of events took place culminating in the posting of a marshal notice of eviction on her door.
Marshal Guida credibility testified that his office did not issue, prepare, or post such a notice
of petitioner's door. The eviction notice placed on petitioner's door occurred in August 2020,
while the Executive Order staying eviction was in effect. It is noted that during this critical time
the infections caused by the spread of the virus and the death rates from COVID-19 cases were
on the rise.
Respondent's witness denied any knowledge or awareness of the notice posted on petitioner's
door ever occurring. The alleged lack of knowledge cannot be understood as reasonable or
deemed credible in the context of the evidence presented.
The videos, the telephone calls, the petition for non-payment of rent printed on red paper,
and the fabricated marshal's notice of eviction posted on petitioner's door constitute actions that
rise to the level of harassment. The evidence demonstrates acts that could and would have the
effect to cause petitioner to move out, or worse, to cause an illegal eviction. See, Contreras v. Chi Hao Lin, 71 Misc 3d
1232(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50554(U); Madera v 76-66 Austin Owners Corp., 70 Misc 3d 1208(A), 2021
NY Slip Op 50014(U).
The use of a marshal's notice, a legal document, when there is no legal basis to support it
constitutes harassment. A warrant of eviction can only exist after a court has issued the warrant
requested because a judgement of possession was granted. Respondent did not have a judgment
of possession and the court did not grant a warrant of eviction. Respondent used "cut and paste"
to alter a document and pretended that it was sanctioned by the judicial system. The posting of a