Greer Nonprofits Seek Rape-Case Legal $

Rodent-related problems have led to the criminal prosecution of a housing nonprofit controlled by imprisoned Rabbi Daniel Greer — at the same time the same nonprofit has asked a judge for permission to divert money from rental properties in order to support Greer’s legal quest to leave prison and avoid paying a sex-assault victim.

Those are the latest developments in the long and strange legal world of Daniel Greer and his six local nonprofits, which own 52 affordable rental properties in New Haven’s Edgewood neighborhood.

The housing-code and legal-debt issues emerged in recent weeks across two separate court cases.

Revelations in the cases raise new questions about housing conditions in the neighborhood — and about whether Greer’s housing nonprofits currently exist to promote affordable housing or advance an imprisoned sex predator’s legal agenda.

One court case involves a host of criminal housing charges brought by the state’s attorney’s office against Greer’s wife Sarah for various health and safety hazards at 196 Norton St.

That three-family rental home is owned by Yedidei Hagan Inc., a decades-old nonprofit for which Daniel Greer serves as president and Sarah Greer serves as secretary and director. The lawsuit stems from the Livable City Initiative’s (LCI) efforts to prosecute landlords who drag their feet in making necessary repairs to their rental properties. (Landlords have criticized those efforts as stemming more from city miscommunication than from landlord negligence.)

The second case is an ongoing ​“reverse veil piercing” and fraud lawsuit brought in federal court by Eliyahu Mirlis against five of Greer’s local nonprofits, including Yedidei Hagan.

In that years-long case, Mirlis is seeking to collect from the five Greer-controlled nonprofits on an unpaid $22 million civil judgment that he won in a separate civil case related to Greer’s repeated sexual assault of the former yeshiva student.

A recent filing in that federal case reveals that Greer’s local nonprofits — the same ones for which the Elicker administration and Board of Alders recently approved sending another $900,000 in state subsidies, only to have the state turn off the tap — are now looking to spend company money on legal bills unrelated to housing. The bills stem from Greer’s continued efforts to dodge a $22 million civil judgment, overturn a 20-year prison sentence related to his repeated rape of a former Yeshiva student, and stop the foreclosure of the Elm Street yeshiva building. One of those legal debts that Greer owes is to controversial defense attorney Alan Dershowitz. (See more on that below.)

Both cases raise a slew of questions about a local landlord who continues to be a major player in New Haven’s rental market, even from behind bars.

Some of those questions include:

• Who exactly is in charge of Greer’s companies? Who should be held responsible for their 52 affordable rental properties in Edgewood while Greer serves a 20-year prison sentence for sexually assaulting Mirlis? (Greer has appealed the criminal conviction.)

• What is the current state of repair of those properties that Greer dedicated decades of his pre-prison life to rehabilitating as part of a broader effort to rejuvenate the Edgewood neighborhood?

• Will those rental properties (continue to) decline as Greer and his companies dedicate more and more time and money towards fighting lawsuits related to Greer’s rape of a former student, and potentially less and less time and money towards day-to-day maintenance and operations?

• Is there any meaningful distinction between Greer the individual and the local nonprofits he controls?

• How big of a blow to Greer’s finances — both personal and professional — was his businesses’ loss of access to a state tax credit program that provided millions of publicly subsidized dollars to his local housing businesses over the past few decades?

The most recent twists and turns in these court cases also underscore just how skilled a legal tactician Greer remains as he continues to find lawyers to help him wage multi-front legal battles — all while his and his companies’ access to cash dries up, and as he himself remains incarcerated at Cheshire Correctional.

LCI: Rodents; Broken Smoke/Carbon Monoxide Detectors; Exposed Wires …

The housing-code-violation case came to light in state housing court at 121 Elm St. earlier this month.

State prosecutors have charged Sarah Greer with various violations of the city’s housing code at 196 Norton St.

According to LCI’s records, which can be read in full here, a city housing code inspector visited 196 Norton on June 23 in response to a complaint.

On June 24, LCI sent housing code compliance notices to both Daniel Greer and Sarah Greer at Yedidei Hagan’s West Park Avenue address. Those separate notices ordered the Greers to rid the third-floor apartment of a rodent infestation; install/replace smoke detectors in the front bedroom and common areas of that unit; install/replace carbon monoxide detectors in the basement and third-floor apartment common area; fix exposed wires on the ceiling light fixture in the front bedroom; repair or replace a hanging light fixture in the front second-floor interior staircase landing; securing hanging wood trim in the middle of doors on the building’s first floor; repair an exterior fence that is falling into a walkway; make the third-floor apartment’s front door weather tight; and repair or replace broken/loose deteriorated window frames on the first floor.

LCI records show that the certified letter sent to Daniel and Sarah Greer the West Park Avenue address was received and signed for on July 2 (though the signature is difficult to read).

On Aug. 30, city housing code inspector Nicholas Caprio signed two separate arrest warrant affidavits stating that a re-inspection of the property on Aug. 3 showed that the various housing code violations at 196 Norton had still not been addressed. LCI’s records show that yet another inspection on Oct. 7 showed that the various violations were still not addressed.

LCI’s arrest warrant applications for the 196 Norton St. case called for the arrest and prosecution of Daniel and Sarah Greer.

Sarah Greer: Mail Mix-Up; Which Property?

While LCI’s files indicate that the municipal agency applied for the arrest and prosecution of both Daniel and Sarah Greer, the state’s criminal housing court files indicated that the state’s attorney’s office has brought charges only against Sarah Greer.

A summons and complaint form filed on Sept. 8 by Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Donna Parker indicates that Sarah Greer has been charged with nine violations state statute 7 – 148(c)(10), which is a generic section of state law that empowers municipalities to enforce regulations by issuing warnings, citations, and penalties of up to $250 per violation. All nine violations are part of one criminal housing court case involving 196 Norton St.

Included in the state court’s records in this case is a letter written by Sarah Greer on behalf of Yedidei Hagan on Sept. 27.

That letter appears to indicate a similar level of communication breakdown between city housing code inspectors, the state court system, and local landlords that other recently prosecuted landlords have told the Independent about.

Sarah Greer’s letter is addressed to then-state housing court Judge Claudia Baio. (Judge John Cirello has succeeded her in that assignment.)

“Enclosed you will find a copy of your correspondence (postmarked in Hartford on Sept. 23rd) which reached me September 25, 2021. It is the first and only correspondence we have received from you in this matter,” Sarah wrote.

“Although I am an officer of this non-profit organization, Yedidei Hagan Inc. has a business address of P.O. Box 3389, New Haven 06515. For whatever reason, the attached letter had been mistakenly addressed to me at my home” on West Park Avenue.

The letter notes that she would not be able to participate in a court hearing scheduled for Sept. 28 because of a Jewish religious holiday (Simchat Torah/Shmeini Atzeret).

“As we have received no other communication from you, we are unaware of the nature of this case,” she continued. ​“Specifically, to which property of Yedidei Hagan does this case refer? What is the nature of your inquiry? In order to respond appropriately and effectively, we kindly request more data and guidance from you.” The letter then requests a 30-day extension for the court case.

Courtroom No-Show

The court hearing in the 196 Norton St. case wound up taking place on Oct. 12 before Superior Court Judge John Cirello, in the third-floor housing court at 121 Elm St.

Local attorney David Grudberg showed up on behalf of Sarah Greer. His client, meanwhile, was nowhere to be found.

Asked by the judge to identify himself for the record, Grudberg gave his name and said he was present in court ​“on behalf of Sarah Greer, and I think more accurately the land owner, which is a nonprofit entity called Yedidei Hagan.”

What are we doing in this case today? Cirello asked.

The state wants to know where the defendant in this criminal proceeding is, state prosecutor Parker said.

Where is the defendant? Cirello asked Grudberg.

Grudberg replied that Sarah Greer is in her late 70s, and was home at the time with pneumonia.

Then he called into question whether or not Sarah Greer really should be the defendant at all.

“The underlying arrest warrant names Daniel Greer, president of Yedidei Hagan,” Grudberg said. ​“The information indicates that Daniel Greer is president of Yedidei Hagan. Sarah Greer is not named in any of the underlying paperwork. In addition to not being here because she’s elderly and ill with pneumonia, I don’t know how this case is captioned as it is.”

Is Sarah Greer the defendant? Cirello asked Parker.

That she is, Parker replied. Sarah Greer is a director of Yedidei Hagan. The state criminal statute allows the state to ​“cite a member, a president, a director, a CEO.” Prosecuting a director of this local housing nonprofit is appropriate.

This is a criminal proceeding, Parker continued. ​“There are no special circumstances that defendants just get to not come [to court], your honor.”

Cirello ordered that a bail commissioner’s letter be issued in the case and sent to Sarah Greer. He also continued the criminal housing court case until Nov. 16.

As for the various housing code violations at the core of this case, Grudberg said in court, ​“my understanding is the final repair should be done in the next week or two weeks.”

Cirello continued Sarah Greer’s case until Nov. 16.

Grudberg declined to comment for this article beyond what he said during open court.

Asked for comment about why LCI sought charges against Sarah Greer in this case, Acting LCI Executive Director Arlevia Samuel passed along Yedidei Hagan’s local residential rental license application, dated May 24 of this year.

That application was signed by Sarah Greer, who is listed as the secretary of Yedidei Hagan. The application also lists Jean Ledbury as the emergency contact person for the company.

Greer’s Companies: Let Us Pay Greer’s Legal Bills

At the same time that LCI brought Yedidei Hagan to state court to fix up one of its Edgewood rental properties, lawyers representing Yedidei Hagan and four other Daniel Greer-controlled local nonprofits made an unusual request in a separate federal court case.

That case is Eliyahu Mirlis v. Edgewood Corners Inc, Edgewood Elm Housing Inc, Edgewood Village Inc, F.O.H. Inc, and Yedidei Hagan Inc. 

In that case, Mirlis has accused the five local nonprofits controlled by Greer of funneling the imprisoned landlord money and helping him avoid paying a $21.7 million court-ordered judgment against him and a sixth local nonprofit, Yeshiva of New Haven Inc. That 2017 judgment stems from a civil case related to Greer’s repeated rape of Mirlis while the latter was a student at Greer’s Yeshiva of New Haven. Greer was later convicted in 2019 in a separate criminal case related to that same assault.

The so-called ​“reverse veil piercing” federal lawsuit against Greer’s companies, meanwhile, marks an attempt by Mirlis to compel Greer’s companies to make good on money owed by Greer the individual.

Back in Aug. 2020, federal Judge Charles Haight found Mirlis’s accusations of fraud credible enough to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) barring Greer’s companies from buying and selling proprieties until the case is over.

As that fraud case has dragged on and on over the past year-plus, Greer’s companies have been legally forbidden from selling off any of their properties. The TRO has also barred those same companies from ​“transferring or encumbering any of their personal property, other than to pay any of their employees, with the exception of Daniel Greer, and perform reasonable maintenance on real property they own.”

In a Sept. 24 motion filed by Day Pitney attorneys Richard Colbert and Michael Schoeneberger, which can be read in full here, Greer’s five local nonprofits — including Yedidei Hagan — seek to modify Haight’s TRO from the summer of 2020.

Why do they want to change the judge’s order?

For two reasons, Colbert and Schoeneberger write.

“Fírst, to allow the Defendants to pay the most recent legal fees and costs (as well as such fees and costs going forward) incurred by Rabbi Daniel Greer (“Greer”) and the Yeshiva of New Haven, Inc. (the ​“Yeshiva”) concerning the criminal action against Greer and the civil action in which Plaintiff Eliyahu Mirlis (“Plaintiff’) obtained the Judgment against Greer and the Yeshiva that he is seeking to have the Defendants satisfy here.”

Greer as an individual is entitled to ​“indemnification for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in his civil and criminal matters”, Colbert and Schoeneberger contend, because of Edgewood Elm Housing’s by-laws.

They argue that that company’s bylaws require that Edgewood Elm Housing cover the costs of legal fees incurred by an officer or employee who gets sued for matters that ​“arose out of” or were/are ​“related to” his work for the company.

Citing previous arguments by Mirlis that Greer’s companies should be held liable for his sexual abuse because Greer abused him at some of those properties, Colbert and Schoeneberger state that the civil and criminal cases against Greer clearly qualify as work-related matters.

The two attorneys proceed to describe in some detail exactly whom Greer needs to pay off, and for what legal services.

According to the legal motion, Greer owes money to:

• David Grudberg, who is a partner with Carmody, Torrance, Sandak & Hennessey LLP. Grudberg ​“has represented Greer [and the] Yeshiva since 2017 in the underlying civil matter relating to Greer’s alleged sexual abuse of Plaintiff,” the motion reads. ​“He has also assisted in the defense of the criminal charges since 2017. He is co-counsel on Greer’s appeal of the criminal case, was lead counsel at the criminal sentencing in 2019, and has been involved in extensive post-judgment litigation regarding possible release pending appeal, including emergency temporary release based on COVID-19. He and his firm continue to litigate in the underlying matter on behalf of Greer and Yeshiva.

“The TRO abruptly stopped the payment of legal fees to Attorney Grudberg that he had otherwise been receiving for many prior years.”

• Jeffrey Sklarz, who is a partner at Green & Sklarz LLC. Sklarz ​“has represented the Yeshiva in connection with the Foreclosure Action.”

• Day Pitney LLP, which is where Colbert and Schoeneberger work. ​“In addition to the instant reverse-veil piercing action, the undersigned counsel has represented the Yeshiva in connection with the petition for certification to the Connecticut Supreme Court in the Foreclosure Action.”

• Richard Emanuel, who served as ​“lead counsel on Greer’s criminal appeal.”

• And Alan Dershowitz, the controversial defense attorney and Harvard professor who served as ​“counsel on Greer’s criminal appeal and also consulted on various issues related to the criminal trial.”

The Sept. 24 motion does not state how much in total Greer owes to these attorneys.

Colbert and Schoeneberger promise in the motion to provide that cost breakdown, if the judge so orders.

The second reason that Colbert and Schoeneberger cite for why the TRO should be modified is to allow the five Greer-controlled companies to prevent the foreclosure of the historic Yeshiva building at 765 Elm St.

“Built in 1900, the iconic, 27,000+ square foot building is the centerpiece of the Edgewood Park neighborhood which the Greers, the Yeshiva, and the Defendants have been painstakingly redeveloping for decades,” the motion reads. ​“The judgment of strict foreclosure was affirmed on appeal earlier this year, see Mirlis v. Yeshiva of New Haven, Inc., 205 Conn. App. 206 (2021), and a petition for certification to appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court was recently denied.

“Time is now of the essence to allow the Defendants to provide the Yeshiva with funds to satisfy the judgment before the historic school building is foreclosed, and a pillar of New Haven’s Jewish community is gone.”

Again, the attorneys do not state how much money will be required to keep Mirlis from foreclosing on the Yeshiva.

The attorneys also make clear in the motion that they do not seek to modify the TRO to allow payment of Greer’s salary to him while he remains in prison. ​“Rather, Defendants are requesting that the Court clarify or modify the TRO to allow Edgewood Elm Housing to pay the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Greer in connection with the criminal and civil matters stemming from alleged sexual abuse. As a result, Defendants would pay such amounts directly to counsel (on behalf of but not through Greer).”

Colbert and Schoeneberger also state that the 52 Edgewood rental properties owned by the five nonprofits are ​“conservatively valued at over $10 million.”

For now, they state, the companies do not challenge the TRO remaining in place as to the selling off of any of these properties. Except, they state in a footnote, ​“if necessary to sell a property to satisfy the debt owed on the foreclosure of the Yeshiva school building, which would then also be subject to the TRO.”

Overall, they contend, modifying the TRO to allow for Greer’s companies to foot some of Greer’s legal bills ​“will have no effect on the value of those real properties, which Defendants submit is more than adequate security at this stage of this action based on the strength of the pending motion for summary judgment.”

None of the lawyers mentioned in this legal motion responded to email requests for comment by the publication time of this article.

Mirlis: Don’t Let Greer ​“Loot” His Companies, Properties

In an Oct. 15 response, which can be read in full here, Mirlis and his attorneys urge the federal judge not to modify the year-old order that bars Greer’s companies from selling off their properties.

Doing so will only allow Greer to continue to pay high-priced attorneys to help him dodge making good on the unpaid $22 million judgment against him, Mirlis and his lawyers contend.

They argue that Greer’s companies will simply divert cash that could have gone to building maintenance, or even sell off properties that they currently own, simply to line the pockets of lawyers who remain ready and able to keep filing appeal after appeal on Greer’s behalf.

Here’s how Mirlis’s attorneys James Moriarty, Matthew Beatman, and John Cesaroni put it in their memorandum in opposition to the defendants’ motion to modify the TRO:

D. Greer has shown again and again that he is determined to prevent Mr. Mirlis from collecting any material part of the more than $22 million judgment that remains outstanding. Through the Motion to Modify D. Greer seeks to use his admitted dominance and control over the Defendants to once again harm Mr. Mirlis by using the Defendants’ available cash, and apparently cash to be generated by the sale of Defendants’ real properties, for his own benefit, both now and going forward, by making what amount to constructive fraudulent transfers. Moreover, by allowing the Defendants to bankroll the substantial, on-going, multi-front, litigation against the collection of the underlying judgment, D. Greer will siphon assets that are a primary source of recovery in the instant action to use to thwart Plaintiff’s collection of the underlying district court judgment. Indeed, it underscores that D. Greer, a Yale educated lawyer and incarcerated felon, will pay all of his various lawyers in their individual and representative capacities and shield the Yeshiva property from collection, but will continue to flaunt the import, effect and meaning of the underlying district court judgment. D. Greer knows that using all of the Defendants’ available cash will cause their real properties to fall into disrepair, and lose value, but that is apparently what he wants and is exactly what the TRO is intended to prevent. The Motion to Modify should be denied.

Mirlis’s attorneys note that Greer’s companies provided no indication of their current cash positions, how the payment of these various legal debts will affect their cash positions and their abilities to maintain the rental properties they own in New Haven, and how many of those properties they plan to sell to raise additional cash to pay off debts.

“Of course, if Defendants have to sell properties now to pay these obligations they will also have to sell properties in the future to be able to pay D. Greer’s and the Yeshiva’s prospective attorneys’ fees and expenses, or use their limited revenue from rental income to pay those fees and expenses and thus have to forgo maintenance of their respective rental properties, thereby allowing the properties to fall into further disrepair.”

Mirlis’s attorneys conclude their opposing memorandum by imploring the court, yet again, not to let Greer use his companies and those companies’ properties to let Greer the individual keep fighting legal battles from prison:

Defendants, or more accurately D. Greer, effectively asks this Court to permit D. Greer to loot the Defendants to pay what is likely at least $1 million for his and the Yeshiva’s benefit. Incredibly, these payments will be made to continue to fight Mr. Mirlis’s efforts to enforce the final judgment entered in his favor after a jury trial more than four years ago. In addition, the payments will drain the Defendants of available cash and cause the rental properties owned by the Defendants to fall into further disrepair, depleting the available assets available for recovery by Mr. Mirlis. This Court should refuse to countenance D. Greer’s request to loot the Defendant entities and should deny the Motion to Modify.

On Wednesday, Judge Haight set a number of dates by which Mirlis and Greer’s companies have to file various responses in the ongoing reverse veil piercing case.

Mirlis must file any opposition to Greer’s companies’ motion for summary judgment by Nov. 22. Greer’s companies must file any reply papers by Dec. 22.

The order states that the judge is continuing to review Greer’s companies’ motion to modify the TRO. Any reply to Mirlis’s opposition to the motion to modify the TRO must be filed by Nov. 19.

And in that reply, according to the court’s order, Greer’s companies must provide an accounting of exactly how much in attorneys’ fees and expenses those companies need to pay off if they win a modification to the TRO.