The lawsuit over Bari Manor’s May 25, 2025 fire asks who should pay for losses that continued long after firefighters left: replacement belongings, other housing, storage and missed work. Two tenants say gas-equipment warnings were mishandled before the fire and repairs left them displaced until May 2026. Their claims remain unresolved. Complaint, pages 3–7 and 31–38 Lisbet Nunez and Kristine Gilligan filed the case September 3 in state Supreme Court in Westchester County, index 72418/2026. They name owner Bari BSD Managers LLC, manager UNPPG Management LLC, Wilfredo Ribot and unidentified defendants. Their lawyer is Ali R. Jaffery of Sutton Sachs Meyer PLLC and Jaffery PLLC. Complaint, pages 8–9 and 38 The warnings predate the fire. Con Edison’s March 28, 2025 letter confirms that its representative found a hazardous gas-piping or equipment condition at Gilligan’s apartment on March 26, shut off or isolated affected service and issued a red warning tag. Gilligan later told management that heat and hot water returned April 11 after 16 days. That apartment was different from the unit where the fire began. Utility notice, page 2; Gilligan’s April 14 email, page 3 County investigators located the fire’s origin in apartment 50’s boiler closet and identified the gas water heater’s burner assembly as the ignition source. They classified the fire as accidental, involving equipment or heat-source failure, and recorded earlier gas-leak calls and tenant reports of furnace problems. Their report expressly excludes deciding civil or criminal liability. County investigation, pages 6–8 and 14–19 The fire department recorded six apartments affected. The Village’s June 6 letter confirmed Gilligan’s apartment was unfit for human occupancy. In a June 16 notice, Village code enforcement ordered UNPPG to remedy violations, prioritizing fire safety and citing rules for alarms, venting and fire protection. That post-fire notice does not establish what caused the blaze. Fire record, page 4; Vacate letter, page 2; Violation notice, pages 2–3 The displacement is central to the lawsuit. Nunez describes moving among hotels, rentals, friends’ homes and sometimes her car. Gilligan says she spent two months on a friend’s couch before renting another apartment and storage. They seek reimbursement for those costs and losses, rather than compensation limited to damage on the day of the fire. Complaint, pages 23 and 31–38 The housing correspondence shows an offer and its limitations. In June 2025, UNPPG offered a raffle for one available one-bedroom apartment, requiring a standard one-year lease and $3,971.11 in rent, security and parking payments by June 17. Gilligan declined the year-long commitment, saying she would take it “in a heartbeat” as temporary housing until her apartment was ready. Relocation emails, pages 7–9 On July 16, 2025, the state Division of Housing and Community Renewal established Nunez’s apartment rent at $1 a month, effective May 25. Its order records the owner’s acknowledgment that the fire made the apartment uninhabitable. This was an administrative rent reduction, not a court award for lost possessions or temporary housing. DHCR order, pages 2–3 Repairs stretched across seasons. UNPPG said June 24 that cleaning had begun but repairs had not, and that insurance processes prevented a firm schedule. In October, Village staff relayed that repairs at Gilligan’s apartment had not started. Management’s January 20, 2026 update anticipated February 1 occupancy only if final inspections cleared. Management’s June reply, page 6; Repair correspondence, pages 3–7 and 11 The official clearance came in the Village engineer’s May 5 letter: apartments 45 and 46 were fit for occupancy after an April 28 final inspection, an engineer’s certification and acceptable environmental testing. UNPPG’s May 7 email said the unit was ready and rent would resume May 13. Gilligan’s subsequent email complained that soot remained in cabinets and bathrooms; management said it would contact maintenance. Occupancy letter, page 2; May emails, pages 19–20 The owner also asked DHCR to restore full rent effective May 13, saying repairs and essential services were complete and the units had been vacant for nearly a year. The attached agency notice opened a proceeding and invited a tenant response. No decision approving restoration appears in the court filings reviewed for this article. Owner application and agency notice, pages 2–5 Management has disputed Nunez’s claims elsewhere. In a July 7 answer in a separate New Jersey case, UNPPG Management and Bari Managers LLC denied negligence, property damage and failure to provide relocation assistance; they cited an offered one-bedroom apartment and counterclaimed for unpaid garage charges. Those are separate New Jersey pleadings, filed here as an exhibit, rather than an answer in the Westchester action. New Jersey answer, pages 2–5 The tenants seek damages, rent abatements and punitive damages, and a jury trial. Their claims include negligence and breach of the promise that rental homes be habitable; Nunez also alleges retaliation over garage fees. The complaint recognizes that rent relief may require an offset for DHCR reductions. The court has not awarded that requested compensation. Requested relief, pages 32–38 For now, the court dispute concerns delivering the lawsuit to UNPPG. Justice Robert S. Ondrovic denied the first alternate-service request September 30 because counsel’s affirmation failed the required form, making it and its exhibits inadmissible. That ruling did not dismiss the lawsuit. The tenants renewed the request October 5. Signed ruling, page 3; Renewed motion The public docket checked October 16 contained 67 entries and no later ruling on the renewed request; its last document is an unsigned proposed order. Croton News will follow the service decision, defense filings, repair and rent records, and any ruling on responsibility through the case timeline. Proposed order; public docket.