4 ms·

NYC Man Spent $200 for a Five-Year Stay at the New Yorker Hotel

16 points by edward 3y ago

pinewurst 3y ago
https://archive.ph/Cuu7c https://archive.ph/Cuu7c
erehweb 3y ago
Crazy story. Looks like he could have got away with a lot, had he not pushed it.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago
  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
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ohnoitsahuman 3y ago
Does New York have a functioning justice system? This is insane for this nonsense to go on.
- Simulacra 3y ago
  Not really..
baud147258 3y ago
> Shinzo Abe's alleged killer At this point isn't the identity of the killer a certainty? Or does the NYTimes wait for the trial to be over?
- DoesntMatter22 3y ago
  Every newspaper is will say accused otherwise the person could be found innocent and they could be found liable for falsely accusing someone
Rehanzo 3y ago
This type of shit makes you wonder about all the other crazy legalities that exist out there that nobody takes advantage of.
- 1letterunixname 3y ago
  Adverse possession in states that don't require all paid taxes.
  - Rehanzo 3y ago
    Damn never even knew about adverse possession. Thanks for bringing it up, so interesting.
mindslight 3y ago
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 draft 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).
mmh0000 3y ago
[flagged]

16 points by edward 3y ago

pinewurst 3y ago

https://archive.ph/Cuu7c https://archive.ph/Cuu7c

erehweb 3y ago

Crazy story. Looks like he could have got away with a lot, had he not pushed it.

SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago
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

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ohnoitsahuman 3y ago

Does New York have a functioning justice system? This is insane for this nonsense to go on.

Simulacra 3y ago
Not really..

baud147258 3y ago

> Shinzo Abe's alleged killer At this point isn't the identity of the killer a certainty? Or does the NYTimes wait for the trial to be over?

DoesntMatter22 3y ago
Every newspaper is will say accused otherwise the person could be found innocent and they could be found liable for falsely accusing someone

Rehanzo 3y ago

This type of shit makes you wonder about all the other crazy legalities that exist out there that nobody takes advantage of.

1letterunixname 3y ago
Adverse possession in states that don't require all paid taxes.
- Rehanzo 3y ago
  Damn never even knew about adverse possession. Thanks for bringing it up, so interesting.

mindslight 3y ago

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 draft 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).

mmh0000 3y ago

[flagged]