New York State
Bari Manor fire and displacement
Two tenants seek compensation after the May 2025 Bari Manor fire and displacement. Filed agency records show utility warnings, a $1 rent order and May 2026 occupancy clearance. Liability remains unresolved.
- Case
- 72418/2026
- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Westchester County
- Record checked
Lisbet Nunez et al. v. Bari BSD Managers LLC et al.
The current position
Service motion pending
Active in the public docket checked October 16. First alternate-service motion denied; renewed request filed. No merits judgment reported.
Watch for renewed-service ruling, defense filings and court scheduling; obtain any later DHCR restoration decision and repair records before describing current rent or conditions. A party’s motion notice is not a confirmed hearing date.
What the tenants are seeking
The tenants want compensation for lost belongings, other housing, storage, missed work and loss of use of their homes, along with rent abatements and punitive damages. These are requests; the court has not awarded them.
What the official records show
Utility notices document an earlier gas hazard, and county investigators identify the fire’s origin. Village letters mark the period when the apartments could not be occupied and their later clearance. Those records do not decide who owes damages.
Con Edison hazardous-condition and interruption notices · Westchester County origin-and-cause report · Village June 6, 2025 vacate letter · Village May 5, 2026 compliance and occupancy letter
Management’s position
UNPPG’s emails describe insurance and repair delays. In a separate New Jersey case, management disputes Nunez’s claims there and seeks unpaid garage charges. That pleading is not an answer in this Westchester case.
Gilligan and UNPPG correspondence through June 24, 2025 · Repair, billing and return-to-occupancy correspondence · July 7, 2026 answer and counterclaim in separate New Jersey case
Why delivery of the lawsuit matters
The tenants want permission to deliver court papers to UNPPG by email and mail. The judge denied their first request because of the form of counsel’s statement. That ruling did not dismiss the lawsuit; no ruling on the renewed request appeared in the October 16 docket.
Signed ruling denying first alternate-service motion · Renewed notice of motion · Affirmation supporting renewed service request · Unsigned proposed order on renewed service request · Public NYSCEF docket
The timeline
From the recordHow we got here
- Background
Utility shuts off affected gas service
Con Edison’s March 28 notice records a hazardous gas-piping or equipment condition and a red warning tag at Gilligan’s apartment. This is not the unit where the later fire originated.
Why this matters: Documents a gas warning before the fire. It concerns Gilligan’s apartment, rather than the heater later identified as the fire’s origin.
- Background
Gilligan reports heat and hot water restored
Her April 14 email says service returned April 11 after 16 days. This date and duration are her written account.
Why this matters: Shows the length of the earlier service interruption as Gilligan reported it to management.
- Background
Fire at Bari Manor
Fire department records six apartments affected. County investigators locate the origin at apartment 50’s water heater and classify the fire as accidental; liability is outside their scope.
Why this matters: Describes the fire’s reach and origin. Investigators did not decide who was legally responsible.
- Official record
Village confirms apartment unfit for occupancy
Signed Village letter confirms Gilligan’s order to vacate because of the fire.
Why this matters: Explains why Gilligan could not return while her apartment remained unfit for occupancy.
- Background
Management offers raffle for another apartment
UNPPG’s emails offer one available one-bedroom apartment under a one-year lease with required payments; Gilligan declines the year-long term June 13 while seeking temporary accommodation.
Why this matters: The offer required a new one-year lease; Gilligan wanted housing until her own apartment was ready.
- Official record
Village issues 30-day remedy notice
Code enforcement directs UNPPG to remedy violations and prioritizes fire safety. This post-fire notice does not establish the fire’s cause.
Why this matters: Shows the safety work the Village required after the fire. The notice does not determine what caused the blaze.
- Background
Management reports no repair schedule
UNPPG says cleaning began, repairs had not and insurance processes were continuing. It says rent would not be charged until Gilligan could return.
Why this matters: Records management’s explanation for the delay and its promise to withhold rent until Gilligan could return.
- Agency order
DHCR reduces Nunez’s rent to $1
Administrative order for apartment 45 establishes $1 monthly rent effective May 25, 2025; it does not award temporary-housing or property damages.
Why this matters: The rent reduction addressed the unusable apartment. It did not reimburse lost possessions or other housing costs.
- Background
Management estimates conditional February return
UNPPG says units are repaired but final approvals are outstanding; its February 1 estimate is conditional.
Why this matters: The expected return depended on final approvals, so February 1 was not a firm move-in date.
- Inspection
Final inspection for two apartments
The Village engineer’s May 5 letter records a final inspection of apartments 45 and 46 on this date.
Why this matters: The later occupancy clearance rested on this inspection, engineering certification and environmental testing.
- Official record
Village issues occupancy clearance
Signed letter deems the two apartments fit after inspection, engineering certification and acceptable environmental testing; it does not establish actual move-back dates.
Why this matters: Marks the Village’s approval for occupancy. It does not establish when either household actually moved back.
- Background
Management says apartment ready
UNPPG says occupancy clearance received and announces rent charges would resume May 13. Gilligan’s subsequent email reports remaining soot; management says it will contact maintenance.
Why this matters: Connects management’s return notice to its plan to resume rent charges and Gilligan’s complaints about remaining soot.
- Requested date
Requested start date for full rent
The owner asks DHCR to restore full lawful rent retroactively from May 13, saying repairs and services were complete. This is the requested rent start date, not the application filing date. The agency notice opens a proceeding; no approval appeared in the reviewed court filings.
Why this matters: Restoring full rent would end the reduction. The owner’s application does not show that DHCR approved it.
- Court filing
Defense pleading in separate New Jersey case
UNPPG Management and Bari Managers LLC deny Nunez’s negligence, property-damage and relocation claims and counterclaim for garage charges in NJ DC-12913-26. Filed in Westchester October 5 as an exhibit, not an answer in this action.
Why this matters: Shows how management disputed Nunez’s claims in a separate lawsuit. No outcome of that case is established here.
- Court filing
Tenants file lawsuit
Nunez and Gilligan file their complaint seeking damages and other relief. Its allegations remain claims to be decided.
Why this matters: Sets out the tenants’ demands for compensation. Filing the complaint does not establish that the defendants owe damages.
- Court ruling
First service request denied
Justice Ondrovic signs a ruling denying the alternate-service motion because counsel’s affirmation did not comply with CPLR 2106. The lawsuit itself is not dismissed. The ruling was filed October 1.
Why this matters: The ruling rejected the first delivery request because of counsel’s paperwork. It did not decide responsibility for the fire.
- Court filing
Renewed service request filed
Plaintiffs again seek email and mail service on UNPPG. The accompanying proposed order has blank judicial signature and date lines.
Why this matters: Seeks a way to formally notify management so the case can proceed. The attached proposal is not a signed order.
- Newsroom check
Public docket checked
Croton News reviewed the 67 displayed electronic entries and archived their original PDFs. No later ruling on the renewed motion appeared. This is a reporting check, not a court event.
Why this matters: The latest displayed filing does not settle the delivery question or the tenants’ damages claims.