Jones v. Deutsch Stipulation

    P A U L ,  W E I S S .  R I F K I N D .

1 2 8 5  A V E N U E  O F  T H E  A M E R I C A S

T E L E P H O N E  ( 2 1 2 )  3 7 3  3 0 0 0  

T E L E C O P IE R  ( 2 1 2 )  7 5 7  3 9 9 0  

T E L E X  W U I 6 6 6  8 4 3

R A N D O L P H  E P A U L  ( 1 9 4 6  1 9 3 6 )
L O U IS  S  W E IS S  ( 1 9 2 7  1 9 5 0 )
J O H N  F W H A R T O N  ( 1 9 2 7  1 9 7 7 )

M O R R IS  B  A B R A M  
A D R IA N  W D E W IN D  
L L O Y D  K  G A R R IS O N  
J O S E P H  S  IS E M A N  
J A M E S  B  L E W IS  
P A U L  J  N E W L O N  
M O R D E C A I R O C H L IN  
H O W A R D  A. S E IT Z  
S A M U E L  J  S IL V E R M A N  

N O R M A N  Z E L E N K O  
C O U N S E L

D O M IN IQ U E  F A R G U E **
E U R O P E A N  C O U N S E L

W R IT E R ’ S  D IR E C T  D I A L  N U M B E R

(212) 373-3287

W H A R T O N  8 G A R R I S O N

N E W  Y O R K  N E W  Y O R K  1 0 0 1 9

1 6 1 5  L  S T R E E T . N  W 
W A S H IN G T O N . D  C  2 0 0 3 6  

T E L E P H O N E  ( 2 0 2 )  2 2 3  7 3 0 0  
T E L E C O P IE R  ( 2 0 2 )  2 2 3  7 4 2 0  

T E L E X  2 4 8 2 3 7  P W A  UR

1 9 9 . B O U L E V A R D  S A IN T  G E R M A IN  
7 5 0 0 7  P A R IS  F R A N C E  

T E L E P H O N E  ( 3 3  1) 4 5  4 9  3 3  8 5  
T E L E C O P IE R  ( 3 3 - 1 )  4 2 . 2 2  6 4  3 8  

T E L E X  2 0 3 1 7 8 F

2 0 0 8  T W O  E X C H A N G E  S O U A R E  
8  C O N N A U G H T  P L A C E . C E N T R A L  

H O N G  K O N G  

T E L E P H O N E  ( 8 5 2 )  5 - 2 2 0 0 4 1  
T E L E C O P IE R  ( 8 3 2 )  5  8 6 8 0 1 2 4  

T E L E X  H X 6 6 2 0 8

A K A S A K A  T W IN  TO W E R  
1 7 - 2 2 .  A K A S A K A  2 -C H O M E  

M IN A T O — K U . T O K Y O  1 0 7 . JA P A N  
T E L E P H O N E  ( 8 1 - 3 )  8 0 5  0 2 9 1  

T E L E C O P IE R  ( 8 1 - 9 )  3 0 5  4 5 4 0  
T E L E X  0 2 4 2 8 1 2 0  PW R W G T

December 23, 1988

N E A L E  M A L B E R T  
M A R K  H A L C O T T  
D A N IE L  J  B E L L E R  
M A R K  A  B E L N IC K  
A L L A N  B L U M S T E IN  
R IC H A R D  S B O R IS O F F  
J O H N  F B R E G L IO  
D A V ID  C. B R O D H E A D  
R IC H A R D  J  B R O N S T E IN  
JO S E P H  E BR O W D Y  
C A M E R O N  C L A R K  
L E W IS  R C L A Y T O N  
JE R O M E  A L A N  C O H E N  
E D W A R D  N C O S T IK Y A N  
J A M E S  M D U B IN  
L E S L IE  G O R D O N  F A G E N  
PE TE R  L  F E L C H E R  
G E O R G E  P F E L L E M A N  
B E R N A R D  F IN K E L S T E IN  
M IT C H E L L  S F IS H M A N  
R O B E R T  C . F L E D E R  
M A R T IN  F L U M E N B A U M  
T E R E N C E  J  F O R T U N E * 
M A X  G IT T E R  
R IC H A R D  D G O L D S T E IN  
B E R N A R D  H G R E E N E  
J A Y  G R E E N F IE L D  
P E T E R  R H A JE  
A L B E R T  P. H A N D  
G E R A R D  E H A R P E R  
S E Y M O U R  H E R TZ 
R O B E R T  M H IR S H  
J A M IE  P H O R S L E Y * 
A R T H U R  K A L IS H  
L E W IS  A. K A P L A N  
A N T H O N Y  8  K U K L IN  
JE R O M E  K U R T Z  
S T E V E N  E L A N D E R S  
R O B E R T  L . L A U F E R  
W A L T E R  F  L E IN H A R D T  
A R T H U R  L  L IM A N

M A R T IN  L O N D O N  
B A Y L E S S  M A N N IN G  
J O H N  E M A S S E N G A L E  
J O H N  P. M C E N R O E  
C O L L E E N  M C M A H O N  
R O B E R T  E M O N T G O M E R Y . JR  
R O B E R T  H M O N T G O M E R Y . JR  
D O N A L D  F M O O R E  
T O B Y  S M Y E R S O N  
M A T T H E W  N IM E T Z  
K E V IN  J  O 'B R IE N  
L IO N E L  H O L M E R *
J O H N  J  O 'N E IL  
S T U A R T  I O R A N  
M A R C  E P E R L M U T T E R  
JA M E S  L  P U R C E L L  
L E O N A R D  V  Q U IG L E Y  
C A R L  L  R E IS N E R  
S IM O N  H R IF K IN D  
S T U A R T  R O B IN O W IT Z  
S ID N E Y  6  R O S D E IT C H E R  
R IC H A R D  A R O S E N  
S T E V E N  8  R O S E N F E L D  
P E T E R  J  R O T H E N B E R G  
E R N E S T  R U B E N S T E IN  
T E R R Y  E. S C H IM E K  
J O H N  A. S IL B E R M A N  
M O S E S  S IL V E R M A N  
E IL E E N  S S IL V E R S  
S T E V E N  S IM K IN  
R O B E R T  S S M IT H  
M A R IL Y N  S O B E L  
T H E O D O R E  C  S O R E N S E N  
J O H N  C T A Y L O R . 3RD 
A L L E N  L  T H O M A S  
J U D IT H  R T H O Y E R  
J A Y  T O P K IS  
J O S E  E T R IA S  
D A V ID  T . W A S H B U R N  
A L F R E D  D Y O U N G W O O D

•N O T ADM ITTED  TO  NEW YORK BAR 
-C O N S E IL  JURIDIOUE IN FRANCE ONLY

Jonathan Lovett, Esq.
Lovett & Gould 
180 East Post Road White Plains, NY 10601
Paul Agresta, Esq.
P.O. Box 205 
Elmsford, NY 10523
Timothy C. Quinn, Jr., Esq. 
Quinn & Suhr 
170 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601
Dear Colleagues:

As we have discussed, I enclose our First Supple­
mental Complaint and a proposed stipulation concerning the 
same. The new pleading brings the Complaint current with 
events and corrects a citation to the Social Security statute. Otherwise it is the same as the original complaint.

Please call one of us with any comments you may 
have on the stipulation. If you approve it, let us know and 
we will circulate execution copies and submit the stipulation 
to the Court for its consideration.

Sincerely,

Cameron Clark
CC/mpEnclosures 
FEDERAL EXPRESS



bcc: All Counsel
Jay Himes 
Melinda Levine 
William Gerson



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ X

YVONNE JONES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

-against-
LAURENCE DEUTSCH, et al.,

Defendants.

88 Civ. 7738 (GLG) 
STIPULATION

x

The complaint in this action was filed on 
November 1, 1988. Defendant Anthony Veteran filed his answer 
on November 18, 1988. Defendants Laurence Deutsch, Michael 
Tone, Steven Goldrich and Coalition of United Peoples, Inc. 
filed a Motion to Dismiss on December 12, 1988. Defendant 
Colin Edwin Kaufman joined in the other defendants' Motion to 
Dismiss and moved also for summary judgment on December 19, 
1988.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:
1. The attached First Supplemental Complaint may 

be filed on consent of the parties, subject to approval of 
the Court.

2. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the complaint 
and defendant Kaufman's motion for summary judgment shall be 
deemed directed to the First Supplemental Complaint.



♦
2

3. Defendant Anthony Veteran shall have 30 days 
from the date of execution of this stipulation to move or 
answer with respect to the First Supplemental Complaint.

Dated: New York, New York
December , 1988

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON 
By:_________________________
Attorneys for Plaintiffs 
1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019 (212) 373-3000

QUINN & SHUR
By: ____________________
Attorneys for Colin Edwin Kaufman170 Hamilton Avenue
White Plains, New York 10601

LOVETT & GOULD
By:
Attorneys for Laurence Deutsch, Michael Tone, Steven Goldrich and 
Coalition of United Peoples, Inc. 180 E. Post Road 
White Plains, New York 10601



Paul Agresta
Attorney for Anthony F. Veteran 
Office of the Town Attorney P.0. Box 206
Elmsford, New York 10523

SO ORDERED

United States District Judge



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

X
YVONNE JONES, ANITA JORDAN, APRIL :JORDAN, LATOYA JORDAN, ANNA RAMOS,
LIZETTE RAMOS, VANESSA RAMOS, :
GABRIEL RAMOS, THOMAS MYERS,
LISA MYERS, THOMAS MYERS, JR., :
LINDA MYERS, SHAWN MYERS,ODELL A. JONES, MELVIN DIXON, :
GERI BACON, MARY WILLIAMS,JAMES HODGES, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION :
FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED 
PEOPLE, INC., WHITE PLAINS/ :GREENBURGH BRANCH, AND NATIONAL 
COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS, :

Plaintiffs, : 88 Civ. 7738 (GLG)
-against- : FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT

LAURENCE DEUTSCH, COLIN EDWIN :
KAUFMAN, STEVEN NEIL GOLDRICH,MICHAEL JAMES TONE, COALITION OF :
UNITED PEOPLES, INC., andANTHONY F. VETERAN, as Supervisor :
of the Town of Greenburgh,

Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  -x

Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, for their com­
plaint, allege (on information and belief except as to 
paragraphs 3-5, 8, and 38-49):

Nature of the Action and Background 
1. This action is brought by a number of black 

citizens of Greenburgh, parents of homeless families in



Westchester County, the National Association for the Advance­
ment of Colored People, White Plains/Greenburgh Branch 
("NAACP") and the National Coalition for the Homeless (the 
"National Coalition") to obtain redress against a racially 
motivated conspiracy formed by the defendants other than 
Anthony Veteran (hereinafter the "Conspiring Defendants") for 
the purpose of depriving racial minorities and homeless 
persons of constitutional and statutory rights. The 
Conspiring Defendants are residents of Westchester County who 
have banded together to seek incorporation of a new, almost 
totally segregated village. Their declared purpose is to 
defeat a project to build housing for homeless families, most 
of whom belong to racial minorities, by using the new 
village's zoning power. In furtherance of this scheme, they 
have drawn the village boundaries in a grotesque shape, 
thereby attempting to ensure its all-white composition and to 
guarantee attaining their racially exclusionary objective. 
Defendants' conduct constitutes a conspiracy in violation of 
42 U.S.C. S 1985 that should be declared unlawful, enjoined, 
and remedied, as against the Conspiring Defendants but not 
defendant Veteran, by an appropriate award of monetary 
damages.

2. This conspiracy is a direct attack on a 
coordinated effort by state, county and municipal government 
—  aided by a non-profit, charitable organization —  to

2



establish safe and decent temporary housing for homeless 
families with children in Westchester County. Westchester 
County currently shelters approximately 957 families with 
1978 children in a number of sub-standard facilities includ­
ing motels in New York City and certain Hudson Valley coun­
ties. Homeless persons, particularly children, are irrevoca­
bly damaged by living conditions in those motels.
Westchester County is suffering from an unprecedented housing 
crisis with a higher proportion of homeless families to its 
population than even New York City.

Jurisdiction
3. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. fiS 1331, 1337, and 1343. This action arises under the 
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of 
the United States, the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. ft 1973, 
the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. fi 1985, the Fair Housing Act, 
42 U.S.C. | 3604, the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. || 601 
and 602, Article I, (i 1 and 11, and Article XVII, f l of the 
Constitution of the State of New York, Sfi 40-c(l) and (2) of 
the Civil Rights Law of the State of New York, | 291(2) of 
the Executive Law of the State of New York, and II 62 and 131 
of the Social Services Law of the State of New York, and 
regulations promulgated thereunder. Declaratory relief is 
authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C. || 2201 and 2202.

3



Venue
4. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. fi 1391(b).

All defendants reside in the Southern District of New York, 
and the claim arose in that District.

EflEfcleg
5. The plaintiffs are the following:

a. Plaintiff Anita Jordan is a homeless 
black woman who lives with her two children, April (age 18 
months) and Latoya (age two and a half), in a single room at 
the Elmsford Motor Lodge, 290 Tarrytown Road, Elmsford, New 
York. The Jordan family was placed in the motel by 
Westchester County.

b. Plaintiff Anna Ramos is a homeless white 
woman who lives with her three children, Lizette (age 
eleven), Vanessa (age five) and Gabriel (age one), in a 
single room at the Coachman Hotel, 123 East Post Road, White 
Plains, New York. The Ramos family was placed in the motel 
by Westchester County.

c. Plaintiffs Thomas and Lisa Myers are a 
homeless, black married couple who live with their three 
children, Thomas, Jr. (age four), Linda (age three) and Shawn 
(age two), in two small rooms at the Elmsford Motor Lodge,

4



290 Tarrytown Road, Elmsford, New York. The Myers family was 
placed in the motel by Westchester County.

d. Plaintiff Yvonne Jones is a black home- 
owner who has resided in the vicinity of the proposed village 
boundary in the unincorporated part of Greenburgh at 118 
North Evarts Avenue, Elmsford, New York for 35 years.

e. Plaintiff Odell A. Jones is a black 
homeowner who has resided in the vicinity of the proposed 
village boundary in the unincorporated part of Greenburgh at 
19 Van Buren Place, White Plains, New York for 27 years.

f. Plaintiff Geri Bacon is a black homeowner 
who has resided in the vicinity of the proposed village 
boundary in the unincorporated part of Greenburgh at 16 Adams 
Place, White Plains, New York for 33 years.

g. Plaintiff James Hodges is a black home- 
owner who has resided in the vicinity of the proposed village 
boundary in the unincorporated part of Greenburgh at 51 Cabot 
Avenue, Elmsford, New York for two years.

h. Plaintiff Mary Williams is a black 
homeowner who has resided in the vicinity of the proposed 
village boundary in the unincorporated part of Greenburgh at 
179 Sears Avenue, Elmsford, New York for 28 years.

i. Plaintiff Melvin Dixon is a black 
homeowner who has resided inside the proposed village 
boundary at 15 North Lawrence Street, Elmsford, New York for 
25 years.

5



j. Plaintiff NAACP is a branch of a 
nonprofit membership association representing the interests 
of approximately 500,000 members in 1,800 branches throughout 
the United States. Since 1909, the association has sought 
through the courts to establish and protect the civil rights 
of minority citizens. NAACP's address is One Prospect 
Avenue, White Plains, New York 10607.

k. Plaintiff National Coalition is a 
not-for-profit organization incorporated under New York law. 
Its primary purpose is to advocate responsible solutions to 
end homelessness with an emphasis on establishing decent 
housing for homeless persons. The National Coalition also 
provides direct assistance in the form of rent subsidies, 
food and legal counsel to homeless people. Its address is 
105 East 22nd Street, New York, New York 10010.

6. The Conspiring Defendants are natural persons, 
and each has the following address:

Laurence Deutsch 211 Wood Hampton Drive 
White Plains, New York 10603

Colin Edwin Kaufman 8 Hartford Road
(a/k/a/ Hartford Lane) 
White Plains, New York 10603

Steven Neil Goldrich 128 North Hampton Drive 
White Plains, New York 10603

Michael James Tone 19 Chelsea Road 
White Plains, New York 10607

6



7. Defendant Coalition of United Peoples, Inc. 
("COUP") is a not-for-profit corporation that purports to 
have been organized under the lavs of the State of New York. 
Its members are real property owners who reside in the 
vicinity of the proposed homeless housing site.

8. Defendant Anthony F. Veteran is the Town 
Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh and is named as a 
defendant in that capacity. Defendant Veteran is named as a 
party only with respect to Count IV.

Co-Conspirators
9. Various other persons not made defendants in 

this action participated as co-conspirators with defendants 
in the violations set forth below, and performed acts and 
made statements in furtherance thereof.

Factual Background 
The West HELP Development

10. West H.E.L.P., Inc. (Homeless Emergency 
Leverage Program, Inc.) ("West HELP") is a not-for-profit 
corporation organized under the lavs of the State of New 
York. One of West HELP'S purposes is the construction of 
housing for homeless persons in the State of New York.

11. The County of Westchester (the "County") is a 
municipal corporation existing pursuant to the laws of the 
State of New York. The County is located in the Southern 
District of New York.

7



12. The Town of Greenburgh (the "Town") Is a 
municipal corporation existing pursuant to the laws of the 
State of New York. The Town is located within the County.

13. Homeless families in Westchester County 
presently are quartered at great public expense in often 
squalid motel rooms. A parent with a number of children 
typically is allotted a single room.

14. A number of homeless families in the County 
are sheltered in motels that are far from their communities 
of origin. This aggravates the devastating impact of 
homelessness by disrupting relationships with schools, 
neighbors, relatives and other social and economic supports.

15. In or about October 1987, the County and West 
HELP jointly proposed the establishment of several housing 
developments for homeless families with children in the 
County.

16. In or about January 1988, the Town offered to 
have established within its boundaries one of those develop­
ments (the "West HELP Development"). The Town, together with 
West HELP, proposed as the site for the housing approximately 
30 acres of land, presently owned by the County, situated in 
the Town (the "Development Site"). In April 1988, the Town, 
by unanimous resolution of its supervisor and council 
members, expressed support for the West HELP Development and

8



requested that the County conduct the required environmental 
review.

17. The West HELP Development is intended to 
provide safe, economical and humane emergency shelter to 
homeless families with children.

18. The West HELP Development would provide 
"transitional" housing for homeless families pending their 
establishment of more permanent homes. As planned, it would 
consist of six two-story buildings with approximately 18 
housing units in each. A seventh building would be con­
structed to house day care, counseling, and selected social 
services for the benefit of those lodged at the Development 
Site. The West HELP Development is widely regarded as a 
model in the provision of cost-effective, decent transitional 
housing to homeless families with children.

19. The West HELP Development also includes the 
following proposals, among others:

a. The County would lease the site to West 
HELP for the period of construction plus ten years.

b. West HELP would secure construction and 
permanent financing for the West HELP Development from the 
sale of tax exempt bonds issued by a public benefit agency 
created under New York law. The bonds would be amortized 
over a 10 year period, after which control of the Development

9



Site would revert to the government subject to a requirement 
that it continue to have a housing-related use.

c. The County would enter into an agreement 
with West HELP for the placement of homeless families with 
children in the West HELP Development. Under this agreement, 
West HELP would receive a funding stream sufficient to cover 
operating costs as well as amortization and debt service of 
the bonds used to finance the West HELP Development.

20. A majority of the homeless persons in the 
County are members of racial minorities. Such persons are 
among the intended and expected beneficiaries of the West 
HELP Development.

Formation of the Conspiracy
21. In early 1988, defendant Deutsch, together 

with others presently unknown to plaintiffs, formed COUP. 
Defendant COUP'S purpose is to stop the West HELP 
Development. Defendant Deutsch is COUP'S president.

22. On or about February 11, 1988, Defendant 
Deutsch participated in a meeting held at the Valhalla High 
School in the County, at which there was discussion of means 
to oppose the West HELP Development. Later that same month, 
Defendant Deutsch publicly announced that he and other Town 
residents intended to prepare a petition, pursuant to the 
Village Law of the State of New York, to incorporate a new

10



village —  to be called "Mayfair Knollwood" —  within the 
Town. As envisioned, the geographic boundaries of Mayfair 
Knollwood were to include the Development Site.

23. Defendant Deutsch and his co-conspirators 
intend to use the incorporation of Mayfair Knollwood to block 
the West HELP Development. As Defendant Deutsch reportedly 
has put it:

We'll go ahead with secession and take a nice piece of taxable property with us.
The "secession" plan was and is racially motivated. As 
Defendant Deutsch was quoted as stating in opposing the West 
HELP Development:

You're taking a piece of a ghetto and dumping it some­
where else to get another ghetto started.

24. Thereafter in 1988, a petition for incorpora­
tion of the proposed Village of Mayfair Knollwood was pre­
pared and the process of circulating the petition for signa­
ture, pursuant to the Village Law of the State of New York, 
began (the "Petition"). As charted in the Petition, the 
proposed Village of Mayfair Knollwood includes the Develop­
ment Site.

25. Defendant Deutsch participated in preparing 
the Petition, approved it, and assisted in its circulation. 
Defendants Kaufman, Goldrich and Tone agreed, in the 
Petition, to accept service of all papers in connection with 
a proceeding for incorporation.

11



26. The proposed boundary for Mayfair Knollwood is 
an irregular, multi-sided configuration designed by the 
Conspiring Defendants and their co-conspirators for the 
manifest purpose of excluding minority residents of the Town. 
The shape of the proposed Village and its purpose and effect 
to exclude racial minorities are shown on the map attached as 
Exhibit 1.

27. Just as the proposed boundary of Mayfair 
Knollwood was drawn in an effort to exclude racial minori­
ties, so too was it drawn in an effort to secure for Mayfair 
Knollwood a disproportionate part of the tax base and recrea­
tional and undeveloped land area of the Town.

28. Defendant COUP, the Conspiring Defendants and 
their co-conspirators seek unlawfully to gerrymander the 
proposed boundaries of Mayfair Knollwood so as to (a) exclude 
racial minorities from the proposed village, (b) appropriate, 
to the detriment of Town residents not within the proposed 
Mayfair Knollwood boundary, essential municipal resources, 
facilities, and amenities, and (c) appropriate a major 
proportion of the Town's undeveloped land with the purpose 
and effect of fostering racial segregation in housing.

29. Prior to September 14, 1988, hundreds of Town 
residents signed the Petition, thereby evidencing their 
support of the conspiracy to violate plaintiffs' rights.

12



30. On or about September 14, 1988, defendant 
Deutsch and other co-conspirators formally presented the 
Petition to the Town. A contemporaneous news report stated 
the following:

"The incorporation is a fact," Coalition ri.e. COUP] President Laurence Deutsch said. "The town may delay 
us, but it won't stop us. There is nothing that the 
town or county could do which could divert us from the incorporation."

The Position of Defendant Veteran
31. Defendant Veteran, as Town Supervisor of the 

Town of Greenburgh, is governed in the performance of his 
duties by the Constitutions and laws of the United States and 
the State of New York.

32. The procedure that Defendant Veteran must 
follow in the processing of the COUP Petition is set forth in 
the Village Law of New York. That statute provides, in 
summary, for:

a. a hearing on the Petition at which its 
compliance with statutorily specified technical requirements 
is examined; the statute does not expressly direct Defendant 
Veteran to consider whether the Petition is consistent with 
the Constitutions of the United States or New York, or their 
laws;

b. within a specified time, a decision on
the Petition;

13



c. thereafter, in the event the decision is 
favorable, a vote on the proposed incorporation by those 
within the boundaries set forth in the Petition;

d. in the event of a majority vote in favor, 
incorporation of the new village as proposed in the Petition; 
and

e. in the event the decision is adverse to 
the Petition, possible judicial review to the extent provided 
by State law.

33. Following presentation of the Petition to the 
Town on or about September 14, 1988, Defendant Veteran 
conducted the procedures described in paragraphs 32(a) and 
(b) above.

34. On or about December 6, 1988, Defendant 
Veteran issued a written decision with respect to the Peti­
tion. Among other things, Defendant Veteran "determine[d] 
that the aforesaid petition does not comply with the require­
ments of Article 2 of the Village Law, does not comply with 
the requirements of the Constitution of the United States, 
and does not comply with the Constitution of the State of New 
York...." A copy of the decision is attached as Exhibit 2.

35. Defendant Veteran swore an oath in taking the 
office of Town Supervisor, pursuant to Article XIII, | 1 of

14



the New York Constitution and section 25 of the New York Town 
Law, as follows:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the 
constitution of the United States and the constitution 
of the State of New York . . . .

Approval by Defendant Veteran of the Petition, with its 
racially discriminatory purpose and effect and its breach of 
the numerous constitutional and statutory provisions set 
forth in paragraphs 38 through 48 below, would have: (a)
constituted a breach of Defendant Veteran's oath of office; 
and (b) would have subjected plaintiffs to unlawful discrimi­
nation and deprivation of their rights under those 
provisions.

36. Notwithstanding the foregoing, COUP and the 
Conspiring Defendants assert that Defendant Veteran had no 
authority to deny the Petition on any ground other than 
technical non-compliance with the specific mandates of the 
Village Law. Plaintiffs, by contrast, assert that Defendant 
Veteran acted in accordance with the law in issuing his 
decision.

37. There exists a justiciable case or controversy 
between the parties concerning their rights and obligations 
as set forth above.

15



Constitutional and Statutory Background
38. In pertinent part, the Fourteenth Amendment of

the Constitution of the United States provides that:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall 
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the 
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of 
life, liberty or property without due process of law; 
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

39. In pertinent part, the Fifteenth Amendment of
the Constitution of the United States provides that:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall 
not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

40. In pertinent part, 42 U.S.C. fi 1973 provides
that:

No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or 
standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any state or political subdivision in a 
manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color . . . .

41. In pertinent part, 42 U.S.C. S 3604(a) pro­
vides that it shall be unlawful "to refuse to . . . otherwise 
make available or deny a dwelling to any person because of 
race, [or] color. . . . "

42. In pertinent part, Article I, | 1 of the
Constitution of the State of New York provides that:

No member of this state shall be disfranchised, or 
deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to

16



any citizen thereof, . . . unless by law of the land, or the judgment of his peers. . . .
43. In pertinent part, Article I, | 11 of the

Constitution of the State of New York provides that:
No person shall be denied the equal protection of the 
laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. No 
person shall, because of race, color, creed or religion, 
be subjected to any discrimination in his civil rights 
by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or 
institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivi­sion of the state.

44. Section 40-c(l) of the New York Civil Rights 
Law provides that:

All persons within the jurisdiction of the state shall 
be entitled to the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof.

45. In pertinent part, Section 40-c(2) of the New
York Civil Rights Law provides that:

No person shall, because of race, . . .  be subjected to any discrimination in his civil rights, . . .  by any 
other persons or by any firm, corporation or institu­
tion, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state.

46. In pertinent part, Section 291(2) of the
New York Executive Law (Human Rights Law) provides that:

The opportunity to obtain education, the use of places of public accommodation and the ownership, use and 
occupancy of housing accommodations and commercial space without discrimination because of . . . race . . .  is 
hereby recognized as and declared to be a civil right.

17



47. The Federal Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 
f| 601 and 602, guarantee all eligible homeless families in 
the State of New York safe and decent emergency housing.

48. Article XVII, f l of the Constitution of the
State of New York provides as follows:

The aid, care and support of the needy are public 
concerns and shall be provided by the state and by such 
of its subdivisions, and in such manner and by such 
means, as the legislature may from time to time deter­mine.

Thus, in New York State, the provision of assistance to the 
needy is not a matter of legislative grace; rather, it is 
specifically mandated by the State Constitution.
Sections 62(1) and 131 of the New York Social Services Law 
charge social service districts, such as the County, with the 
responsibility to provide public assistance and care for 
persons unable to provide for themselves.

49. Plaintiffs are persons protected by and having 
enforceable rights under the provisions set out in paragraphs 
38 through 48 above.

The Violation of Plaintiffs* Rights and Iniurv
50. Beginning in or about February 1988 and 

continuing thereafter to the present, the Conspiring Defen­
dants and their co-conspirators engaged in a conspiracy in 
violation of 42 U.S.C. | 1985(3). The conspiracy includes a

18



continuing agreement, understanding and concert of action for 
the purpose of:

a. Depriving, either directly or indirectly, 
a person or class of persons —  racial minority citizens —  
of the equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges 
and immunities under the laws set forth above;

b. Preventing or hindering duly constituted 
authorities of the State of New York —  the County and the 
Town —  from giving or securing to all persons, including 
racial minorities, in such State the equal protection of the 
laws.

51. As set forth in paragraphs 21 through 30 
above, the Conspiring Defendants did, or caused to be done, 
acts in furtherance of the conspiracy alleged.

52. Plaintiffs have been injured in their person 
or property or deprived of having and exercising rights and 
privileges of a citizen of the United States, and have 
thereby suffered and are threatened with irreparable injury, 
including but not limited to the injury to homeless adults 
and children caused by the denial of safe and decent emer­
gency shelter.

53. Plaintiffs have sustained monetary damages in 
amounts presently unknown.

19



CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Count I

54. Plaintiffs repeat paragraphs one through 53.
55. The Conspiring Defendants, by their acts, have 

conspired and are continuing to conspire, in breach of 42 
U.S.C. 8 1985(3), to abridge the voting rights of plaintiffs 
Yvonne Jones, Odell A. Jones, Melvin Dixon, Geri Bacon, Mary 
Williams and James Hodges in violation of the Fifteenth 
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the 
Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. | 1973, Article I, 88 1 
and 11 of the New York Constitution, and 88 40-c(l) and (2) 
of the New York Civil Rights Law.

Count II
56. Plaintiffs repeat paragraphs one through 53.
57. The Conspiring Defendants, by their acts, have 

conspired and are continuing to conspire, in breach of 42 
U.S.C. 8 1985(3), to violate and have violated the housing 
rights of plaintiffs Anita Jordan, April Jordan, Latoya 
Jordan, Anna Ramos, Lizette Ramos, Vanessa Ramos, Gabriel 
Ramos, Thomas Myers, Thomas Myers, Jr., Linda Myers and Shawn 
Myers in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Consti­
tution of the United States, the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C.
8 3604, Article I, 8 11 and Article XVII, 8 1 of the New Y&rk 
Constitution, 88 40-c(l) and (2) of the New York Civil Rights

20



Law, and | 291(2) of the Executive Law of the State of 
Mew York.

Count III
58. Plaintiffs repeat paragraphs one through 53.
59. The Conspiring Defendants, by their acts, have 

conspired and are continuing to conspire, in breach of 42 
U.S.C. 8 1985(3), to abridge the rights of plaintiffs Anita 
Jordan, April Jordan, Latoya Jordan, Anna Ramos, Lizette 
Ramos, Vanessa Ramos, Gabriel Ramos, Thomas Myers, Thomas 
Myers, Jr., Linda Myers and Shawn Myers to safe and lawful 
emergency shelter in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States, the Social Security 
Act, 42 U.S.C. 88 601 and 602, Article I, 8 11 and Article 
XVII, 8 1 of the New York Constitution, and 88 62(1) and 131 
of the New York Social Services Law and the regulations 
promulgated thereunder.

Count IV
60. Plaintiffs repeat paragraphs one through 53.
61. a. Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution

of the United States provides as follows:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States 
which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be 
the supreme Law of the Land . . . any Thing in the 
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary 
notwithstanding.

21



b. Article XIII, I 1 of the Constitution of
the State of New York provides as follows:

[A]11 officers, executive and judicial . . . shall . . . 
take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I 
do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the 
constitution of the United States and the constitution of the State of New York . . . "

c. Section 25 of the New York Town Law
provides as follows: "[E]very town officer shall take and
subscribe . . . the constitutional oath of office. . . . "

62. Under the constitutional provisions set forth 
above, defendant Veteran has a duty to uphold federal and 
state law. Moreover, in assuming his office as Town Super­
visor, defendant Veteran swore an oath to uphold the Consti­
tution and laws of the United States and of the State of 
New York.

63. As set forth in paragraphs 31 through 37 
above, there is a justiciable controversy between plaintiffs 
and defendants as to their respective rights and obligations 
tinder the foregoing Constitutional and statutory provisions.

Relief Sought
Accordingly, plaintiffs demand judgment as follows:
1. As to Counts I through III:

a. Declaring that the Conspiring Defendants 
have conspired in violation of 42 U.S.C. S 1985(3);

22



b. Directing entry of a permanent injunction 
restraining the Conspiring Defendants from continuing their 
unlawful conspiracy, including, but not limited to, pursuing 
any further proceedings with respect to the Petition to 
incorporate the proposed Village of Mayfair Knollwood;

c. Awarding plaintiffs monetary damages in 
such amount as may be proven at trial;

d. Awarding plaintiffs their reasonable 
attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements incurred in the 
prosecution of this action.

2. As to Count IV, declaring that defendant 
Veteran has and had the right and obligation, under the 
Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of 
New York, to deny and to refuse to proceed further with the 
Petition.

3. As to all Counts, directing such other and
further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: Greenburgh, N.Y.

December __, 1988
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON

By__________________________________ ___Cameron Clark
Attorneys for Plaintiffs 
1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, N.Y. 10019 
(212) 373-3000

Of Counsel,

23



J

Robert M. Hayes Virginia G. Shubert 
COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS 
105 East 22nd Street 
New York, N.Y. 10010 
(212) 460-8110

Andrew M. Cuomo 
2 Park Avenue 
Suite 1415New York, N.Y. 10016 
(212) 686-1000

Edward Hailes, Jr.
NAACP, Inc.4805 Mount Hope Drive Baltimore, MD. 21215-3297

Julius L. Chambers John Charles Boger 
Sherrilyn Ifill 99 Hudson Street New York, N.Y. 10013 
(212) 219-1900

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 
Anita Jordan, Anna Ramos, Thomas and Lisa Myers and 
National Coalition for the 
Homeless

-and-
Local Counsel for Plaintiffs 
Yvonne Jones, Odell A. Jones,
Geri Bacon, James Hodges, Mary 
Williams, Melvin Dixon and 
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Inc.

24