Thomas Breen photo
Judge John Cirello Tuesday in housing court.
One of the city’s largest landlords agreed to pay $500 in fines related to a suite of housing code violations at properties that have subsequently been repaired.
That landlord is Shmuel Aizenberg of Ocean Management. Ocean, a property management company, controls hundreds of low-income apartments and millions of dollars worth of apartments across the city.
Aizenberg appeared in state housing court on the third floor of 121 Elm St. Tuesday morning for his third and final court appearance for three separate criminal housing cases.
Those cases stemmed from various housing code violations found by the city’s Livable City Initiative (LCI) over the past year at two Ocean Management-controlled properties in Dixwell and Newhallville.
Having struck a deal with the state prosecutor’s office and having completed the necessary fixes at those properties, Aizenberg pleaded guilty to two municipal ordinance violations under state statute 7 – 148(c)(10). That’s a generic section of state law that empowers municipalities to enforce regulations by issuing warnings, citations, and penalties of up to $250 per violation.
Aizenberg also agreed to pay $250 fines for each of the two cases, resulting in $500 in total.
The state agreed to nolle the rest of criminal housing charges in those cases, effectively putting to bed these three cases against Aizenberg.
Shmuel Aizenberg, attorney Ian Gottlieb, and state prosecutor Donna Parker.
“All the work has been brought into compliance, and the city attests” that the repairs have been done, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Donna Parker said on Tuesday.
In her recitation of the “factual basis” for these three charges, Parker said that LCI found “several problems” at these two properties — 55 Carmel St. and 76 Thompson St. — “from debris to smoke detectors not being available, carbon monoxide [detectors not available], and certain repairs to ceilings and the building itself.”
“All the repairs have been made,” she repeated, “to Livable City’s finding him in compliance” with the city housing code.
After talking Aizenberg through his rights, state Superior Court Judge John Cirello accepted the two pleas and the state’s nolle.
“The court finds that the defendants’ pleas are knowingly and voluntarily made, with the assistance of competent counsel,” he said. “There’s a factual basis for the plea. The plea is accepted, and the finding of guilty entered.”
Aizenberg: All repairs are done. Planning to meet with LCI soon to talk process.
After the five-minute hearing, Aizenberg stressed to the Independent that all of the housing code issues found by LCI in these cases have now been addressed.
He said that his company was finally able to schedule a reinspection with LCI and a tenant at one of the properties last Friday. When LCI came, he said, they quickly signed off on the problems in question as fixed. He also said that Ocean has “gut renovated” 55 Carmel St.‘s first-floor bathroom — which the Independent found earlier this month had cracked tiles coated in what looked like mold. (That bathroom was not included in the original LCI housing code violation order that ultimately led to Aizenberg’s prosecution in housing court in this case.)
Aizenberg also repeated a critique of LCI that he (and other local landlords in the comments section of this article) offered after a previous hearing: “LCI needs to be more communicative” with landlords.
He said he plans to sit with officials from LCI in the coming days to talk through the housing code inspection process as it exists today, and open up clearer lines of communication between Ocean and the city.
“Something has to change,” he said.
The title is misleading, why not "mega-landlord found guilty but off the hook with a $500 fine". The repercussion of this case would be damaging, if not entrenching biases. This is a multi-million corporation that can afford lawyers and time in court to get a slap on the wrist. Some of the violations from previous reports seemed pretty serious like the bathroom mold, but only two were fined? LCI escalated the code-enforcement to criminal charges, due to a "communication issue". Sounds like LCI was on a hunt for "evil landlords" but let the prize flip from their own incompetence.
I have no sympathy for either parties, but dread as a conscientious landlord-by-accident. I worked with LCI on my sec 8 tenant who willfully damaged her unit. I called up LCI for enforcing tenant's accountability, but LCI came solely after me. LCI failed me on tenant-caused damage with other "violations" for the most minor issues like a gap between door and wall and branch piles in the yard that a regular homeowner wouldn't bother. After I spent thousands to fix the problems, LCI still cited "quality issue" and failed me without granting a hearing. My tenant is living now for free with her entitled attitude and lease-violating behavior (which the Housing Court found "not serious enough" for eviction). I have since lost confidence in LCI's rule-enforcing contract and the Housing Court's fairness. LCI could prosecute me easily for more than two violations. Not sure if I am on LCI's blacklist, I am surely guilty by simply being a landlord, and I have no money nor time to fight any charges.
Nowadays, the news is always about a tenant's "helplessness" and a landlord's heartlessness, or at most, financial loss. Is it still a myth that there are professional tenants who blatantly violate social contracts and game the welfare system? It is never just about communication breakdown, it is about a system that only communicates one direction by pitching one party against the other, as shown again.