and greedy he could have probably lived at the hotel nearly rent free as long as he wanted. It’s quite clear from the article that he has some mental issues, however. If anything it’s a great story about the kind of insanity that exists in NYC rent laws and how deeds are processed by the city
Re:NYC Man Spent $200 for a Five-Year Stay at the New Yorker...
by mmh0000 on Monday March 25, 2024 @12:17PM
(#39818174)
I love A.I. I can't imagine reading a 3000-word article on something so pointless:
TD;DR: Mickey Barreto exploited a NYC rent law to live in the New Yorker Hotel for five years without paying after his first night. He then attempted to claim ownership of the hotel through legal loopholes and bureaucratic oversights, leading to a court battle. Despite momentarily succeeding, his claim was nullified, and he faced eviction and fraud charges, resulting in his arrest and potential imprisonment.
- In June 2018, Mickey Barreto began what would become a five-year residence in the New Yorker Hotel's Room 2565, initially paying for just one night and then never paying again due to exploiting a rent law.
- Barreto, a man with a penchant for conspiracy theories and a claimed distant relation to Christopher Columbus, utilized an obscure NYC rent law meant for certain hotel rooms to attempt to make his hotel stay permanent.
- The law, part of the Rent Stabilization Act of 1969, allowed for guests in certain conditions to request leases for their hotel rooms at discounted rates, turning them into rent-stabilized apartments.
- Barreto sued the hotel for illegal eviction after they tried to remove him for not booking another night, leading to a court ruling in his favor due to the hotel's inability to provide a lease, effectively making him a permanent resident.
- Barreto then attempted to claim ownership of the entire hotel through a series of legal and bureaucratic maneuvers, including filing for a deed that was initially rejected but eventually accepted due to a court ruling misinterpreted by city record-keepers.
- Despite legally owning the hotel on paper for a period, Barreto's claim was later nullified in court, and he faced eviction again for refusing to sign a lease or pay rent.
- Barreto's legal troubles escalated when he was arrested and faced multiple fraud charges related to his scheme to claim ownership of the hotel, leading to his potential imprisonment.
- Throughout his stay, Barreto's actions ranged from demanding financial reports and profits from the hotel to conducting investigations into the Unification Church (the hotel's owners since 1976) for alleged financial misconduct.
Re:NYC Man Spent $200 for a Five-Year Stay at the New Yorker...
by mindslight on Sunday March 24, 2024 @11:36PM
(#39812660)
Obviously trying to cut through NYT's regurgitation of legal details is fraught with problems, but I'm guessing the original court order just basically meant he could move back into the room, pending the hashing out of a formal lease conforming to the Rent Stabilization Act or further legal action. But Barreto (supposedly) took it to mean more than that, and parlayed the order into filing a fraudulent deed which then took much time to clear up.
Taking the narrative at face value, it seems like the root of Barreto's mistaken reasoning was thinking that "possession" means ownership. Then it snowballed when thinking that NYC's refusal to record a deed for a single room entitled him to record a deed for the whole premises, combined with a fundamental misunderstanding of the semantics of deeds (just because you're able to get something recorded does not mean it conveys ownership).
TD;DR: Mickey Barreto exploited a NYC rent law to live in the New Yorker Hotel for five years without paying after his first night. He then attempted to claim ownership of the hotel through legal loopholes and bureaucratic oversights, leading to a court battle. Despite momentarily succeeding, his claim was nullified, and he faced eviction and fraud charges, resulting in his arrest and potential imprisonment.
- In June 2018, Mickey Barreto began what would become a five-year residence in the New Yorker Hotel's Room 2565, initially paying for just one night and then never paying again due to exploiting a rent law.
- Barreto, a man with a penchant for conspiracy theories and a claimed distant relation to Christopher Columbus, utilized an obscure NYC rent law meant for certain hotel rooms to attempt to make his hotel stay permanent.
- The law, part of the Rent Stabilization Act of 1969, allowed for guests in certain conditions to request leases for their hotel rooms at discounted rates, turning them into rent-stabilized apartments.
- Barreto sued the hotel for illegal eviction after they tried to remove him for not booking another night, leading to a court ruling in his favor due to the hotel's inability to provide a lease, effectively making him a permanent resident.
- Barreto then attempted to claim ownership of the entire hotel through a series of legal and bureaucratic maneuvers, including filing for a deed that was initially rejected but eventually accepted due to a court ruling misinterpreted by city record-keepers.
- Despite legally owning the hotel on paper for a period, Barreto's claim was later nullified in court, and he faced eviction again for refusing to sign a lease or pay rent.
- Barreto's legal troubles escalated when he was arrested and faced multiple fraud charges related to his scheme to claim ownership of the hotel, leading to his potential imprisonment.
- Throughout his stay, Barreto's actions ranged from demanding financial reports and profits from the hotel to conducting investigations into the Unification Church (the hotel's owners since 1976) for alleged financial misconduct.
At this point isn't the identity of the killer a certainty? Or does the NYTimes wait for the trial to be over?
Taking the narrative at face value, it seems like the root of Barreto's mistaken reasoning was thinking that "possession" means ownership. Then it snowballed when thinking that NYC's refusal to record a deed for a single room entitled him to record a deed for the whole premises, combined with a fundamental misunderstanding of the semantics of deeds (just because you're able to get something recorded does not mean it conveys ownership).