12/21/2012 - Pam Anderson Jr. denied access to NY apt. by Condo Board’s strict No Pets rule.
For all of you in the know, the date will not strike you as odd. For all others, it signifies the end of an age (sometimes referred to as the end of the world). Ok, it’s not quite catrostrophic but it is getting out of hand when today a NYC condo board cites a pet law in NY State Supreme court in a complaint filed on appeal in an attempt to further prevent residency of a former celebutante.
What a field day the lawyers must be having. I have to wonder if the judges in both the original suit and the state appeal are actually paying attention to the arguments or quite possibly putting on a poker face while they gratify themselves under the bench even if Ms. Anderson is not the buxom beauty she once was a mere decade ago. If one takes careful note, the news clips from Court TV demonstrate a rather odd look on the original judge’s face, Ms. Diamond, to be rather blank and flush. Her ruling further draws suspicion as she granted an award to Ms. Anderson on the grounds of emotional distress. Apparently Ms. Anderson feels humiliated, and Ms. Diamond agrees, that the board went a bit too far when it insisted Ms. Anderson use the service elevator for her daily walks in and out of the building. Furthermore, Ms. Diamond ruled, Ms. Anderson does not have to wear a support bra in order to contain her imposing bust line nor refrain from foreplay in the elevators which are under continuous camera surveillance. Ms. Anderson sought restitution from the camera tapes which somehow got into the hands of TMZ for the incident which occurred when she first entered the building. As the tape demonstrated, shown in court last week, Ms. Anderson’s agent showed her more than an empty apartment. No one from the building has been identified as releasing the tape.
In the appeal, the court filing states Ms. Diamond should have recluse herself since she has been linked to receiving campaign pledges from the screen actors guild as well as an offer for her own courtroom TV program slated to air in the fall to be called, “Justice for Some”.
In her defense, Ms. Anderson took the stand in a teary eyed account of the humiliation she felt when she was first asked to enter through the rear service entry by a doorman, then further alarmed when asked to see her pet license when she sought passage from the building’s concierge. Ms. Anderson reportedly misunderstood thinking the license that was sought was for her own pet pooch, a French poodle. Apparently what next transpired is a matter of he said, she said. According to Ms. Anderson the concierge poked a crack asking for the license for Tom Levi which Ms. Anderson said she did not find funny. The concierge and management have denied those allegations, but did admit to asking for proper pet identification from Ms. Anderson as well as insistence for her to use the service elevator and entry door. What happened next is somewhat speculative. According to Ms. Anderson her French poodle made a puddle on the elevator floor which the agent who was showing Ms. Anderson an empty apartment bent down to clean up. The tape is not clear as to what exactly transpired when the agent disappears from the visible screen. However, it has been noted that Ms. Anderson begins to breathe rather rapidly seemingly uncomfortable until the agent reappears some time later. It is further noted that Ms. Anderson then appears to be smoothing down a risen skirt. Upon existing the building in a second tape, Ms. Anderson is seen to give a rather zealous kiss to the same agent while the poodle is heard to be whining and then barking but ignored.
In the Board’s complaint on appeal, the suit states that Ms. Anderson has a history of misconduct citing loud and lengthy barking and howling, improper hygiene resulting in a swarm of paparazzi and a loss of bladder control though it’s not clear who is being accused of dirtying the elevator.
In her answer, Ms. Anderson cites the multitude of commonplace city disturbances such as the constant cries of babies, the howling of the sirens, the continuous hum of the vehicles outside, and the multitude of street people barking out side the apartment windows noise she claims is commonly intrusive. As to the infestation of Paparazzi, Ms. Anderson claims that to be a falsehood ever since her rapid departure of LA in exile from her latest scandalous divorce from Hollywood rebel Shawn Pencil. In her countersuit, Ms. Anderson claims had she known what a publicity mistake the marriage would prove to be she never would have left Tom for the fifteenth time.
While the case is pending appeal Ms. Anderson has been blocked from entering the building, and is not permitted to furnish a board package for the apartment she had interest in. According to her PR agent, Ms. Anderson is still very much interested in the apartment, but wishes to live in a peaceful manner and not at the mercy of a board which wishes to control every day affairs to the extent resembling an old age home.
Ms. Anderson should take a deep look into the mirror and recognize that the reason the door was held open for her while getting in and out of the elevator was due to the proper course following along the lines of, “age before beauty”.
While it is hard to believe such a case could go on record it does appear that the condo board has filed a suit with some notable merit. After all curbing one’s dog is a matter of simple English.
......................................................
