In Queens, New York, a complicated legal battle has unfolded around a $1 million house after a squatter, who also rented out rooms, pleaded not guilty to several charges. The case began when homeowner Adele Andaloro changed the locks to her property to remove the unwelcome occupants, resulting in her own arrest.
Brian Rodriguez, 35, reentered Andaloro’s house forcefully on February 29, pushing past Andaloro as she attempted to keep him out. Claiming legal tenancy, Rodriguez’s assertion left police compelled by New York law to act against Andaloro. New York’s regulations protect tenants by prohibiting actions such as turning off utilities, changing locks, or removing possessions without due process.
Andaloro, distressed by the situation, expressed her frustration to ABC 7, fearing wrongful arrest for eviction. She sought help from the Queens District Attorney, leading to an investigation and subsequent arrest warrant for Rodriguez. In court, Rodriguez faced charges including second-degree burglary and fourth-degree grand larceny among others.
Rodriguez’s lawyer, Jerald Levine, highlighted the personal toll of the media attention on his client and family, citing slashed tires and health issues. Despite these challenges, Levine maintained Rodriguez’s innocence, arguing for his release without bail, a plea partially granted by Judge Toni Cimino who allowed Rodriguez home confinement under supervision.
The Assistant District Attorney, William Jorgenson, advocated for a $100,000 bail and a restraining order to protect Andaloro, reflecting the serious nature of the allegations. Meanwhile, the case continues to draw significant media attention, with various parties commenting on the broader implications for property rights and legal processes in New York.
The situation escalated when Rodriguez admitted to being duped by a supposed real estate agent and recognizing the legality of Andaloro’s ownership. Despite investing in the property and involving subletters, he acknowledged the need to vacate, indicating a complex mix of deception and misunderstanding at the heart of this legal conflict.
