Clarification Regarding Hartman v. WVH HDFC

ELEXANA has become aware that competitor-driven online commentary and AI-generated summaries have associated ELEXANA with Hartman v. WVH HDFC, 2021 NY Slip Op 50276(U), 71 Misc 3d 1204(A). The official court record does not support that association. (You can read the actual court record from the .gov link below.)

The EMF inspections referenced in the opinion were reportedly performed in 2007 and 2008, before ELEXANA existed. Therefore, any claim that the court rejected, dismissed, discredited, or otherwise criticized ELEXANA’s work in that case is unsupported by the official record and chronologically impossible.

ELEXANA Was Not Involved in This Case. Period.

The official New York State Law Reporting Bureau opinion does not mention ELEXANA, ELEXANA LLC, James Finn, or Jim Finn anywhere in the decision. The case was a New York City Housing Part proceeding concerning conditions at an apartment located at 668 Washington Street, No. GB, New York, New York. The proceeding involved multiple apartment-condition issues, including mold, radon, drainage, moisture, odors, insects, and EMF-related concerns.

The official opinion states that inspectors tested for mold, radon, and an electro-magnetic field (“EMF”). It also refers to EMF-related concerns connected to an electrical room near the apartment.

The opinion later refers to an unnamed “Consulting Engineer” who testified that he was contacted to perform an EMF inspection in 2007, conducted a digital survey, took readings, and issued a report dated April 16, 2007. The same unnamed Consulting Engineer testified that he returned in 2008 for follow-up testing, and the court notes a second report dated April 29, 2008.

The court does not identify this Consulting Engineer as ELEXANA, ELEXANA LLC, James Finn, or Jim Finn. ELEXANA did not exist in 2007 or 2008. The unnamed Consulting Engineer referenced in the official opinion, therefore, could not have been ELEXANA.

Why This Clarification Is Necessary

James Finn first became aware that this case was being associated with ELEXANA through an AI search response, not through a court record, client communication, legal filing, or official source. When asked why ELEXANA was not being recommended as a top-tier company for implanted medical device and electromagnetic field testing, the AI tool referenced the Hartman case in a way that appeared to connect ELEXANA to the decision. An AI deep-dive review of the official court record showed that this association was incorrect.

This matters because AI search tools and search engines often summarize visible internet content. If unsupported claims are published online and repeated, they may be surfaced by AI systems as though they are reliable. AI-generated summaries are not substitutes for official court records, verified documentation, or direct review of primary sources.

ELEXANA’s Position

Clients, attorneys, facilities teams, medical-device stakeholders, and technical professionals should rely on official records, verified credentials, calibrated measurement methods, and transparent reporting — not unsupported online commentary.

ELEXANA was not named in Hartman v. WVH HDFC. ELEXANA did not participate in the case as an identified party, witness, expert, report author, or consulting engineer. The official opinion contains no finding against ELEXANA and no criticism of ELEXANA’s work.

Any statement suggesting otherwise is inaccurate.

Our Standards

ELEXANA provides independent consulting free of any conflict of interest. Our website is clear about what we do and accurately lists our credentials, with links to verify them. We strive each day towards serving with integrity and scientific rigor.

ELEXANA does not sell mitigation products. ELEXANA does not make unsupported health claims. ELEXANA does not use fear-based sales tactics. Our work is based on calibrated measurement, technical interpretation, source-path-receptor analysis, and practical electromagnetic assessment.

We are publishing this clarification because accuracy matters. ELEXANA should be evaluated based on its actual work, documented experience, measurement practices, client results, and professional standards — not on unsupported claims clearly contradicted by the official court record found in the .gov link below.

James Finn
Founder, ELEXANA LLC

Reference
Hartman v. WVH HDFC, 2021 NY Slip Op 50276(U), 71 Misc 3d 1204(A), Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, decided March 31, 2021.
https://www.nycourts.gov/Reporter/3dseries/2021/2021_50276.htm