Jane Doe's psychotic episode violated the contract's essential purpose.
New York, NY (PRWEB) September 5, 2008
First time pro-se (self represented) litigant, wins rare Summary Judgment verdict against Seyfarth Shaw, a powerful international law firm, representing Warburg Realty: case number Farash v. Warburg Associates; Index no. 300297TSN06
Daniel Farash filed suit in 2004 after his home was wrecked by a mentally unstable real estate broker. The realtor was, at the time, employed by the prestigious real estate agency Warburg Realty. Mr. Farash returned home from a weekend away to find his home being trashed by the realtor. He was later informed that the realtor had also harassed his neighbors and that Warburg Realty recklessly abandoned their agent in his home for days knowing their agent could be dangerous.
Warburg Realty refused responsibility for the home destruction, despite having knowledge their agent was emotionally deteriorating during and after the realtors open house. After Warburg shockingly terminated contract days after this home destruction, a court battle ensued wherein one of the wealthier families in New York and their upscale law firm, Seyfarth Shaw, were matched against a first time litigant, who had no legal training or courtroom experience. In a Decision and Order by Honorable Judge Peter Moulton dated August 20, 2008, Mr. Farash won the Breach of Contract component of his lawsuit. The Court noted that Farash was "entitled to Summary Judgment." The Court ruled that, "Jane Doe's psychotic episode violated the contract's essential purpose."
Mr. Farash states, "To survive Summary Judgment against a powerful law firm is very difficult. For a pro-se to win at Summary Judgment is unusual." However, he does not recommend or encourage others to self-represent.
Mr. Farash further states his great displeasure towards Warburg's mis-management of the incident and its aftermath. "This problem should have been resolved years ago." What is the point of using a licensed realtor if they do not have the ability to govern their agents or take responsibility for their agent's misconduct as per New York real estate law?