Order In The Courtroom, Landlord Takes Paul Ganim To Court

This is an OIB classic for several reasons. Judge of Probate Paul Ganim has been taken to court for failure to pay rent at 271 Grovers Avenue, corner of Harborview Avenue in Black Rock. The house is owned by Gayle Gleckler who’s being represented by former State Senator Rob Russo. Gleckler wants Paul Ganim evicted. The action also names Jane Doe, presumably the judge’s significant other. The judge recently finalized a testy divorce.

Lots of chatter in Black Rock about the eviction case. This one will be titillating to watch not just because Ganim is a judge of probate but also because he himself is a landlord who knows the ins and outs and trickery of housing law, and also because when you deal with a Ganim everything is a negotiation. I can just imagine the conversations between Gleckler and Ganim:

“Paul, why haven’t you paid the rent?”

“What do you mean, I paid the rent.”

“No you haven’t.”

“Depends on your interpretation of haven’t.”

“You’re short on the rent.”

“That’s because this broke, that broke and the other thing broke.”

“You never told me it broke so you took it upon yourself to deduct from the rent what you claim broke?”

“It seemed the only sensible thing to do under the circumstances.”

“You can’t do that.”

“What do you mean I can’t do that. I just did.”

“Well, please vacate the premises.”

“I’m not leaving the premises.”

“Why not? I want you out. You didn’t pay the rent.”

“I have rights. Oh, and by the way, since I have rights, it would serve you well not to enter the premises.”

“But it’s my house.”

“But I am the rightful occupant. So don’t enter.”

“I can’t enter my own house?”

“I’m not inclined to let you in.”

Eeeeeeeee!

Russo is presenting Gleckler’s case before Superior Court Judge Sheridan Moore. To see the sequence of court filings and upcoming hearings in June, see here.

0
Share

21 comments

  1. Maybe the Playhouse can move into Ganim’s digs. We can call it the Playhouse on the Green Grovers. At least the Ganims can claim to have tried to do something to keep it open.
    What is with Finch’s response? Good luck finding a new home, now leave me alone.

    0
  2. Finch will use bonding to finance a plan. Then have press releases and meetings to announce he is putting together a plan. By the time that is done the election will come and go and nothing else will get done.

    0
    1. Grin Reaper,
      Finch and advisers have been in Hartford advancing a plan to get Pension Plan A on a State acceptable funding trajectory that will defy a real answer until after November. The City has had three years of time with annual reports to the State to figure out an answer under Public Act 09-9 Section 14, but deferral of attending to the issue until now allows the Mayor to crow about flat property taxes as a part of his campaign while submitting unbalanced budgets to be approved by the City Council. Meanwhile he travels and communicates with Hartford (and no one else) about what is going on in Bridgeport.

      Here are excerpts from Mayor Bill Finch’s (April 26, 2011) letter to State Treasurer Denise Nappier and Benjamin Barnes, Secretary of State of Connecticut Office of Policy and Management:
      “The current economic crisis has also significantly affected the City’s revenue. This has necessitated significant cuts in City services and the wages of City employees and, despite such cuts, caused significant strain on the City’s budget and a deterioration of the City’s fund balance.” Strain on what … voter gullibility and credibility??? Council person Blunt, how say you about “wages of City employees?”

      And further on:
      “Clearly the City cannot afford to make the statutorily required contributions without further detrimental reductions in City services or exorbitant tax increases … the City needs more time. But the City also needs relief from some of the legislative mandates relating to POBs (Pension Obligation Bonds) if Pension Plan A is to remain viable.” The City is not truthful in its rendition of local events it is telling the State. And who in the City has ever understood the Pension Obligation Bond issue in the first place? So we should borrow once again without full disclosure from John Stafstrom City Bond Council?

      Where did the Mayor’s cutting occur? Was it among people in various departments who opposed what they saw as initiatives not in the public interest? And when they were terminated and pursued wrongful termination or such, what is the record of legal department costs defending the City, of settlements paid by the City when the City could not sustain their claims, and the subsequent loss of long term experienced City employees that cannot immediately be replaced by political appointees or reorganizations that drop important City functions (CitiStat promised efficiencies for instance). Where are the 200 cuts?

      And the unrestricted fund balance was reduced to its current low level (and undistinguished position in Finch’s financial hierarchy) through the Ganim and Fabrizi administrations, so the fact that the “rainy day fund” was dry was not news to Finch.

      Ask Bill about the “Internal Service Fund” connected to Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) and how it has created an additional City liability averaging $20 Million per year for the past three years. Did the City pay any interest to borrow money to pay these bills, because there were not enough tax revenues in the Budget? And Mayor Finch says: “The City anticipates eliminating the fund deficits through future grants and revenues.” And taxpayers know the ‘revenues’ he ‘anticipates’ are increasing property tax revenues paid by the electorate after he is re-elected.

      Aren’t you happy Mayor Finch is so skilled in financial management and revealing the same truthful story to all of his audiences?

      0
  3. Glerkler v. Judge Paul Ganim

    Plaintiff’s Atty./Rob Russo: Your Honor this is a case of nonpayment of rent.
    Judge: How much is the past rent for?

    Plaintiff’s Atty./Rob Russo: Mr. Ganim moveed in and never paid a dime! $12,500 in rent, plus costs, sir.

    Defendant Ganim: Judge, every month I put all my bills in a hat. Then I put the hat over my head, and shake all my bills up, so I can’t see which bill I’m going to pick to pay that month.

    Plaintiff Atty./Rob Russo: Judge that’s not fair to my client!

    Judge: Mr. Ganim did you put the Plaintiff rent in your hat every month?
    Defendant Ganim: Yes I did your Honor, every month.

    Plaintiff’s Atty./Rob Russo: Judge, that’s no way to pay someone’s bills!
    Plaintiff’s Atty./Rob Russo: My Client may never get paid!

    Defendant Ganim: Your Honor, She’s just having a bad run of luck, sir.
    Judge: It happens.
    Judge: Judgment for the defendant.

    Defendant Ganim: Judge I also have a countersuit for $15k
    Judge: Granted!
    Judge: Next case!
    Ganim whispers to Russo, Tell your Client she’s out of the hat this month.

    0
  4. So now we know:
    • A couple of City Councilmen are tax cheats, which is another way of saying they are CROOKS.
    • Mayor Finch has been passing out the city’s legal business to attorneys and law firms that made contributions to his re-election campaign. It does look suspiciously like kickbacks or pay-to-play, both colloquialisms for CROOKED behavior. Finch and Adam “Pecker” Wood, major domo pain-in-the-ass, chief cook and bottle washer, can spin it all they want to. Neither will be able to make a silk purse out of this particular sow’s ear.
    • Judge of Probate Paul Ganim, a wife beater, is being evicted for nonpayment of rent, which means he’s a CROOK.
    A criminal conviction is not required to earn this designation. I looked it up; there is federal case law on point.

    0
    1. Hey KID, what do you call six or more City employees voting on City budgets that pay them or a family member a salary and benefits? Do you call it a “conflict of interest?” Being an employee by itself is not a conflict I suggest. Being a Council person who works in private industry, is retired, or self-employed is not on the face of it a conflict of interest, either, I suggest. But putting those two things together causes a tug of war of loyalties, so how does one resolve your personal financial interest from your duty as a Council person? Good question. One answer is to recuse oneself. Does a Council person take an oath of office? Do they pledge to uphold anything specifically or generally? How can we help them understand these difficulties?
      Perhaps recusal would cause a different problem. If too many recused themselves or were ill or opposed the budget, what would happen??? That is a good question to deal with, but first people must weigh in on whether enough of us see this as a “conflict of interest.” Some opinions from the City Attorney this year might act as precedent where they see a conflict or problem. Perhaps they could focus on the issue of Council persons voting on budget items that benefit them.

      0
    1. Any thoughts Joey has of sticking his crooked beak into the mayoral run is certain to be banished by the old man. “When you call a Ganim … you get screwed.” The law firm is the hub of the financial well being of a large family. Clearer heads than Joey and Paulie will not place that in jeopardy. When Papa retires, that firm could go right down the tubes if the boys don’t watch themselves.

      0
  5. This all reminds me of the 3 Stooges law firm from one of their short movies … with apologies to the
    3 Stooges … “Dewey, Screwem, & Howe.”
    The modern version changes the middle name to “Fukkem.”

    0
  6. Brother George is the heir apparent. Sonny & Fredo aren’t qualified to be Don. Pick the son smart enough to keep his nose clean in the public eye. It’s good for the family, and it’s good for business.

    0

Leave a Reply