By Gus Saltonstall
For a week, Upper West Sider Stuart Kalmenson kept the same routine.
He would start his day at Starbucks on West 86th Street and Columbus Avenue, where he could get a coffee and a refill, then head to Domino’s on West 88th Street, where he would order something small and sit in the restaurant for as long as he could, before returning to the Starbucks for the air conditioning and the Wi-Fi connection.
When darkness fell, he would head to his new sleeping spot: benches on Central Park West in the upper 80s.
He repeated this routine for seven days, all the while carrying three backpacks with as many belongings as he could fit and doing his best to keep his dog Charles comfortable.
“I’ve been in a state of disbelief,” Kalmenson told West Side Rag recently, as we spoke in a coffee shop near The Bowery Mission homeless shelter on the Lower East Side, where he had spent the previous night with his dog. “The situation just keeps snowballing. Right now, I’m totally in shock.”
Kalmenson had been the last holdout tenant of a brownstone on West 89th Street, between Columbus and Central Park West, where he had lived since 2006. Since 2020, he’s been locked in a legal battle with an ownership group led by former New York Giants football player Chris Canty, who had bought the property that year for more than $5 million.
Neither Canty nor his lawyer, who represented him in proceedings related to the Upper West Side brownstone, responded to the Rag’s request for comment, but in an earlier statement to the New York Post, the lawyer, William Moran, denied any wrongdoing by the former Giants player.
The housing preservation and development office has twice sued Canty’s ownership group since 2022 over violations it recorded in the building. City records show that those cases were eventually settled for $8,000.
City records also show that In the fall of 2021, the New York City Department of Buildings fined the ownership group of the West 89th Street building $20,000 for falsely claiming the address was empty, when they started gutting the building, and also for failing to provide a “tenant protection plan.”
Eviction proceedings in the court system had stretched for years, including several winters when Kalmenson lived in his apartment with no heat or hot water.
Then, earlier this month, the judge in the eviction case made her ruling — to remove Kalmenson.
A city marshal evicted Kalmenson on May 19. He would spend the next week living on the streets before getting a room at the Lower East Side homeless shelter.
“Right now, I’m in the worst straits of my entire life. I’m dealing with the Department of [Homeless Services]. They’re sending me to places like Bellevue Hospital. I can’t believe my life has become this,” Kalmenson said. “Two weeks ago, I was living in my Upper West Side apartment, where I’ve been for 20 years. How did this happen?”
To make matters more challenging, Kalmenson had additional legal issues to sort out. The longtime Upper West Sider was notified of the judge’s eviction decision as he sat inside the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, where he was was working through a report of an incident at the brownstone that had taken place on February 18.
“They pushed in, they beat the hell out of me,” Kalmenson said about an incident that took place on February 18 of this year, when he says men attempted to get into the apartment, allegedly to do repairs. “I had to recuperate from a concussion connected to that and I was a little bit out of it. They really gave me a beating.”
A New York Police Department spokesperson confirmed to West Side Rag that three men were arrested on February 18, including Kalmenson, in connection with a verbal dispute that became physical after two men attempted to enter an apartment at 33 West 89th Street “to make a repair.”
A spokesperson from the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office confirmed to WSR that Drayquan Robinson and Giovanni Castro had been charged and arraigned on multiple counts of assault, harassment, and criminal mischief in connection with the fight in February within the Upper West Side brownstone.
While Kalmenson was also arrested on February 18, the Manhattan DA spokesperson told the Rag that his case had been sealed. The spokesperson didn’t specify the reason for this, but did say that common reasons for this action included the charges being dropped or the defendant pleading to “disorderly conduct” or another unspecified violation, neither of which is a crime.
In terms of the rest of Kalmenson’s belongings, his items were placed into storage by the owner of the brownstone, according to Kalmenson and the city’s legal guide to eviction. If he is not able to retrieve the belongings and find somewhere for them to go within a month of the eviction, the items are sold.
“Imagine you have a backpack with you, a watch on your wrist, the clothes on your back, and everything else goes away. It’s not sinking in to me. I have to really take it step by step,” Kalmenson said. “I’m still in shock. I can’t believe this is happening to me.”
Kalemson, who previously worked as a data scientist and consultant, admits that the time spent working on the legal proceedings over the past five years and the corresponding stress factored into his recent inability to hold down a job.
“I have this resume to fall back on,” Kalmeson added. “I need to shower and get an internet connection but the idea is once I get a little stability, the idea is to get a job.”
Kalmenson says he’s taking it one step at a time, but before anything else, he is focused on retrieving his belongings.
“What I’ve realized is that I can’t think too far ahead. It becomes too overwhelming,” he said. “Right now, my dog is safe. The next thing I have to do is focus on everything I own being sold in 21 days, so I have to find a way to get it back.”
While a ruling was made in Kalmenson’s eviction case, he is still holding out hope in the form of a different legal proceeding . This one relates to whether his longtime Upper West Side building should have been classified as rent-stabilized, despite the previous owners operating it as a co-op and charging market-rate prices.
If the building is found by the court system to be made up of rent-stabilized units, then Kalmenson – along with the tenants who moved out after their leases expired in May of 2020, should have been offered lease renewals, according to city law.
Canty’s group has denied this claim, previous court documents show.
Kalmenson reiterated one other element of his situation in his conversation with WSR: The kindness of Upper West Siders.
“The one thing I want to keep mentioning is the kindness of some of the people in the neighborhood,” Kalmenson said. “I was sitting on the same benches for seven nights along Central Park West, and people saw me with my three backpacks and a dog, and a lot of people wanted to help. Everybody from scruffy looking guys you wouldn’t expect to be nice, to little old ladies. People came with food, dog supplies, and all sorts of things. It kept me going.”
Read More:
Subscribe to West Side Rag’s FREE email newsletter here. And you can Support the Rag here.
WSR readers don’t be gratuitously nasty to a homeless guy challenge: hopefully not impossible? (Like, you can believe that the landlord was within his rights to evict him and still recognize that it puts him in a grim place that merits compassion.)
Please do not assume that many of us are “gratuitously nasty” to homeless people. Many of us are kind and caring and generous. How about focusing on that instead?!
He’s homeless now, but was not for all the years this proceeding went on. I’d like to hear a little about whether the there were attempts to negotiate with the tenant. No one wants to be moved out of a home, but these are properties that change hands. Sometime it happens, but usually not without some recompense or attempt to relocate the tenant.
I have zero sympathy for people who manufacture problems in hopes of a huge payout
Where does the article say, or even imply, that? It does not.
How is that even relevant in this case? Hardly!
We don’t know his mental state, never assume anything.
He’s homeless now. Do you hear yourself?
Of course I don’t want anyone to be homeless. That does not mean you can squat, stop paying rent, and continue living there.
His situation is the result of his own conduct. He needs supportive housing with mental health services.
Where does the article say, or even imply, that he was “squatting,” or stopped paying his rent? It does not. Why are you making things up out of whole cloth in order to support your unsupported and cynical claim?
What the article DOES say is that the landlord had to pay $20,000 for claiming the building was empty when it was not, as they started the renovations. It also says (or certainly implies) that the two men arrested and charged with beating up Mr. Kalmenson were likely sent by the landlord to intimidate him into leaving – despite the fact that he was NOT squatting, and WAS paying his rent.
Either you don’t read too good, or you are a landlord simply knee-jerkingly supporting the landlord over the tenant.
Why are you assuming he needs mental health services? Though considering what has happened to him, he might need them now!!
Stop. I do feel for the guy – he obviously has issues – but it’s not his property, and he hasn’t paid rent for years.
The homelessness is entirely self-inflicted. Everyone else in the building realized they had a losing hand, took the payout, and found a new place to live. This guy, for whatever reasons, didn’t do that. He made a bad bet, and he lost, and while I can sympathize for his inability to be rational or reasonable, I do not have sympathy for his failed ploy.
If you owned a rental property, and your current tenant had not paid you rent in 6 years, would you not try to evict him? Of course you would. So just stop.
Apologies if I am missing the obvious but I just re-read and don’t see where it says that he has not paid rent? Please let me know. If this is the case, then I feel no sympathy and wonder why he is broke?
Part of me feels bad for him but I also think this article is written in a pretty one sided tone favoring him.
Based on the eviction notice, he last paid rent in 2020.
When you get an eviction notice the landlord no longer accepts rent. If the landlord continues to accept rent then the court may favors the tenant. I’m sure there’s more to the story.
That is not correct.
If eviction proceedings are for non-payment LL has no choice but to accept rent payments if sum covers arrears. Tenant can use as their defence in court that they offered rent but LL refused. Court has power to compel LLs to accept rent.
For holdover proceedings things are different. There a LL may chose to refuse rent for various reasons. Non-payment of rent and holdover are two different proceedings.
A LL cannot recover arrears rent via a holdover proceeding. As in this instance shows property owner just wanted tenant out, period.
Where does it say he sought a huge payout?? He just wanted to stay in his apartment from everything I’ve ever read about this case.
Why do you assume this person wanted a huge payout, when it seems to me after reading the article that he just wanted to stay in his home? I’d take him at his word.
He doesn’t own it, so it’s not his home. And he hasn’t paid rent in over six years, so he has no legal right to be there. The conclusion you drew (“he just wanted to stay in his home”) is the wrong one.
So you are saying that people that rent do not live in a home? 70% of the city are renters.
I specifically added the sentence about paying rent giving someone the legal right to live in a given property. And you still ignored that.
To avoid confusing you further, I’ll break it down very simply. Yes, people who rent live in a home, David. It is “theirs” in the sense that they/their family alone live there. But they do not own that home. Their landlord does. When that tenant stops paying rent, they lose their right to stay in that home.
People who have a mortgage also don’t own their home. The bank does.
People who have a mortgage own the home. The bank has a lien on it, not ownership.
Financial literacy is not some unachievable dream.
In NYS this is not wholly correct. Both bank and property “owner” names are listed on deeds. If or when mortgage is satisfied paperwork is filed to remove mortgage holder.
Above is part of reasons why foreclosure in NYS is a very long, expansive and expensive process.
This is not correct. A deed does not list the bank. The deed lists the seller (as grantor) and purchaser/new owner (as grantee). If there is a bank involved, they are named on the mortgage between the owner and the bank and the mortgage is evidence of their security interest in the property.
As Yogi Berra said it ain’t over till it is over. Get your yourself a lawyer.
Contact the mayor. you may be the poster boy for Mamdani’s campaign against abusive landlord.I read the previous article, Likely you have a strong case.
What is new policy from WSR closing comments after six days. Ridiculous
It was meant as a practical. suggestion specifically for Stuart Kalmenso He deserves sympathy because at some point he was no longer a clear thinker.and it resulted in not only becoming evicted but homeless. .
For the record I am a vocal opponent’s goal of seizing buildings and giving them over to non-profits.. Unfortunately most non-profits benefit the trustees who run then them.
Do you have any evidence for your claim that most non-profit management of housing benefits the trustees (if there are any – many non-profits don’t have trustees, they just have a board of directors)? I’m guessing that’s an unfounded claim.
It took seven lawsuits, including one that contains 453 docket entries and 24 motions made to the Court, to evict an individual who stopped paying rent in 2020. That’s a story in and of itself.
Precisely. That is where the outage SHOULD be aimed. But for some reason we’re supposed to sympathize with this.
The world’s most predictable outcome. Should have taken the $45,000 in 2021 and moved on…
A quick search of the Housing Court’s docket reveals Mr. Kalmenson has had his day in court, in fact, he’s had plenty of them in both Housing Court and NY County Supreme. The case docket has over 233 entries since the case’s inception in 2021. The decision of the Housing Court, after Mr. Kalmenson’s trial in June/July 2025, reveals he was a subtenant of a co-op owner who rented out the unit (it was not rent controlled/stabilized) the owner sold the unit and Mr. Kalmenson was 64 months in arrears on his rent to the new owner, and in the years since the eviction proceedings started, Kalmenson filed for bankruptcy in an effort to stay the eviction . Additionally the court found he was less than forthcoming in certain of his representations to DHCR.
It really, really shouldn’t take years to evict problem tenants.
What did he do with the rent money he didn’t pay for six years?
probably lived on it, since apparently he was no longer working for money
So let’s say he finally won his case. Didn’t he expect to have to at least pay back rent at his preferred rate of $2,600 a month? A reasonably intelligent person would have been putting that money away. So over six years that is over $185,000? Plus interest.
It would have been somewhat ironic if he actually won, the judge let him stay and made him pay, he didn’t have the money, and had to leave anyway.
I feel sad for him. Most people have a friend or family member who would at least let them couch surf for a little while if they suddenly lost their home. As well as a trusted friend/family member who likely would have talked some sense into them after several years of this craziness. He clearly leads a lonely life – my guess is that this became an obsession with him and any people he had in his life got tired of hearing about it.
I’m sorry this is happening to him but this was all very, very predictable more than a year ago, he should have done something to prepare. He’s acting like this is a surprise when it’s not.
Very sad, but this guys had years to prepare for this. He tried to play the game and lost. He is not a complete victim here. His dog is, however, and deserves better.
Mr. Kalmenson needs help with his mental health issues. The fight was not really about trying to keep his apartment. He became fixated on gaming the system, and the fight itself became part of his identity. That is why he could not hold a job and not because of the lack of internet or hot water.
For most of us, having a job means survival, so we do everything possible to keep it. Mr. Kalmenson instead preferred to present himself as a victim, seemingly hoping for a lucrative settlement. Meanwhile, he did not pay rent for years.
Those who cheer on his fight are only enabling his dysfunction.
Apparently, he needs help now, even though his situation is largely self-created. But portraying him as a victim does him no favors. What he needs is mental health treatment and the ability to stand on his own two feet.
Well said.
Cautionary tale?
Mr. Kalmenson should get his DHS caseworker to make the HRA pay for a storage unit for his property. The city is required to pay for storage for homeless people, per Logan v. Proud. The HRA has Policy Bulletins and the state OTDA has Directives with details. Research, apply, get a unit, move stuff.
My building has lost 2 tenants to eviction and neither one was allowed access to storage after 30 days. They lost all their belongings. They were treated abominably and one was on the streets with her dog for years. I don’t know what happened to the other one and he was elderly. 🙁 It is not as easy as people seem to think to get services. And one cannot gain access to the safe housing programs until they’ve first been through the City shelter system which is dangerous. One person I know who went through it said there were people turning tricks right in front of her. Even children are exposed to this. Not OK.
My heart goes out to anyone homeless regardless of the circumstances. However, I have a major problem with his arrest. Two people show up to forcibly enter the dwelling, a physical confrontation takes place, and instead of the police thoughtfully considering the situation and making a common sense decision, they arrest everyone, including the injured apartment dweller. Their mantra appears to be ‘just arrest everyone and let the D.A.’s office figure it out’ regardless of the consequences to an innocent person.
I’ve seen this play out numerous times. I once witnessed a young punk start a fight with a man on the IRT. The man successfully defended himself. But when the police arrived, they arrested both of them despite me telling them that the man did not want to fight and simply defended himself. It’s laziness at least and incompetence at most.
I guess the new term for homeless is “unhoused”. So where are all the folks fighting for this? Oh, they’re protesting stuff instead of dealing with homelessness. Where is/was his income to PAY for his rent? Nothing is cheap on the UWS.
A very sad story because the underlying issue is that Mr. Kalmenson is obviously in need of immediate and intensive mental health care. He doesn’t understand how this happened to him because he couldn’t deal with the reality of the situation at the outset, which led him further and further down the rabbit hole he’s in now. Unfortunately, he’s has become one of the thousands of homeless who need massive assistance. His chance of receiving it is very slim.
Kalmenson was offered $45,000 to leave. That is equivalent to 17 months of rent he pays ($2650). So he had quite some time to make other living arrangements. He made a bad decision to fight the system without a job. What advice he had to do that was bad. I hope he has family and friends who will help him. Caty might renew his offer of $45K and put an end to this story.
This admittedly went on for years. There is no reporting on what kind of negotiations went on with the tenants, or what other tenants who moved out had to say about the sale, and their vacate/removal issues. It just sounds like it’s not a full story without that since we do know that it’s not simple to evict anyone in this city (thankfully).
As a former rent stabilized tenant with notorious NYC slumlords and then later a lucky co-op owner, I’ve always been amazed we think that property owners who get a good deal are worthy and savvy but tenants with good deals are bad. Why can’t it be OK to for a tenant to have a great deal which is aka an affordable place to live?
I hope Mr. Kalemson gets relief and esp. affordable housing. I know from my own experiences the physical and emotional chaos involved with fighting a slumlord and how that leads to so much mental stress and hardship.
And I wish there’d been a link to donate to help Mr. Kalmenson. I’ll look for him and his dog. No one should be evicted from an affordable home after 20 years and suffer no heat and hot water, harrassment, and physical abuse before that.
A link would be a great idea.
By “affordable” you mean “free.” Kalemson has not paid rent in six years
What is the meaning of “affordable housing” in a situation like this one where the person has no income?
A housing voucher paid for by the city. Since he’s been evicted that’s the only housing he can get. It’s very affordable for him.
Doesn’t this boil down to whether Kalmenson is correct about the building not being a legitimate co-op?
He says the building ought to be rent stabilized but was “operating as a co-op.” What is his basis for that belief? When a rental building is converted to a co-op, New York State has to sign off on it. If it’s a non-eviction plan, then there can still be rent controlled or stabilized tenants, but once the occupants move out of an apartment that was rent-regulated at the time of conversion, that’s that, ownership reverts to the developer or an investor who purchased the apartment from the developer.
This seems like something a real estate lawyer could determine pretty quickly.
Interesting article yet can be a self-manufactured situation. Six years is a long time to stabilize yourself as a data scientist. Need a deep dive into hidden aspects.
I disagree with most of the comments here. To my mind, something sounds VERY suspicious about the way in which Mr. Canty and his attorneys handled this situation, and whether Mr. Kalmenson should have been evicted at all while the case was ongoing.
In fact, if it turns out that the landlords WERE violating the rent regulation provisions, then Mr. Kalmenson should be immediately re-instated into his apartment for as long as he wants. Period. That is the (rent regulations) law.
No, I do not believe that the landlord is ALWAYS at fault or wrong in these situations. But in THIS situation, I believe Mr. Kalmenson was taken advantage of, that the judge was wrong for issuing an eviction order while there were still active elements of the case (including the issue of possible rent regulation law violations by the landlord), and that the courts failed him.
This is nothing less than a tragedy, and will only embolden other landlords to violate the rent regulation laws, since they will now believe that they can get away with it.
I predict that this will lead to a slew of premature evictions in the coming months and years.
Assume market rent is $3500 — he just did not pay for six years… That’s $252k in free rent from this “slumlord”.
The owner likely lost millions due to this guy.
He had choices…I feel sorry for his poor dog.
So frightening, like my grandmother used to say, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.”
Ecchh. I’ve lived up here since ‘93. 33 years now. Probably less that a lot of you! First in East vill in the ‘80s, then rent controlled on the UWS then made my way here. Fell in love with the ‘hood. But in those three decades here. Ok, gentrification. Then Über gentrification. Like you gotta be a multimillionaire. All the fun things, mom & pops, buh-bye.
I posted a comment in line with many other comments on this thread, but it did not appear. So mystified by WSR’s moderation decisions. It would be nice if we got more specific guidelines for posting.
I feel your pain. They are usually good but sometimes they withhold seemingly innocuous posts for no reason, while letting hostile and/or repetitive posts get through. The folks who run WSR generally do an incredibly job but the mods sometimes really drop the ball. Though to my point, perhaps they didn’t post what you wrote because you were basically saying the exact same thing as many other prior posters? Unclear.
Just commenting on the city selling his apartment holdings after a month— how can he possibly find another place to live affordably in the city in less than 3 weeks ?There should be some compassion here- some way to forestall that — with a paid storage unit – that he can pay back when he gets a job as he said he will now do.or a go fund me campaign by friends and family. ? How many people lose all their possessions from eviction that get sold off before they can recover them? Something for the Mayor or the . City Council to look into??
If you go to a shelter they will get you a small storage unit for clothing and paperwork. That’s what he needs to go. Apply for cash assistance, food stamps and health insurance. I think the office is on 16th st. Go through the system and get a city housing voucher. Get an apartment and a part time job. That’s the most realistic plan. And get any mental health treatment he needs.
The storage only lasts for 30 days ad you have to go into the shelter system before getting permanent housing. It isn’t as easy as you say.
I said you have to go through the system. I helped someone who did this.
If this happened to me, my friends and family would help out. It seems like this man has neither. That’s a shame. I wonder if he has alienated those close to him. Often that is the case with people who end up homeless.
Who would take the risk of letting someone like this stay with them? The eviction process would take years, as demonstrated here.
Well, if they ever make a movie about this, Paul Giamatti is a lock to play Kalmenson.
Excellent reporting by Gus Saltonstall. First rate.
FYI. I believe this is the relevant Decision after trial on this matter. Sometimes it is helpful to read the decision and order that is the basis of the eviction.. Here is the link to the order
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=5VDdS0RtnC0RJivWbICvPg==
No one wants to see anyone homeless but I feel that this man had years to sort this out or find an alternative living situation. It does not seem that the process was unjust. And while his assault is sad and disturbing, it does not appear to have any connection with the eviction.
This guy had more than (5) years to figure out where he would move to and even Save to get a place.. I feel no pity for this guy as he brought this upon himself.
Do we not think that God is watching the decisions being made here. Mr Canty obviously has the means to buy a building so he definitely has the means to help this man. Mr Canty money and the love of it is the root of all evil. Do whats right.
What is right? Mr Canty offered at least $45,000 to buy the renter out, and for his troubles has not been paid rent for a good five years. When is enough enough? Bringing God into this is moralistic, though not moral, and unrealistic. It would be nice if Mr Canty helped him, but what if every tenant pulled this faux-shock nonsense after five years? Mr Canty himself might become homeless. Compassion is a two -way street here, and according to you, God is watching.
A GoFundMe for him and his sweet dog? Does anyone from the WSR want to start this? What about Nine Pineda from 7 on your Side? Mayor Mamdami? Where is he at with the promises of affordable housing?! I feel for this person and don’t know where to start.
He’s facing the reality of consequences. He had an escape valve, but he took a chance on being able to stay. He does need some mental health counseling as well as a helping hand. Something tells me, he’ll get out of this just fine. No one will let him stay in their home for fear that he will never leave.
He said that he was sent to Bellevue at some point. If there was a reason for him being ‘sent,’ there then I wonder if they did anything at all to assist him. Or is that just one of the steps a person has to take before going into the shelter system?
I read through all of the published legal proceedings online. In fact I read through a civil rights case he filed against the NYPD relating to an intoxicated girlfriend years before this eviction case. It appears he is a brilliant, yet troubled man who seems to have taken on a passion for legal writing rather than working his career in Data Science. He was offered $45000, instead he fought for years, had a judgment against him when he lost, filed bankruptcy and assaulted someone. It is unfortunate he is in the shelter system vs negotiated perhaps a better offer. And he’s lucky he’s not in Rikers for the assault
It the apartment is rent-stabilized, how did the landlord manage to evict him? It’s almost impossible to evict someone just to make repairs. Was he paying the rent in the 20 years he’d lived there?
The decision of the Housing Court, posted above, states Kalemson raised that as an issue at trial and the judge dismissed it as lacking merit, noting Kalemson’s lease specifically stated the property is NOT subject to rent regulation. No documentation was presented by Kalemson that contradicted the apartment owner’s documentation demonstrating the unit as unregulated. The judge also noted Kalemson’s testimony was “conclusory, self serving and without merit.” and noted other issues with Kamelson’s veracity.
I noticed that guy in the neighborhood with his dog, around the park and sitting on the sidewalk. I didn’t know it was him or that he was evicted. There were some guys with thug looks standing in front of the building with the door open a few weeks ago. It looked like they were taking out construction debris. It’s a shame what inexperienced developers get themselves into and the pain they inflict on people because of lack of experience. I heard he was offered a settlement but refused it. It’s just a darn shame.