He Didn't Break Any Rules. New York City Is Demanding He Pay a Fine Anyway
The Big Apple's building regulations are almost impossible to navigate, and officials like it that way.

People should be horrified to learn that Serafim Katergaris, a New York City resident, was forced to pay a fine to the city for a code violation he not only didn't commit but had no way of knowing about. But while Katergaris has the means to fight grasping city officials and may ultimately win in court, his Kafkaesque ordeal is no isolated incident. The city's building regulations have long been used to victimize the innocent and to fill government coffers while also lining the pockets of city officials.
"Serafim Katergaris was forced to pay $1,000 to the New York Department of Buildings (DOB) for a code violation he did not commit, did not know about and had no chance to challenge," notes the Institute for Justice (IJ), which is representing the Harlem property owner. "New York City requires property owners with certain kinds of boilers to have their boilers inspected annually and then file a report with the city regarding the inspection. When Serafim bought a home in Harlem in 2014, it did not have a boiler. The previous owner had removed it earlier that year, with the necessary permits and documentation filed with the DOB post-removal. However, the previous owner did not file an inspection report the year before he removed the boiler—something Serafim did not know because the DOB did not assess the violation until after he had purchased the property."
City officials wouldn't even allow Katergaris to argue that he shouldn't be held accountable for a paperwork violation on a boiler he had never owned or even seen. They allowed no appeal of the alleged violation and fine. His response was to cough up the money to allow the pending sale of the property to a new owner to proceed, and to file suit against the city in federal court.
That byzantine code requirements and resulting penalties are common in New York City is obvious from the fact that IJ also represents Queens resident Joe Corsini in a separate lawsuit over rules enforcement around a pigeon coop. And it's not difficult to find yet more examples of unjust enforcement that seem designed to harass and impose unnecessary expense.
"Some of the toughest punishments have had less to do with property owners' flouting safety rules than with their confusion over how to respond to that first ticket. Any delay or misstep can lead to a series of fines that will snowball until the owner certifies that the violation has been set right," The New York Times reported in 2019. "For nearly a decade, a majority of those fines have been imposed not on mega-landlords caught harassing tenants with construction, or developers whose inattention contributes to worker deaths, but owners of one- to four-family homes who are unfamiliar with the intricacies of the building code."
Notably, inspectors are a lot more diligent about ticketing people than they are about determining if there's any actual violation.
"Inspectors did not always wait to gain access to properties before issuing failure-to-comply tickets," the Times added. "They simply posted new tickets on the door if owners weren't home."
This can partly be explained by sheer bureaucratic dickishness on the part of lazy government workers offended that the world doesn't operate at their convenience. But the hard-to-navigate rules are also a money-making opportunity for inspectors who demand bribes to look the other way. Last year, the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York announced a guilty plea on the part of Francesco Ginestri, who "admits to selling his position as a building inspector in exchange for cash." Four years earlier, 16 building inspectors were arrested in a single case for accepting $450,000 in payoffs.
"The 26 indictments filed by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. lay out a stunning portrait of greed in which developers bought off inspectors to overlook code violations and speed their developments to completion," noted the New York Daily News.
How do people know which officials are on the take and how much to pay them? Mostly, they don't—they hire somebody who does the job for them. Among those arrested in 2015 were "expediters," a breed of middlemen who navigate the building codes for builders, contractors, and property owners.
"Filing a permit may sound simple but very basic mistakes can cost you time and money," Brick Underground, a real estate publication, helpfully explained earlier this year. "An expeditor is someone who can handle the filing process for you."
"To navigate the agency's bureaucratic swamp, developers have for years paid 'expediters' to speed their projects to approval—getting permits faster, addressing violations and filling out key paperwork," observed the Daily News in 2015. "It's an arrangement critics have long slammed as corrupt."
The thick and seemingly unknowable tangle of regulations in New York City that ensnared Katergaris not only remains in place, but worsens, year after year because so many people profit from the bureaucratic maze. The rules are not supposed to be reasonable or navigable in any way. The building codes are designed to be insurmountable for anybody who doesn't give city officials what they want. And, more often than not, what they want is to be bribed.
Ultimately, Katergaris may prevail and convince a federal court to require the simple justice that New York City officials refuse to afford their long-suffering subjects.
"The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution guarantees everyone a right to fair notice and an opportunity to be heard in front of an impartial tribunal before the government can impose a punishment," according to IJ. "[Katergaris] has asked the court to declare that unreviewable fines are unconstitutional and order DOB to afford people their right to be heard as due process requires."
But even that will only be a partial victory. While allowing appeals of fines issued for what are often petty violations or errors of judgment on the part of inspectors will certainly somewhat ease the ordeal inherent in dealing with New York City's regulations, it won't alter the existence of rules that are unreasonable and corrupt to their core. Fully addressing the real injustice of New York City's building codes and similar regulations elsewhere requires getting past the idea that they have any legitimacy.
Once people realize that arcane red tape is often intended not to make the world a better place, but to extract compliance and money from the public, they might be more willing to push back. The real victory will come when Katergaris and everybody else who owns property can buy, sell, perform maintenance, and customize what they own to their taste without worrying about regulatory boobytraps and greasing officials' palms.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This is how things are done in India, you need an expediter to steer you through the bureaucratic maze who knows which officials to present with "gifts" and exactly how generous the gifts should be. If it works in India, it should work in New York. A billion Indians couldn't be wrong, could they?
Desantis probably has 1000 indians he can send to NYC to fix this problem.
I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. Thank goodness, I found this employment online and I was able to start working from home right away. [res-07] This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
.
After reading this article:>>>> https://extradollars3.blogspot.com/
Now do Chicago, which can put NYC to shame.
I work from home providing various internet services for an hourly rate of $80 USD. I never thought it would be possible, but my trustworthy friend persuaded me to take the (afr-10) opportunity after telling me how she quickly earned 13,000 dollars in just four weeks while working on the greatest project. Go to this article for more information.
.....
——————————>>> https://smartpay21.pages.dev
So a moron buys a property but doesn't inspect it and see it has no boiler? Did he ask the seller where is the boiler (and reports? Doubtful). It appears that neither he or his lawyer didn't bother to read the Title Search and look for the missing boiler and missing report(s) and ask the seller to give him a copy? And now he claims he had no 'notice' of violations? BS. If there is no boiler, I suspect he bought the property AS IS and assumed all obligations and liabilities hoping to do a few cosmetic changes and flip for a profit.
That it doesn't have a boiler, doesn't mean it has no heating system, only that the boiler was replaced by something else.
If it had been replaced with a different kind of heating system why should he have been concerned about the "missing" boiler?
From the linked article on the IJ site:
The fact that there were permits and documentation on file for the removal, makes me think that the home had a steam heat system replace with something else, not that the boiler was removed and nothing else installed in it's place.
His crime was not getting the boiler inspected the year before it was removed. The injustice is that he didn't own the place at the time the boiler wasn't inspected, yet he's still liable.
Reminds me of when my father went through the process of adding an addition to his house. The previous owner had built a greenhouse without a permit. The building inspector wouldn't approve the addition unless my dad tore down the greenhouse. There wasn't anything wrong with it other than the previous owner didn't ask for permission to build it. So he tore it down and now he doesn't have a greenhouse since it would cost ten grand to replace.
Inspectors like that need to be tarred and feathered.
Your father's remedy is to sue the previous owner since he's the guy that put up the greenhouse without the proper permit.
I feel bad for your dad, but if we have building codes, there need to be mechanisms to enforce them. Once the city becomes aware that something was put up in violation of the code, do you think they should just ignore it?
No, that is not a remedy. That is fucking stupid. JFC.
Assuming no statute of limitations problem, that is absolutely a remedy. The previous owner was negligent in putting the greenhouse up without the proper permits and it was entirely foreseeable that the current owner might incur financial loss as a result. Chances are good the previous owner will turn the lawsuit over to his homeowners insurance, which will likely settle the case.
There was no financial loss. The greenhouse was torn down. He didn't rebuild.
Yes there was. The property is now less valuable because it doesn't include a greenhouse.
Ah, but an illegal greenhouse has no value. Ergo, no loss. :^)
Oh, fuck all y'all.
Yes, JUST IGNORING IT is a perfectly good solution. The greenhouse presents no risk and has existed for at least a decade without leaping out and harming anybody.
It may not be insurable, and THAT would maybe be litigable or negotiable in some way, but no, that inspector was not obliged to take that stance. Nothing in the article indicates the new addition had anything to do with it, either.
The more basic question is whether the lack of a permit caused any danger to persons or property. The correct remedy (assuming the permitting process serves any legitimate purpose, which is doubtful) would be to allow after-the-fact obtaining of a permit for the already constructed greenhouse. Perhaps some small increase over the standard permit fee for not getting it initially but certainly there is no need for the punitive remedy of tearing down a perfectly safe greenhouse.
You left the union construction worker, union plumber and union building inspector out of the loop.
If the violation is just 'didn't ask for permission', that shouldn't be a violation. If the greenhouse was in compliance with all actual regulations, no remedy is needed. No one should ever have to ask government for permission to build something that otherwise complies with rules.
Also, existing construction after a sale should only be forced to be removed if it presents a danger, not if it violates some arbitrary code. (And given we don't require removal of hazardous insulation materials and the like if they're already in place, it would have to be a significant and active danger).
The only violation was that the greenhouse was built without a permit. There was nothing wrong with it. It was simply a case of a petty tyrant exercising his power.
This thing was nice. Humidity controlled and a wood stove for heat. We're talking 9000 feet up into the Rockies, so the growing season is short. A greenhouse is required.
The inspector told my dad straight up "That thing was built without my permission, so I'll only give you permission to extend your living room if you tear it down."
The asshole took it personally.
Petty tyrants vigorously defend their fiefdoms.
The previous owner lost the house because he was growing pot in the greenhouse. So the house was confiscated and dude went to prison. Not sure how you sue someone who is in prison for cultivation and distribution of a Schedule I narcotic.
Did the previous owner have homeowners insurance at the time he owned the house? If so, and assuming no statute of limitations violation, his policy should still cover it.
I'm not disagreeing with you that the inspector was an asshole. Just that it sounds like you have other remedies you may not have exhausted.
He's almost 80. I don't think he cares anymore.
Or, alternatively, is there title insurance? That may cover the loss.
Chances are none was needed when it was built.
Inspectors like that pissed off that nut that shot 30 people in the "no guns allowed" Luby's next to City Hall in Killeen. That--like the pistol champion who left her gun in the car and watched her father get shot--never gets mentioned outside of Killeen.
point being no one should have to get approval from some dipsh1t government idiot before they buy property.
Title search for a boiler? That's not how title searches work.
You have no room to call anyone else "a moron".
Right, it's all his fault that the previous owner replaced the boiler, with all permits and documentation filed properly with the city the year before he bought the property (which you would know if bothered to read the fucking article).
You must work for the city of NY doing code compliance in order to come up with that gem of "logic." Either that or you're a fucking idiot.
It's not "his fault", but he assumes the responsibility for all fines and legal actions associated with the property, including those that he didn't know about and that were incurred by the previous owner. That's the way real estate purchases work.
Depending on his purchase contract, he may be able to recover the fine from the seller.
Code compliance is so full of idiots. I draw homes for a living, just received a plan check from the building department plan checkers and they were wrong on every item I had to waste two days quoting code back to them and some items I said fine i'll do that just to get it to satisfy them. The plan checker is supposed to know the codes they don't. Same with the fire marshal they take some one who can't fight fires anymore and make him/her/it/they/them in charge of compliance and they don't even know the most basic fire codes and i swear some can't even read a set of plans
"Code compliance is so full of idiots."
I get a strong impression that those jobs are not handed out through a process of rigorously vetting the applicants and their qualifications.
I've owned, rented,and otherwise occupied quiteanumber of dwellings, and have yet to ever live in one that has or had a boiler. The fault lies not with the purchser of the home, who did so in good faith with a seller of good faith who had done what the ridiculous city poohbahs demanded of him.
What shocks me is that the city have the gall to demand, as a precondition of removing a certain part of the structure and its systems, a PERMISSION SLIP to remove something that is already MINE, and harms no one whether it is there or elsewhere. HOW is that a concern of government whether there is a boiler in plce or not?
Next they will be calling inspections to verify the colour of your skivvies. For a FEE, of course.
The most remarkable aspect of this incident is that there are so many New Yorkers submitting to this travesty rather than simply shifting house elsewhere.
"The most remarkable aspect of this incident is that there are so many New Yorkers submitting to this travesty rather than simply shifting house elsewhere."
Well yeah, but spread this kind of petty graft out among all the NYC employees, cops, inspectors, certificators who collect from that "fixer", anybody that has access to materiel stored and inventoried by the city, and on and on. And they all got families who benefit from these grifts. Hell, even the fixer has a family.
That's New York, and by all accounts, only Chicago might be worse.
Absurd though process. I purchased a home under a standard contract title fee simple and as is. Fee simple means that there is NO ENCUMBRANCE. All real estate transactions are this way in most states UNLESS stated otherwise therein.
There are three issues. 1. The government KNEW the boiler was gone, it received all paperwork.
2. Inspection can NOT be performed on what does not exist.
3. If the permit to remove the boiler was issued within the time frame of a required inspection, no inspection would be required as it was an obsolete non-functioning appliance.
4. If the government had all this information and issued a citation, then they violated property rights and in doing so were extorting the NEW owner. Look up extortion. If unpaid the city will file a lien on property which becomes theft of property if done wrongly.
I would NEVER live in NYC, you will NEVER see this kind of FILTHY criminal activity in a RED STATE. You people that love the blue states, have fun with the graft and corruption and the extortion.
"Expeditors" have families too.
We moved to Spain last year and I hired a "consultant" just ensure we could get the appointments required to submit the correct paperwork. Let alone get the submissions approved.
"Feature, not bug." - New York Dept. of Buildings
I know of a situation where a commercial development, a small one, has taken five years to get through the maze of bureaucracy. It's crazy what they do in New York. Really, don't buy a building in the city, just rent.
Just a specific case of the general rule. In my town south of Boston, the same lawyer was named in the local newspaper as representing builders/developers/homeowners before town boards for decades. In a metropolitan area (Boston) of 2.5 million people, do you think there are no other lawyers qualified to do the work and hungry for the income? This Nimrod just knew which palms to grease, and everyone knew it. No one talked about it outside of closed doors, but if you looked at the hearing schedules, it was plain as the nose on your face.
I always love how people complain that big corporations and big business control everything and that mom and pop shops and operations don't exist anymore. Then these same people support the creation and enforcement of massively complex regulatory frameworks and don't once consider why only big corporations and big business are the only ones capable of wading through such framework.
Well said.
Well, technically, they are right: it is big corporations and big businesses that are actually responsible for the creation and enforcement of massively complex regulatory frameworks, precisely because that drives their smaller competitors out of business. That's called "regulatory capture". It's behind a lot of environmental, "workers rights", "net neutrality", DEI, "COVID safety", "workplace safety", etc. regulations.
They usually find some bogus justification that sounds good to do-gooders, but it's not the do-gooders that are the source of the regulation.
I know all about regulatory capture. But that was kind of a non-sequitur to my comment.
You said that "people complain that big corporations and big business control everything ... [then] these same people support the creation and enforcement of massively complex regulatory frameworks".
That falsely suggests that the root cause of concentration is people concerned about "big corporations controlling everything", when the root cause is actually the opposite: big corporations lobbying for those "massively complex regulatory frameworks".
Whether you know that or not doesn't matter, I needs pointing out, because lots of people don't know it.
"The building codes are designed to be insurmountable for anybody who doesn't give city officials what they want. And, more often than not, what they want is to be bribed."
The above statement is false. It just is not true.
There are plenty of things that are wrong with building codes. But they are not designed to make it impossible to build or maintain a building. They are sometimes stupidly specific and at other times annoyingly vague, and often try to apply a one-size-fits-all solution to problems that may or may not even exist. But that is the opposite of design.
Building code officials do not 'more often than not' want to be bribed. I've been dealing with those guys in many jurisdictions across the US for a couple of decades, and have never needed to bribe anyone. Zero times. If New York City is having an issue with that, it's a local culture thing, not a function of the building code.
Individual building code officials do not want to be bribed. The "bribery" that's involved is simply in creating massive public and private sector employment opportunities. That is, the building code official wouldn't receive his salary and lavish pension if the building code were much simpler, and he couldn't go on to a lucrative private sector career putting his knowledge to work after retiring with a big pension. That's the way "bribery" works in the US. Tuccille's reduction to it to simple bribery is either rooted in ignorance or deliberate misdirection.
Right, so "generate revenue for the city at building owners expense" would be correct, not the criminal act of bribery. The revenue generation may be wrong but ultimately not illegal like the dipshit writes.
In NYC, there's also real bribery (as evidenced by the criminal prosecutions). I'd bet on Chicago too.
Ahh, but you forget that the Building codes are not just the International codes and formerly National Codes. They include the local AHJ regulations and processes. In Texas I can still make a napkin drawing and build even without a wet stamp in many places.
In FL, In small towns even it can take 6 months to get past the code and building departments and have a permit.
In fact, the ADA has a FEDERALLY STAMPED book of ADA bathrooms PREAPPROVED NATION WIDE, meaning no JURISDICTION CAN SAY NO TO THAT DESIGN, commercial or residential.
In FL I was required to get a WET STAMP at a cost of over $2000 for 4 identical bathrooms. The engineer took my drawings and the copy of the federal registry and added "Build per current codes". It was a CRIMINAL ACT by that city and extortion as well.
Worse, the engineer did not even know nor care to know where the waste lines ran nor did he know their depth and whether a pump would be required, That was all left to the PLUMBER. The city didn't care either.
The previous owner had removed it earlier that year, with the necessary permits and documentation filed with the DOB post-removal.
In a sane world, this wold have triggered a flag in a computer somewhere to remove this address from the Boiler Watch List or whatever it's called. At the time of removal, everything is kosher and resolved with "necessary permits and documentation filed with the DOB" part of this story. If the DOB didn't assess fines at the time of removal-permit , that is on them.
Nope, it isn't. If the fine is legally valid, the current owner of the property has to pay it, just like any other obligation that transferred with the sale.
The boiler inspection fine itself may well be bogus, but that's a separate issue.
The sale of property is FEE SIMPLE. That means that the old owner may not leave any debt behind. IN fact the ONLY debts including taxes that are allowed on any sale are those SPECIFICALLY Stated in the sale contract.
The issue is not who, it is what. The city considers itself a LIEN HOLDER on all property at all times. They file actual liens when they go through an illegal, immoral, unethical process that has no oversight, no legal judge, and no jury. Specifically, the United States Constitution REQUIRES an impartial jury for any amount over $20 if there is a challenge. It also REQUIRES a JURY if either party wants one.
The cities have created "administrative fines" in an attempt to circumvent the Constitution (civil penalties and fines etc) (the IRS does the same thing, civil penalties without a hearing or judge or jury, an administrator only). They then LIEN the property and in some states can force sale. The fines can be 2000 a day for not cutting your lawn or having cracked paint under you eaves etc.
There is nothing legal, logical nor Constitutional about any of that.
The County cited me (10 day notice) for not mowing the right-of way adjacent to my property and outside my property boundary. Requiring me to mow it is Slavery or indentured servitude, Both unlawful federally.
I sent a letter back to that department telling them that my bid was $350 per month to mow the 1/6 acre area, I used the citation number and referenced it as a WORK ORDER. I told them I would begin mowing on (9th day) per their instructions and purchase order.
That ended the entire issue, The county said "never mind" in a heart beat.
Good god, that's a lot of verbiage to say the same thing I was saying: the buyer has to pay the fee. He can recover the money from the seller.
The fine Katergaris is supposed to pay is a fine that was incurred by the previous property owner and simply stays with the property when purchased. Katergaris may or may not be able to recover the fine from the previous owner, depending on the purchase contract. Yeah, it sucks, but that kind of stuff happens when you buy real estate.
The regulations may well be absurd and the enforcement arbitrary, but that's simply not the issue here.
The issue is that there are no rules except what the government says and you are without recourse.
The problem arose because the building dept issued a permit without determining if there were any existing violations. Fining the new owner for the failure of the previous owner to have the rquired inspection on a boiler that the city approved for remopval is a farce.
That's not the issue "here", that's pretty much the rule for all code and zoning issues.
It's not the building department's job to check that.
When you buy a piece of property, you assume responsibility for the entire history of it, including any failures of previous owners.
Actually you do NOT accept any liability nor responsibility for debts not liened by time of sale. If you are a bank and file a mortgage AFTER the owner sells to another and after that other owner files their deed, the mortgage is VOID and becomes...an unsecured loan.
So We know that any business, even a BANK with a FEDERALLY INSURED LOAN can not encumber the property after transfer to a third party. The issue is that the city did NOT send notice to this owner, did not give this owner opportunity to address the condition, and did not contact the original owner. They LIENED PROPERTY unlawfully in accordance with FEDERAL AND STATE general laws. Cities should not be above the law, ever.
Just like the above bank, the city took too long to process its paperwork and make the lien. The lien should have been VOID ON ITS FACE because the city fails in due diligence and timing.
Remember DEEDS work the same way. If you give three people deeds to the same property all signed on consecutive days, the FIRST PERSON TO FILE their deed gets the property, the others get NOTHING. Dates of the deeds mean NOTHING. Filing dates are everything. Cities should NOT be exempt.
As you point out yourself, "The city considers itself a LIEN HOLDER on all property at all times."
If the previous owner is the problem, which everyone seems to agree on, why doesn't the state go fine him instead of the new owner?
Why is the onus on the new owner to go chase him through the court system? Make the state do that if they want their thousand bucks so bad.
Because that's not how real estate works. There is nothing particularly un-libertarian or illiberal about it and it has nothing to do with whether the party demanding money is government or private.
Debt and other financial obligations associated with a property are usually contractually associated with the property in a way that they transfer with the sale of the property and in which the current owner is responsible to settle those obligations.
It's the seller's responsibility to disclose any such obligations, and it's the buyer's responsibility to deal with them if they go ahead an buy the property.
This just results in a system where someone gets punished for someone else's misdeed. You're OK with that?
"That's just how real estate works" is not a particularly compelling argument.
It does no such thing. Old fines and other obligations are like any other costly real-estate defect: the contract specifies whether the buyer or the seller is responsible.
If the property was warranted to be free of all obligations by the seller then Katergaris can recover the money from the seller. If he bought the property "as is", then he is responsible. That was something the buyer and the seller negotiated and enters into the price.
"It's how private contracts and free markets work." and "caveat emptor", however, are compelling arguments to a libertarian.
Of course, if you're some kind of socialist, this may offend your sensibilities.
Maybe the previous owner knows how to point hitmen at bureaucrats? There are reasons predators attack the weak and stragglers.
This is the Reason journalism we need. Conniving looter bureaucrats conspire to spring a trap on an entrepreneur, and... Hark! What's that sound? The bugles of approaching Institute of Justice wizards exposing the cruel fraud and assisting the actual victim of coercion! Tuccille knows the score, assembles facts the victim's friends can point to with pride and enhanced appreciation of Libertarian efforts to repeal similar dung-smeared laws. They will remember this on election day. J.D. is Justice Done, and he done us proud!
I did contracting work. I would tell clients who wanted to skirt some permitting laws that the IRS can take your house away, but the lady at town hall can make you take it down.
Having done some work in NYC on lofts we did not get permits and merely tipped the building super.
Crazy world. Knowledge is power.
A seemingly unrelated recent case, NYSRPA v Bruen, may find some applicability here. Net, Bruen came down on adherence to Constitutional text, history, and tradition and held that practices that did not comport with t/h/t were facially unconstituional.
I live in a rural area. I built a deck, finished my basement, and a new greenhouse. Life is good.
He Didn't Break Any Rules. New York City Is Extorting Money From Him Anyway