NYC antiques dealer sues 4 homeless people

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

U2Girl1978

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Jan 14, 2005
Messages
19,366
Location
At the altar of the dark star
I honestly don't know what to say about this! :slant:


Owner of posh Madison Avenue shop says they alienate customers


NEW YORK - An antiques dealer sued four homeless people, seeking to keep them away from his store on a fashionable shopping street because, he says, they alienate customers and block window displays.

Store owner Karl Kemp also seeks $1 million from the four, named in the lawsuit as John Doe, Bob Doe, John Smith and Jane Doe.

The suit, filed this week, says they can often be found sleeping on the sidewalk, drinking alcoholic beverages and “performing various bodily functions such as urinating and spitting” outside Karl Kemp & Associates on Manhattan’s Madison Avenue. Kemp seeks to keep them 100 feet from the store.

Kemp said he decided to sue after complaints to police brought no changes. He also said he was concerned about the health of one of the three men.

“You and I pay taxes in New York City, and some of that is to maintain decent shelters. And he should take advantage of that,” Kemp said.

Advocates for the homeless called the lawsuit hardhearted.

“Until we see to it that every single homeless individual has a place to stay, this is our reality,” said Shelly Nortz, a deputy executive director of the Coalition for the Homeless.

“The complaint that they somehow occasionally occupy a space that is also home to Gucci and Chanel doesn’t mean that they’re breaking any law,” she said.
 
Don't areas like this already have laws about loitering? If so, why the lawsuit? Maybe he could offer them some jobs....
 
What a ridiculous lawsuit.

He is suing homeless people for $1 million?
 
This is horrible. What a pompous ass. Heaven forbid that his customers have to step over THOSE people.

I do understand that one man in particular, who calls himself The Preacher, tends to rant and curse outside the store. But to sue people who have no money and are in obvious need of help and kindness is just so wrong.
 
What a fuckin' idiot. :coocoo: He's going to waste his time & money log jamming the judicial system with a frivilous lawsuit for what? To make a point? Well, he already has - and it's that he's a complete ass. :tsk:
 
Last edited:
I read about that a couple of days ago, how disgusting. Yes they should make a donation to a homeless program and actually try to do something positive.

Yeah I'm sure he pays his fair share in taxes :rolleyes:
 
it's the culture of america... if you feel someone has wronged you in anyway, you sue them.

not that it makes it any better, but i would imagine the guy did this because the police were not doing anything and he wanted to bring publicity to it to attempt to get something done and never expects to get any money from it. :shrug:

cold yes... but hopefully it is his intent just to try to force some action by taking a drastic, over-blown action of his own and he doesn't plan on seeing it through... and at the end of it all he makes a donation to a homeless shelter (if he hasn't already)
 
Owner of posh Madison Avenue shop says they alienate customers


NEW YORK - An antiques dealer sued four homeless people, seeking to keep them away from his store on a fashionable shopping street because, he says, they alienate customers and block window displays.

Store owner Karl Kemp also seeks $1 million from the four.

I am sure he expects to collect

from all the potential new customers

that would have never have heard of his shop before.

pretty good ad campaign, for the cost of filing one lawsuit

and believe me, there are a lot of New Yorkers that are not too fond of the homeless
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
it's the culture of america... if you feel someone has wronged you in anyway, you sue them.

not that it makes it any better, but i would imagine the guy did this because the police were not doing anything and he wanted to bring publicity to it to attempt to get something done and never expects to get any money from it. :shrug:

cold yes... but hopefully it is his intent just to try to force some action by taking a drastic, over-blown action of his own and he doesn't plan on seeing it through... and at the end of it all he makes a donation to a homeless shelter (if he hasn't already)

But didn't he anticipate the massive amount of NEGATIVE publicity he would get from this lawsuit? Now even if he does make a donation to a homeless shelter, everyone is still going to remember him as that heartless bastard who sued homeless people for $1 million.
 
While this lawsuit is absolutely ridiculous I can't blame a business owner for not wanting people to urinate outside of his/her store. :slant:

There had to be some other course of action. :huh:
 
Bono's shades said:


But didn't he anticipate the massive amount of NEGATIVE publicity he would get from this lawsuit? Now even if he does make a donation to a homeless shelter, everyone is still going to remember him as that heartless bastard who sued homeless people for $1 million.

The sad thing is I bet much of his clientele will cheer him instead of thinking "what a prick."
 
Last edited:
indra said:

The sad thing is I bet much of his clientele will cheer him instead of thinking "what a prick."

I agree. They could never end up homeless-right? One white collar crime or stock market plunge away for some of them, perhaps.

And funny, but I have seen more people urinating in public who are not homeless. But that's ok.
 
Angela Harlem said:
Literally, how does a suit against the mentally ill get to court in the US? I dont get it.

It says he filed the suit "this week" (last week). I'm assuming it will get thrown out or the judge won't side with him, unless there's better reasoning for the $1mil than has been posted in this thread. Basically, if you want to file suit and spend your money on the legal fees, that's your right, but it doesn't mean you'll win.
 
I hope word of this gets out to some more homeless folk, and he ends up with 100 guys pissing on his doorstep. Jackass.
 
Well, I think it's only a couple of homeless people. One of them abandoned his family back in the late 70's and his ex-wife even thought he was dead. Pardon me, I can't remember the guy's name. Anyway, when she found out, she was shocked and upset because he had no intention of reuniting with his family. They have a son together. She has been raising the boy on her own and finally divorced him back in the mid-80's. She said that he is bipolar, but has no belief in psychiatry to help his situation.
I know it's easy to feel badly for these homeless people, but there is a reason they are homeless. Some sort of failing on their part. Just because they're homeless doesn't entitle them to be a menace to someone who is trying to make a living and maintain a business. Granted, suing a homeless person is like trying to get blood from a stone, but it looks as if the store owner had no choice. These homeless people were a constant disruption to his business and he really had no other course of action except to sue them. I think it's disgusting how these homeless people conducted themselves. Just because they're homeless, does that give them the right to conduct themselves in an uncivilized manner in front of this man's store? For years no less. Sorry, but they should be held accountable.
 
A high percentage of homeless people are mentally ill. They aren't reasoning like you and planning on being uncivilized. Their brains don't function like yours.

I agree with Headaches assesment perhaps the storeowner can bring more attention to the problem by filing suit (knowing it wont' go anywhere) than just giving the homeless shelter a handout. Ideally he would do both. I can't blame him for wanting the city to help with the problem.
 
I agree, a large percentage are mentally ill, but how many years was this business owner going to sit by and watch as the homeless disrupted his business? I know they might not have the faculties for rational thought, but they did have the wherewithall to consistently harass and bother this man's customers.
 
MrPryck2U said:
Well, I think it's only a couple of homeless people. One of them abandoned his family back in the late 70's and his ex-wife even thought he was dead. Pardon me, I can't remember the guy's name. Anyway, when she found out, she was shocked and upset because he had no intention of reuniting with his family. They have a son together. She has been raising the boy on her own and finally divorced him back in the mid-80's. She said that he is bipolar, but has no belief in psychiatry to help his situation.
I know it's easy to feel badly for these homeless people, but there is a reason they are homeless. Some sort of failing on their part. Just because they're homeless doesn't entitle them to be a menace to someone who is trying to make a living and maintain a business. Granted, suing a homeless person is like trying to get blood from a stone, but it looks as if the store owner had no choice. These homeless people were a constant disruption to his business and he really had no other course of action except to sue them. I think it's disgusting how these homeless people conducted themselves. Just because they're homeless, does that give them the right to conduct themselves in an uncivilized manner in front of this man's store? For years no less. Sorry, but they should be held accountable.

And exactly how much do you know about schizophrenia?
 
Back
Top Bottom