Covid ​“Brain Fog” Slows 66 Norton Case

Covid-induced ​“brain fog” won a landlord’s attorney yet another continuance in an ongoing legal dispute centered on an infamous, newly rehabbed Edgewood Avenue apartment complex.

That was the outcome of Monday morning’s brief online hearing in the case Sunderland Electric, LLC v. 66 Norton LLC.

66 Norton, once known as ​“New Jack City” for all the crime that occurred there, also became known citywide for dangerous structural conditions that required the sudden displacement of tenants. A new landlord has since rebuilt the complex, and it has reopened — while a dispute over some of the early work that led to that reopening continues to play out in court.

The latest chapter in that court case played out Monday, when State Superior Court Judge Claudia Baio granted Middletown attorney Kyle Barrett’s request for another continuance in the case after Barrett described his recent struggles with ​“brain fog” stemming from Covid-19.

Barrett said that that condition — a persistent cognitive haze that has emerged as one of the novel coronavirus’s disturbingly common and longer lasting side effects — has prevented him from helping his client comply with previous court-ordered discovery requests in a timely manner.

“I’m very aware that there have been three continuance requests for discovery,” he said Monday as he asked for another 45-day extension. ​“This most recent request partially involves discovery, and it also involves myself.”

Barrett said he came down with a case of Covid-19 in March and has struggled with ​“brain fog” for the past month. ​“It’s taken me longer to do things,” he said. ​“It’s day to day. Some days are fantastic. Others are difficult.”

For a relatively young person like himself, Barrett said, the persistence of this Covid-induced fogginess months after he contracted the disease has been an unwelcome surprise.

Acknowledging that there are ​“a variety of challenges associated with Covid” and expressing her sympathy for Barrett’s condition, Baio granted the continuance request, pushing the evidentiary hearing in the case out another 45 days.

Seeking To Foreclose On $25K+ Mechanic’s Lien

The case itself centers on $25,765.49 in allegedly unpaid-for electrical work that was done last spring at the rehabbed and recently reopened 40-unit Edgewood Avenue apartment complex. (After a false start this spring that resulted in tenants displaced to area hotel rooms before the building had even officially reopened, 66 Norton St. passed its final city inspection and received its certificate of occupancy on July 8. City Building Official Jim Turcio said that the city conducted 64 inspections of the property over the past two years to make sure that it’s safe to live in now.)

According to the lawsuit, Sunderland Electric had a contract in February 2020 to provide over $455,000 worth of electrical work at 66 Norton St. That amount was to ​“to be paid in stages of work performed and/or materials purchased.”

After the property’s landlord, a holding company controlled by Brooklyn-based landlord Michael Zolty, told the subcontractor in early March 2020 to stop work and terminated the agreement, Sunderland Electric filed a mechanic’s lien on the property for the $25,765.49 in work it had allegedly done so far.

A September 2020 revised complaint in the state lawsuit seeks to foreclose on that $25,000-plus lien, and argues that Zolty’s company is in breach of contract for ending the agreement early.

“The plaintiff furnished materials and rendered services in the renovation and improvement of the electrical system of an existing forty unit residential apartment building on the premises under a contract agreement dated February 6, 2020,” the lawsuit reads. ​“Despite demand, the Defendant has failed, neglected or refused to pay the amount billed.”

In October 2020, the landlord and his attorney filed a motion in state court seeking to discharge or reduce the mechanic’s lien.

In that response document, they argue that the work performed was ​“gratuitous,” that there was never any written contract signed between the subcontractor and the building’s owner, and that the agreement between Sunderland Electric and the project’s general contractor was deficient because the building’s owner never officially authorized the electrical work.

“The amount of the lien is grossly excessive in light of the actual work performed and/or materials provided by the plaintiff,” that response reads.

In an Aug. 13 answer and special defense filed in the case, Barrett wrote that ​“any alleged agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant Owner and/or agent of the Defendant Owner was deficient for lack of a meeting of the minds.” And, he continued, ​“any alleged agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant Owner and/or agent of the Defendant Owner was deficient for mutual mistake.”