EXCLUSIVE: NEW YORK CITY — A Brooklyn landlord says he has been trapped in a nearly decade-long legal nightmare that has cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid rent and legal fees, while New York courts repeatedly delay resolution as his tenant continues living in the apartment without making direct rent payments to the landlord.

Thomas Diana, who owns a small eight-unit building in Park Slope, told Fox News Digital he has spent the last nine years trying to remove a woman who originally moved into one of his apartments as a live-in companion for an elderly, disabled tenant.

Court records show the woman moved into the apartment in 2014 after responding to a Craigslist advertisement seeking a live-in companion for the tenant, who later died in 2016.

What followed was nearly a decade of litigation spanning multiple courts and proceedings. After the elderly tenant’s death, disputes arose over the woman’s tenancy status, rent obligations and whether the apartment remained subject to New York rent-stabilization laws as Diana sought unpaid rent and possession of the apartment.

SQUATTER TURNS COUPLE’S DREAM HOME PURCHASE INTO NIGHTMARE

“This has gone on for nine years. Nothing about this is justice,” Diana told Fox News Digital. “Every time the case gets close to resolution, there’s another delay, another lawyer change, another new story.”

Diana says the tenant has changed lawyers at least eight times in the ongoing legal saga, which Diana refers to as a “9-year squatter situation,” although the case technically centers around a dispute over rent stabilization laws with the two sides disputing nearly every aspect of the case.

“It drained my daughter’s college fund,” Diana told Fox News Digital inside his home while wearing a now-outdated T-shirt that says, “Stuck with 8-year-squatter.”

“Now we’re borrowing money to pay for college while this just keeps dragging on. It gets pretty stressful. People think eviction cases are like TV where it takes two weeks. In New York it can take years, and this one has turned into almost a decade.”

IS MAMDANI’S SOCIALIST PUSH FOR RENT CONTROLS ABOUT TO WRECK THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING MARKET?

Attorneys for the tenant strongly dispute Diana’s characterization of the case, and the tenant at one point sued Diana, claiming the apartment had been improperly removed from rent stabilization protections.

“Mr. Diana’s distortion of the facts in this case is a sad attempt to harass our client out of her rent-stabilized apartment, and he will not be successful,” Casey Gilfoil, an attorney with Brooklyn Legal Services, told Fox News Digital.

Gilfoil said a judge has already ruled Diana improperly removed the apartment from rent stabilization and said the remaining issue before the court is determining the legal rent and any potential damages.

Brooklyn Legal Services also says the tenant has money set aside in escrow pending the court’s final ruling.

Diana pushed back, saying the court did not find that he committed fraud and that he followed the guidance he says he received from New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal when the apartment was deregulated years before the tenant sued. “The judge ruled there was no fraud,” Diana told Fox News Digital. “She said I incorrectly destabilized the apartment. I did it as they told me to.”

Diana also disputed Brooklyn Legal Services’ claim that the tenant has years of rent saved in escrow, saying the numbers do not add up and that, based on court communications regarding her employment history, it is unlikely she has accumulated “anywhere near” $300,000.

Diana says the occupant’s lawsuit relied on what he describes as a series of shifting and contradictory claims, including allegations that the original elderly tenant was not disabled, that the occupant had been on the lease and that the apartment was illegally deregulated.

During depositions, Diana said his attorney challenged those claims with emails, photographs, rent records and testimony. He contends the allegations did not withstand scrutiny during questioning.

“She got destroyed on all 18 claims,” Diana said. “And once those fell apart, they just made up new ones.”

WASHINGTON POST BLASTS RENT CONTROL AS ‘FAILED POLICY’ THAT LEAVES RENTERS ‘WORSE OFF’ THAN BEFORE

Court stipulations required the occupant to make monthly use-and-occupancy payments, similar to interim rent payments, of roughly $835 per month at one point, but Diana says those payments stopped years ago. He estimates total unpaid rent now ranges between $275,000 and $325,000.

In her deposition, the occupant testified she has not worked full time in years and has limited income, a factor Diana says the courts have effectively allowed to justify continued nonpayment.

Diana, who started a GoFundMe page to help with his financial struggles, says the prolonged case has left him struggling to maintain his building and cover basic expenses, including tuition for his children.

“One apartment out of eight not paying rent wipes out any profit,” Diana said. “Judges talk in terms of months. They don’t talk about what $300,000 actually does to a family.”

He also pointed to an overall problem with the system and described repeated housing court inspections that he says resulted in excessive and duplicative violations, which further delayed proceedings and increased costs.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“They’ll cite you for a paint drip from 20 years ago and call you a slumlord,” Diana said. “Meanwhile, the tenant hasn’t paid rent in nearly a decade.”

Diana says his case highlights what he views as a systemic imbalance in New York’s housing courts that allows bad-faith actors to exploit tenant protections indefinitely.

“They tell you to sell your building. They tell you to accept a buyout, to pay the person who owes you hundreds of thousands of dollars,” he said. “That’s not justice. That’s legalized theft.”

In April, the case was adjourned again until this summer, essentially guaranteeing that the saga will extend into its 10th year.

“This court case has become a Twilight Zone Marathon,” Diana said.

California’s decision to redraw its congressional map to flip as many as five House seats to Democrats in November is poised to play a big and potentially decisive role in the nation’s broader, bare-knuckle fight for control of Congress.

Tuesday’s primary races — where the top two candidates will advance to November runoffs — won’t determine which Republicans are ousted in most cases, but they will provide an important first look at voter sentiment and bring the fall’s most crucial head-to-head contests into focus.

“There will be some real cues and signals about what to expect,” said Christian Grose, a redistricting scholar and political science professor at USC. “We’re going to know how strong the Democrats’ chances are going to be based on who advances.”

As one example, Grose pointed to the redrawn 22nd Congressional District in the Central Valley, where incumbent Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) is facing challenges from moderate Assemblymember Jasmeet Kaur Bains (D-Delano) and progressive college professor Randy Villegas.

Grose said Bains is probably a stronger challenger than Villegas in a district that’s still a reach for Democrats — even if “either one could probably beat Valadao if 2026 is a big Democratic wave.”

Grose will also be closely watching the race between incumbent Reps. Young Kim (R-Anaheim Hills) and Ken Calvert (R-Corona) in the redrawn Congressional District 40, which covers a swath of inland Orange County and portions of San Bernardino and Riverside counties, including parts of Kim’s and Calvert’s current districts.

The district race wasn’t designed to deliver Democrats a seat, but will produce “one of the first casualties for Republicans from the new map” — months before other expected ousters — if Kim and Calvert don’t both advance.

The national picture

The redistricting war was prompted by President Trump’s unprecedented pressuring of Republican-controlled states to redraw their maps mid-decade for partisan advantage in order to retain control of Congress, given his sinking approval ratings and a history of midterm voters punishing the president’s party.

After Texas Republicans heeded Trump’s call to redraw five districts in their party’s favor, California Democrats responded with Proposition 50, a ballot measure passed by voters in November to sideline the state’s independent redistricting committee and allow Democrats to redraw five congressional districts in their favor.

The war ratcheted up — with more Republican states suddenly considering map changes — after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in April that weakened the 1965 Voting Rights Act and its long-standing protections for majority-Black districts in the South.

Republicans have now acted to redraw congressional maps in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee, with varying degrees of success, while a battle in Utah could add a single additional Democratic seat there. Attempts in other states have failed, including by the GOP in South Carolina and Democrats in Virginia.

Experts say the net result from the flurry of redistricting will probably be a gain of a handful or more seats for Republicans — but in a year when Democrats are expected to make gains more broadly, leaving control of the House up for grabs. California’s new map is “a huge deal” precisely because that math is so close, said David Wasserman, senior editor and elections analyst for the independent, nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

“Democrats are modest favorites for House control based on the political environment, but also because of California,” Wasserman said in an interview with The Times. “Picking up these four or five seats is a prerequisite to Democrats getting the majority.”

California seats in play

California has 52 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, by far the most of any state. With their new map, California Democrats are hoping to increase their 43 House seats to 48. That would leave just four seats represented by members of the GOP despite Republicans accounting for a quarter of the state electorate.

But that outcome isn’t guaranteed.

Paul Mitchell, a Democratic redistricting expert who devised California’s new map, said the reconfigured congressional districts had to create a pathway for new Democrats to win additional seats without undermining incumbent Democrats’ reelection. And the result is a map with three pretty safe pickups for Democrats, and two districts that are “100% on the table, ready for Democrats to win,” but will nonetheless “require shoe-leather and grit.”

The redrawn congressional district boundaries enacted by Proposition 50 promise to shake up at least three seats, experts said.

Congressional District 1: Held by the late Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Richvale) for 13 years until his death in January, the district is currently rural and conservative, stretching from the Sacramento outskirts through Redding to the Oregon border and California’s northeastern corner. Under the state’s new congressional district map, it loses some of its rural reaches and picks up liberal coastal communities, and favors a Democrat such as state Sen. Mike McGuire, who is one of the leading candidates.

Congressional District 3: The seat is currently held by Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-Rocklin) and stretches from the Sacramento suburbs through Lake Tahoe and south along the Nevada border. Under the new map, it holds more tightly to the Sacramento suburbs, favoring a Democrat.

The changes were enough to convince an incumbent Democrat, Rep. Ami Bera (D-Elk Grove), to leave his current district — Congressional District 6, which includes the city of Sacramento and the suburbs of Roseville and Rocklin in Placer County — and run in District 3 instead.

Meanwhile, Kiley did the reverse. He quit the Republican Party, became an independent and announced he would be leaving District 3 and running instead in District 6 — the one Bera is leaving — against a slate of new Democratic challengers.

Congressional District 41. The seat is now held by Calvert, a 17-term incumbent, and currently stretches from Corona to the Coachella Valley. The new map made the district more liberal, losing voters in Riverside County and gaining them in Los Angeles County, and Calvert decided to run instead in Kim’s redrawn but still Republican-leaning Congressional District 40 that is just to the west.

The two toughest flips for Democrats, experts said, are Congressional District 22, Valadao’s heavily Latino district in the Central Valley, followed by Congressional District 48 in San Diego and Riverside counties, where Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall) decided to retire rather than run for reelection.

Valadao is viewed as especially vulnerable because of his recent support for Medicaid cuts, but he has proved resilient in the past. Meanwhile, his two leading Democratic challengers, Bains and Villegas, are in a bitter fight, with Bains receiving Democratic establishment support and Villegas winning endorsements from prominent progressives.

In Issa’s district, moderate Republican San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond is running against several infighting Democrats, including San Diego Councilwoman Marni von Wilpert and former Obama labor official Ammar Campa-Najjar.

Not new, or over

Jeff Wice, a New York Law School professor who was involved in California redistricting efforts in 2010, said the state “has long played hardball politics on redistricting,” including when then-Rep. Phil Burton, a powerful San Francisco Democrat, bragged more than 40 years ago that the complex congressional boundaries he’d crafted for Democrats were his “contribution to modern art.”

But in five decades studying redistricting, Wice said he has never seen such “politically driven, partisan politics” as are occurring now across the nation, which he said have “no root in law, reason or fairness” — and are only likely to continue.

“This state-by-state war is far from over, and may continue all the way through 2030,” he said. “A lot of it depends on the outcome of this November’s election.”

Wasserman said the country has “entered an era of no-holds-barred redistricting,” and he also sees redistricting efforts continuing — including in California, where they would present a distinct threat to the state’s few remaining Republicans.

Michael Li, senior counsel in the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, said California is a “big part of the story” this election cycle, thanks to Proposition 50. “Democrats in California proved to be very determined and resourceful and managed to get that done, and right now California is the big offset to Republican gerrymandering around the country,” he said.

But what will come of it all — in California and across the country — is still to be determined.

“When you’re gerrymandering, you’re making a bet that you know what the politics of the future will look like, and it’s hard to predict,” he said. “It’s a high-risk, high-reward venture.”