parties agreeing to a further stay of eviction, thus eliminating the need for service of an
eviction notice, a tenant making an extra trip to the courthouse and the post office
(typically a tenant would come to court first to file an order to show cause, then go the
post office to mail the order to show cause, then return to court one to three weeks later),
and a landlord paying its attorney to draft pro forma opposition papers to the motion for a
stay.
Respondent did not pay her arrears on time. Petitioner had an eviction noticed
served. Respondent moved for a stay. The court scheduled the motion for a day of the
week on which one of the non-profit law firms paid for by the City of New York
pursuant to its so-called "universal access to counsel law" or "right to counsel law" is in
the courtroom to assist tenants.[FN3]
[*3]The motion was adjourned, and by the return date
Respondent had retained counsel. But unfortunately, disappointingly, and paradoxically,
since the agency that pays Respondent's counsel to represent her is the same agency that
processes and approves her FHEPS application, Respondent's counsel had no
information to share with the court regarding the status of her application.[FN4]
The only information available from Respondent on was her stated belief that her
application had been submitted to the Human Resources Administration. Respondent
provided the court with the telephone number of her caseworker at the Catholic Charities
Homebase provider and the court called (on the record). The call went straight to
voicemail. The court then called the main Catholic Charities Homebase telephone
number and informed the person answering the telephone that it was seeking information