The Defendant is charged with violating New York's Property Management Code section 107.1.1 for having an unsafe structure in the city. The matter proceeded to trial July 20, 2023. After the city attorney rested her case, the Defendant began to testify and indicated that he had an attorney. The matter was adjourned to August 10, 2023, for appearance with counsel.

It is undisputed that the Defendant Willis Mang is not the title owner of property. The Defendant's relation to the property is that he is one of three directors of Living Earth Sanctuary, Inc., which is the title owner of the property. The city attorney indicated that she would submit a written application to amend the charges to include Living Earth Sanctuary, Inc., and the defense attorney was given time to respond to that application. There is no question that a director can accept service on behalf of a corporation and that a director is also personally liable for the claims against the corporation. So, although the city could properly pursue a city codes violation against the Defendant-director and recover a fine or restitution, that is not the remedy that the city is seeking. Rather, the city is seeking to have the structure demolished which affects a substantial property right of the corporation which should not be taken without due process.

Living Earth Sanctuary, Inc., had no formal notice of these proceedings. To the extent that they had constructive notice because one of their directors was served, it may well have been a business decision to let their director be subject to a fine than the much more extreme remedy of having their building demolished. Living Earth Sanctuary, Inc., was not a participant in the trial. Assuming for the sake of argument that the City had proved their case, there is no legitimate way for this Court to order the demolition of a building of a business entity that was not part of the proceedings. To allow this case to linger any longer on the court's calendar would be a waste of valuable judicial resources.

Accordingly, the Court on it's own motion and having not yet received the submissions of counsel, believes it is in the interests of justice that the charges against the Defendant should be dismissed without prejudice for the city to re-file against the proper business entity and/or the [*2]property itself in rem.

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. The charges against the Defendant in this case are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for the city to re-file against the proper business entity and/or the property itself in rem.

This is the Decision and Order of the Court.