Jones v. Deutsch Notice of Motion
Public Court Documents
December 12, 1988

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Jones v. Deutsch Notice of Motion, 1988. 6189b46c-b99a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/a603a39a-bdbe-48be-bf29-89c3fec5e3c6/jones-v-deutsch-notice-of-motion. Accessed April 28, 2025.
Copied!
YVONNE JONES, ANITA JORDAN, APRIL JORDAN, LATOYA JORDAN, ANNA RAMOS, LIZETTE RAMOS, THOMAS MYERS, LISA MEYERS, 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, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK------------------------------------ X 88 Civ. 7738 (GLG) NOTICE OF MOTION -against- LAURENCE DEUTSCH, COLIN EDWIN KAUFMAN, STEVEN NEIL GOLERICH, MICHAEL JAMES TONE, COALITION OF UNITED PEOPLES, INC., and ANTHONY F. VETERAN, as Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh, Def endants.------------------------------------ X PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed affidavits of Jonathan Lovett, sworn to December 12, 1988, Laurence Deutsch, sworn to December 7, 1988 , Steven Goldrich, sworn to December 7, 1988, Patricia Tone, sworn to December 7, 1988, and the exhibits annexed thereto, Defendants Laurence Deutsch, Steven Neil Goldrich, Michael James Tone, and Coalition of United Peoples, Inc. hereby move this Court, before the Honorable Gerard L. Goettel, United States District Judge, on the 30th day of December, 1988 , at 10:00 a.m., at the Courthouse, for an order pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6), FRCP 11, and 42 U.S.C. §1988 dismissing the complaint, awarding reasonable attorney's fees, imposing sanctions against Plaintiffs' counsel and such ̂ other- and 1 further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper in the premises. Dated: White Plains, N.Y. To: Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019 Quinn & Suhr, Esqs. 170 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, N.Y. 10601 Paul Agresta, Esq. Town Attorney P.0. Box 205 Elmsford, New York 10523 December 12, 1988 V Laurence Deutsch, Steven Neil Goldrich, Michael James Tone, and Coalition of United Peoples, Inc. 180 E. Post Road White Plains, N.Y. 10601 914-428-8401 2 r UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------ X YVONNE JONES, ANITA JORDAN, APRIL JORDAN, LATOYA JORDAN, ANNA RAMOS, LIZETTE RAMOS, THOMAS MYERS, LISA MEYERS, 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, -against- LAURENCE DEUTSCH, COLIN EDWIN KAUFMAN, STEVEN NEIL GOLERICH, MICHAEL JAMES TONE, COALITION OF UNITED PEOPLES, INC., and ANTHONY F. VETERAN, as Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh, Def endants. ------------------------------------ X STATE OF NEW YORK ) )ss . : COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) 88 Civ. 7738 (GLG) AFFIDAVIT JONATHAN LOVETT, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am counsel to Defendants Deutsch, Goldrich, Tone and Coalition of United Peoples, Inc. and submit this affidavit in support of their motion pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6), FRCP 11, and 42 U.S.C. §1988 for dismissal of the complaint herein, the imposition of santions and an award of reasonable attorney's fees. I 1 2. In their November 1, 1988, Complaint, a copy of which is annexed as Exhibit A, Plaintiffs challenge as allegedly violative of 42 U.S.C. §1985(3) movants' association for the purpose of incorporating a proposed new village within the Town of Greenburgh, New York, their public opposition to a proposed low income housing project (West HELP), their expression of personal opinions with respect to that project, and their petitioning the Town Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh (Defendant Veteran) in accordance with the New York State Village Law with a view towards causing an election to be held with respect to the incorporation of the proposed village. Plaintiffs contend in substance that since the creation of the proposed village allegedly is intended to preclude construction of the low income housing project by reason of its zoning power, movants' conduct violates the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §3604. Plaintiffs further contend in substance that the proposed village's boundaries have been gerrymandered so as to exclude minorities, a circumstance alleged to violate the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1973 . i | 3. On November 1 , 1988 , a public hearing, attended by your iI affiant, was conducted by Defendant Veteran at which time proponents and opponents of the incorporation petition were i permitted to express their opinions with respect to the perceived propriety or impropriety of the proposed new village. Shortly prior to the commencement of the hearing, and as indicated in the annexed affidavits of Laurence Deutsch, Steven Goldrich, and 2 Patricia Tone, Plaintiffs caused the summons and complaint in this action to be personally served for the apparent purpose of chilling the exercise of movants' First Amendment rights at the - heari ng. 4. As revealed by the annexed Exhibit B, a certified copy of a December 1, 1988 determination of the Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh, the petition to cause an election to be held with respect to the proposed village was rejected. 5. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum of law it is submitted that the Complaint must be dismissed since inter alia: a. Movants' challenged conduct is absolutely privileged under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, b. No case or controversy is presented as against movants since the viability of Plaintiffs' claims is entirely dependent upon uncertain future events including: (i ) the potential, expressly contemplated by New York State Village Law §2-208( 3) , that an entirely new proceeding for incorporation of a proposed village with different boundaries may be instituted immediately, (ii) the potential institution of a State Article 78 proceeding challenging the Supervisor's rejection of the petition and the entry of a final judgment declaring the petition to be invalid, (iii) the potential that, upon the conduct of an 3 election (should the state courts find the petition to be valid), incorporation of the proposed village will be rejected by the voters, (iv) the potential, expressly contemplated by Village Law §2-224, for a state judicial challenge to the conduct of any such election, (v) the potential that, should a new village be incorporated, the zoning ordinance of such municipality will not preclude construction of West HELP at its proposed site and/or will not preclude low income housing generally within the village and/or that a variance or amendment to such ordinance would be granted with respect to such low income housing, (vi) the potential that, in the event the proposed village is incorporated, a ward system rather than an at-large system will be instituted in accordance with New York State Election Law §15-130 which ward system would counteract any claimed dilutive effect which prospectively might be alleged regarding the voting rights of minorities in the proposed village and (vii) the potential that the Westchester County Board of Legislators will not agree to make available to West HELP the land needed for the construction of the subject low income housing project. c. Absolutely no damage and/or injury could possibly have befallen any of the Plaintiffs since: (i) no village has been formed, (ii) no voting rights have in any way been affected by reason of Defendants' alleged conduct, (iii) no right to housi ng/shelter has in any way been affected by reason of Defendants' alleged conduct, (iv) each Plaintiff concededly presently has housi ng/shelter of either a permanent or temporary 4 nature, (v) no Plaintiff even alleges that they would be eligible for and reasonably likely to obtain housing accomodations in West HELP if constructed, (vi ) those Plaintiffs residing outside of the boundaries of the proposed village will have the same voting rights whether the village is incorporated or not, and (vii) those Plaintiffs residing within the boundaries of the proposed village may, in the event of a ward system, have greater voting strength than they presently enjoy. 6. Should the Court determine not to dismiss the complaint it is submitted that it should abstain with respect to the second and third claims (pertaining to housing/shelter) since there is a pending state action in which both of those claims may be rendered moot by reason of the state court's adjudication of a question of purely state law. By way of factual background the Court should be apprised of the following circumstances: a. In or about March of 1988 a taxpayers action was instituted in Supreme Court, Westchester County by, inter alia, the Coalition of United Peoples, Inc. That action challenged as unlawful the West HELP project on numerous grounds including but not limited to: (i ) the unequivocal admissions of the proponents of West HELP (see e .g. annexed letter of Supervisor Veteran, Exhibit C) that mentally ill, drug dependent and alcohol dependent homeless persons will be categorically excluded from West HELP in clear violation of the New York State Executive Law and (ii) that a determination by the Town of Greenburgh 5 permitting the project to proceed in disregard of local zoning and other code requirements was illegal since the project is to be constructed by the private sector. b. Although that action is now sub judice on motions to dismiss and Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment, not a single sworn statement was adduced by the Defendants (which include West HELP, whose apparent principal Andrew Cuomo appears as counsel to Plaintiffs in the instant action) putting in issue the West HELP proponents' intent to categorically exclude classes of homeless persons. c. By way of contrast, West HELP (which in the state action is jointly represented with the Town of Greenburgh, the Town Board and Town Supervisor by the law firm of Donovan, Leisure, Newton and Irvine) has expressly and vigorously contended that the West HELP project "is not subject to zoning and other local regulation" because it is a "County [of Westchester] project". Annexed as Exhibit D are relevant excerpts from the Donovan Leisure memoranda of law in which they advocate this contention. d. If West HELP and counselor Cuomo are correct in their extensively researched contention that the project cannot be subjected to local zoning or other code requirements, it is apparent that as a matter of law incorporation of a new village cannot preclude development of the project by reason of zoning or other local code provisions. 6 e. Under the circumstances it is submitted that the anticipated state court ruling on this state law issue not only- may render moot Plaintiffs' second and third claims, but also « demonstrate that those claims should never have been interposed in the first instance. 7. Prior to making the instant motion your affiant spoke at length with Melinda Levine, an associate at Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison in an effort to obtain a voluntary discontinuance of this action. While Ms. Levine declined to discuss with me my opinion that the action is frivolous, she did expressly acknowledge to me that prior to filing the Complaint the committee of attorneys working on this case actually considered the First Amendment implications of the Complaint. She also volunteered to me that she and other counsel on behalf of Plaintiffs were in attendance at the public hearing on the incorporation petition during the evening of November 1 , 1988 . 8. By letter dated November 29 , 1988 , a copy of which is annexed as Exhibit E, I memorialized my opinion to Ms. Levine and again requested a voluntary discontinuance. 9. By letter dated December 5 , 19 88 , a copy of which is annexed as Exhibit F, Plaintiffs rejected your affiant's request, thereby necessitating the instant motion to dismiss; . • ■ ' WHEREFORE judgment is respectfully requested dismissing in all respects the complaint, awarding reasonable attorney s fees, 7 imposing sanctions, and awarding such other and further relief as to the Court seems just and proper. Sworn to before me this 12th day of December, 1988 . 8 YVONNE JONES, ANITA JORDAN, APRIL JORDAN, LATOYA JORDAN, ANNA RAMOS, LIZETTE RAMOS, THOMAS MYERS, LISA MEYERS, 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, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------ X 88 Civ. 7738 (GLG) AFFIDAVIT -against- LAURENCE DEUTSCH, COLIN EDWIN KAUFMAN, STEVEN NEIL GOLDRICH, MICHAEL JAMES TONE, COALITION OF UNITED PEOPLES, INC., and ANTHONY F. VETERAN, as Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh, Def endants. STATE OF NEW YORK ) )ss . : COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) X t.LAURENCE DEUTSCH, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am one of the defendants herein and submit this affidavit in support of the instant motion to dismiss. 2. On the evening of November 1 , 1988 , I was served with the summons and complaint herein as I was preparing to leave my home to attend the public hearing before Defendant Veteran with respect to the petition to incorporate the proposed village of Mayfair Knollwood. 1 WHEREFORE judgment is respectfully requested dismissing in all respects the complaint, awarding reasonable attorney's fees,- imposing sanctions, and awarding such other and further relief as* to the Court seems just and proper. Sworn to before me WAYNE R- MARTELL NOTARY PUBLIC. STATE OF NEW YORK No. 6 0 -7 7 3 3 8 1 0 Qualified in Westchester County Jerm Expires 3 / j l i this 7 fAday of December, 1988 . 2 YVONNE JONES, ANITA JORDAN, APRIL JORDAN, LATOYA JORDAN, ANNA RAMOS, LIZETTE RAMOS, THOMAS MYERS, LISA MEYERS, THOMAS MYERS, JR., LINDA MYERS, SHAWN MYERS, ODELL A. JONES, MELVIN DIXON, GERI BACON, MARY WILLIAMS, 88 Civ. 7738 (GLG) JAMES HODGES, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, INC., WHITE PLAINS/ GREENBURGH BRANCH, AND NATIONAL COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS, AFFIDAVIT Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ____________________________________ X -against- LAURENCE DEUTSCH, COLIN EDWIN KAUFMAN, STEVEN NEIL GOLERICH, MICHAEL JAMES TONE, COALITION OF UNITED PEOPLES, INC., and ANTHONY F. VETERAN, as Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh, Defendants. ____________________________________ X STATE OF NEW YORK ) )ss . : COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) STEVEN GOLERICH, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am one of the defendants herein and submit this affidavit in support of the instant motion to dismiss. 2. On the evening of November 1 , 1988, I was served with the summons and complaint herein as I was preparing to leave my home to attend the public hearing before Defendant Veteran with respect to the petition to incorporate the proposed village of _ Mayfair Knollwood. 1 \ WHEREFORE judgment is respectfully requested dismissing in all respects the complaint, awarding reasonable attorney's fees, imposing sanctions, and awarding such other and further relief as NOTARY PUBUC, STATE OF NEW YORK No. 6 0 -7 7 3 3 8 1 0 Qualified in Westchester County Term Expires u f o 2 YVONNE JONES, ANITA JORDAN, APRIL JORDAN, LATOYA JORDAN, ANNA RAMOS, LIZETTE RAMOS, THOMAS MYERS, LISA MEYERS, 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, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ____________________________________ X 88 Civ. 7738 (GLG) AFFIDAVIT -against- LAURENCE DEUTSCH, COLIN EDWIN KAUFMAN, STEVEN NEIL GOLERICH, MICHAEL JAMES TONE, COALITION OF UNITED PEOPLES, INC., and ANTHONY F. VETERAN, as Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh, Defendants. STATE OF NEW YORK ) )ss . : COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) X | PATRICIA TONE, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am the wife of defendant Michael Tone and submit this affidavit in support of the instant motion to dismiss. 2. On the evening of November 1 , 1988 , an apparent process server served me with the summons and complaint herein at my home. 1 WHEREFORE judgment is respectfully requested dismissing in all respects the complaint, awarding reasonable attorney's fees, imposing sanctions, and awarding such other and further relief as to the Court seems just and proper. Sworn to before me this day of December, 1988 Patricia Tone NOTARY PUBLJC, STATE OF NEW YORK N o. 6 0 -7 7 3 3 3 1 0 Qualified in Westchester County Term E x p ir e s / ^ 3/, 19 fO 2 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 . ^ ^ - 3 -against- LAURENCE DEUTSCH, COLIN EDWIN KAUFMAN, STEVEN NEIL GOLDRICH, MICHAEL JAMES TONE, COALITION OF UNITED PEOPLES, INC., and ANTHONY F. VETERAN, as Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh, COMPLAINT Defendants. x Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, for their com plaint, allege (on information and belief except as to paragraphs 3-5, 8, and 39-50): Nature of the Action and Background 1. This action is brought by a number of black citizens of Greenburgh, parents of homeless families in CQ 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. § 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. §§ 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. § 1973, the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604, the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq., Article I, §§ l and 11, and Article XVII, § 1 of the Constitution of the State of New York, §§ 40-c(l) and (2) of the Civil Rights Law of the State of New York, S 291(2) of the Executive Law of the State of New York, and §S 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. § 1391(b). All defendants reside in the Southern District of New York, and the claim arose in that District. Parties 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 i i 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. 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 laws 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. 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 laws 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 municipal corporation existing pursuant to the laws of the State of New York. The County is located in the Southern District of New York. 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 l'ease 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 Knollvood" — 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 Knollvood 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; and d. in the event of a majority vote in favor, incorporation of the new village as proposed in the Petition. 33. Following presentation of the Petition to the Town on or about September 14, 1988, Defendant Veteran initiated the procedures described in paragraph 32 above by scheduling a hearing for November 1, 1988. 34. Defendant Veteran is and has been an outspoken supporter of the West HELP Development and has consistently opposed the plan of COUP and the Conspiring Defendants to incorporate the village of Mayfair Knollwood for the purpose of blocking the West HELP Development. 35. Defendant Veteran swore an oath in taking the office of Town Supervisor, pursuant to Article XIII, § 1 of 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 39 through 48 below, would constitute a breach of Defendant Veteran's oath of office. 14 36. Notwithstanding the foregoing, COUP and the Conspiring Defendants assert that Defendant Veteran has no authority to deny the Petition on any ground other than technical non-compliance with the specific mandates of the Village Law, and Defendant Veteran has initiated the proce dures thereunder for consideration of the Petition. 37. Plaintiffs assert that Defendant Veteran may not, consistent with his oath of office, proceed with the Petition in any manner whatsoever. 38. There exists a justiciable case or controversy between the parties concerning their rights and obligations as set forth above. Constitutional and Statutory Background 39. 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. 40. 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. 15 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. § 1973 provides 42. 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. . . . " 43. 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 any citizen thereof, . . . unless by law of the land, or the judgment of his peers. . . . 44. 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 subdivi sion of the state. 45. 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. 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 40-c(2) of the New 47. 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. 48. The Federal Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 301 et sea.. guarantees all homeless families in the State of New York safe and decent emergency housing. 49. Article XVII, § 1 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 deter mine. 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. 17 50. Plaintiffs are persons protected by and having enforceable rights under the provisions set out in paragraphs 39 through 49 above. The Violation of Plaintiffs' Rights and Injury 51. Beginning in or about February 1988 and continuing thereafter to the present, the Conspiring Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a conspiracy in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3); defendant Veteran is a participant in the conspiracy because he has initiated the procedure on the Petition called for by the Village Law. The conspiracy includes a 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. 52. 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; as set forth 18 in paragraph 33 above, defendant Veteran did, or caused to be done, an act in furtherance of the conspiracy alleged. 53. 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. 54. Plaintiffs have sustained monetary damages in amounts presently unknown. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Count I 55. Plaintiffs repeat paragraphs one through 54. 56. Defendants, by their acts, have conspired and are continuing to conspire, in breach of 42 U.S.C. § 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, §§ 1 and 11 of the New York Constitution, and §§ 40-c(l) and (2) of the New York Civil Rights Law. 19 4 Count II 57. Plaintiffs repeat paragraphs one through 54. 58. Defendants, by their acts, have conspired and are continuing to conspire, in breach of 42 U.S.C. 6 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 Constitution of the United States, the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604, Article I, § 11 and Article XVII, § 1 of the New York Constitution, §§ 40-c(1) and (2) of the New York Civil Rights Law, and § 291(2) of the Executive Law of the State of New York. Count III 59. Plaintiffs repeat paragraphs one through 54. 60. Defendants, by their acts, have conspired and are continuing to conspire, in breach of 42 U.S.C. § 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. S 301 et seg., Article I, § 11 and Article XVII, { 1 of the New 20 York Constitution, and §§ 62(1) and 131 of the New York Social Services Law and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Count IV 61. Plaintiffs repeat paragraphs one through 54. 62. 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. b. Article XIII, § 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. . . . " 63. 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 Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of New York. 21 64. Pursuant to New York Village Law S§ 2-204, 206, 208, defendant Veteran has certain duties to hold a hearing and to render a decision with respect to the Petition, either favorably (in which case the Petition would be submitted for a vote by the electorate) or adversely (in which case there would be no vote). Thus far, he has not rendered that decision. 65. As set forth in paragraphs 31 through 38 above, there is a justiciable controversy between plaintiffs and defendants as to their respective rights and obligations under the foregoing Constitutional and statutory provisions. Relief Sought Accordingly, plaintiffs demand judgment as follows: 1. As to Counts I through III: a. Declaring that defendants have conspired in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3); b. Directing entry of a permanent injunction restraining defendants from continuing their unlawful con spiracy, 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; 22 / 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 the right and obligation, under the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of New York, to deny or 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. November 1, 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 105 East 22nd Street New York, N.Y. 10010 (212) 460-8110 Robert M. Hayes Virginia G. Schubert COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS Edward Hailes, Jr NAACP, Inc. 260 Fifth Avenue New York, N.Y. (212) 481-4100 Andrew M. Cuomo 2 Park Avenue Suite 1415 New York, N.Y. 10016 (212) 686-1000 Julius L. Chambers John Charles Boger Sherrilyn Ifill 99 Hudson Street New York, N.Y. 10013 (212) 219-1900 23 e x h i b i t 1 .4In the Matter of the Proposed Incorporation of the Village of Mayfair Knollwood A petition for the incorporation of certain territory in the Town of Greenburgh as the Village of Mayfair Knollwood having duly been received by me on September 14, 1988, and after due posting and publication of notice in accordance with Section 2—204 of the Village Law, a hearing to consider the legal sufficiency of such petition having been held on November 1, 1988, at the Greenburgh Town Hall, Knollwood and Tarrytown Roads, Elms ford, New York, and said hearing having been adjourned until November 21, 1988 for the receipt of written testimony, in accordance with Section 2-206 of the Village Law, and all testimony and objections having been heard; Now, therefore, I hereby determine that the aforesaid petition does not comply with the requirements of Article 2 of the Village Law, does not comply with the requirements of the Constitution of the United States of America, and does not comply with the requirements of the Constitution of the State of New York, for the following reasons: 1. The boundary description submitted with the petition did not describe the boundaries of the proposed village with "common certainty" thereby making it impossible to locate the boundaries with the precision that is necessary. Numerous gaps in the proposed boundaries were discovered making the description defective. The memorandum in opposition submitted by the Town Engineer clearly details the deficiencies in the boundary description. At least 15 voids in the description were discovered rendering it impossible to accurately define the village boundaries. The description does not even begin at a known point on a filed map which is the fundamental criteria of all property descriptions. The description uses the centerline of Grasslands Road yet fails to note that Grasslands Road has been relocated and that the centerline at many points lies within the Town of Mount Pleasant. For these reasons and the other reasons stated in the memo of the Town Engineer the boundary description is clearly defective and does not describe the proposed village with "common certainty". 2. The boundaries, where ascertainable, were gerrymandered in a manner to exclude black persons from the proposed village. Such gerrymandering constitutes a blatant attempt at racial discrimination and violates the rights granted to all citizens by the Constitution of the United^ States of America and the Constitution of the State of New York. In the entire 30 years during which I have held elective office I have never seen such a blatant and calculated attempt to discriminate. The boundaries - 2 - I repeatedly deviate from a natural course solely to exclude individual properties where blacks live. Within the boundaries of the proposed village there is not a single unit of multi-family housing, housing which historically has been more accessible to minority groups because of its lower cost. The boundary zigs and zags approximately 1000 feet along Route 9A to exclude a scatter site public housing project populated by 25 black families. The boundary carves around the Granada Condominium development on three sides to exclude its approximately 90 black families. The boundary carves around the Old Tarrytown Road School property, now owned by a black developer, on three sides to exclude its future population of 87 families, the majority of which are anticipated to be black families. The boundary carves through the neighborhood of North Elmsford, a neighborhood which has stood cohesively as a unified area since the 1880’s, including its predominantly white area in the village but excluding its predominantly black area. The boundary carefully excludes the black families of the River Park Apartments, Parkway Homes, Parkway Gardens, Hillside-Wyndover, and of course, the public housing and_low and moderate income housing areas of predominantly black Fairview. Included in the proposed village is all the available undeveloped lands bordering black areas. These undeveloped ilands are the only natural expansion areas for the black | -3- neighborhoods. By taking these lands it is clear that the petitioners intend to stop the growth of the black . _ neighborhoods in an attempt to exclude future generations of . blacks from Greenburgh. While Article 2 of the Village Law does not specifically address itself to the "intent" of the petitioners, I firmly believe that the rights granted by the federal and state constitutions transcend the procedural technicalities set forth in the Village Law. The proceedures for the formation of a new village cannot be used to accomplish an unlawful end. Therefore, it is my obligation as a public official to defend the constitution and to reject the petition on the grounds that its purpose is to discriminate against black persons, to segregate them from whites by the imposition of political barriers, and to prevent the natural expansion of the black population in the Town.of Greenburgh. 3. The new village was proposed for the sole purpose of preventing the construction of transitional housing for homeless families near the neighborhood of Mayfair Knollwood. Such an invidious purpose is not what was contemplated by the Legislature when the statutes governing the incorporation of villages were drawn and cannot be permitted to succeed. Historically, the legal concept of incorporated villages was created to afford residents of an area an opportunity to create a multipurpose special district to -4- « ... r secure fire or police protection or other public services, f Typically, clusters of people in an otherwise sparsely - settled town joined together to provide services that would • not be of benefit to the Town as a whole. / After World War II, the rapid population growth of suburban towns led to the creation of town improvement districts to provide needed services and the incorporation of new villages virtually ceased and several existing villages were dissolved. The petitioners do not seek to incorporate to provide themselves with services. The neighborhoods in question are already serviced by town water, sewer, police and fire protection. Rather, the petitioners seek to incorporate for another purpose. Their stated purpose for forming the village is to prevent the proposed construction of transitional housing for 108 homeless families near their neighborhoods. Before agreeing to consider the- homeless project, now known as Westhelp, the Town Board insisted that various >;• safeguards be made a part of the proposal to adequately mitigate against any possible adverse impacts. The Westhelp project includes a land set-aside of approximately 34 wooded acres, the majority of which would remain as a natural woodland buffer around all sides of the housing with a minimum of 400 feet of woodlands between all | buildings and existing homes. The predominantly black % _ Ihomeless residents would be provided on-site day care, m | » -5- counseling, social services, recreation, transportation, and 24 hour security. Visitation would be restricted to a single visitor's room in full view of a security guard. Only homeless families would be housed on the premises including only young mothers, their babies and other small children. There would be no derelicts, drug addicts, alcoholics, or bums. Children of school age would be bused back to their school district of origin thereby providing continuity of education. In summary, the project would provide a clean, efficient, cost effective, and humane alternative to welfare motels. The 108 families that would be housed for an average stay of six months each represent only a fraction of the over 4500 homeless persons now present in Westchester County. Yet, given all the safeguards and the high purpose of the Westhelp project, the petitioners have organized to stop the project by any means possible solely because of the irrational argument that it is to belocated in their "back-yard". While Article 2 of the Village law does not specifically address itself to the "intent" of the petitioners, I firmly believe that the rights granted by.the federal and state constitutions transcend the procedural technicalities set forth in the Village Law. The proceedures for the formation of a new village cannot be used to accomplish an unlawful end. -6- I I i Therefore, it is my obligation as a public official to defend the constitution and to reject the petition on the grounds that its purpose is to deny homeless persons needed .services, to exclude homeless persons, and to racially 4. The petition is defective in that a substantial number of signatures were obtained under false pretenses. I have received numerous objections from persons who signed the petition stating that they were told that the petition was only to ask for a straw poll of the residents on their opinion as to whether a village should be formed, not a petition to formally commence the incorporation procedure. 5. The petition is defective in that a substantial number of the signatures contain irregularities and do not match the known signatures of the persons alleged to have signed. 6. The petition is defective__in that numerous residents were omitted from the list of "regular inhabitants". In particular, many of the newer residents were omitted. Dated: Elmsford, N.Y. discriminate against homeless persons who are predominantly black. December 1, 1988. Supervisor Town of Greenburgh -7- STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER : ss. TOWN OF GREENBURGH I, SUSAN TOLCHIN, Town Clerk of the Town of Greenburgh do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correcticopy, and the whole" thereof, of a decision filed by Supervisor Anthony F. Veteran on December 6, 1988. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 7th day of December, 1988. TOWN of GREENBURGH OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR Post Offica Box 205, Elmiford, New York IOS23 914/ 993-1540 February 2, 1988 Dear Residents Due to generous news coverage given ih recent days, I'm sure you are aware of our proposal to build transitional housing for 108 homeless families in the Town of Greenburgh. It is our hope that this project will become a model for the nation showing that a Town that cares can do something towards solving what has become a national crisis. I'm greatly appreciative to the press for getting the word out so quickly. In order to provide a full and open forum for discussion of the proposal and to provide an opportunity to answer questions and to listen to any objections and concerns you may have, we have arranged for a public forum and informational meeting to be held at the Woodlands High School Auditorium on Monday, February 22nd at 8i00 P.M. We invite you to attend. Andrew Cuomo, President of H.E.L.P., Inc., and County Executive Andrew O'Rourke will be present together with any and all other elected officials, citizens, or interested individuals who wish an opportunity to be heard. I think you should also know that there will be a it careful review process to be followed before the proposal can be approved. In addition to the public forum and informational meeting, there will be many opportunities for input includingi (1) An Environmental Impact Study and Public Hearing. (2) County Board of Legislators Review and Decision as to whether or not they will turn over the land. (3) Greenburgh Planning Board Study, Recommendation and Public Hearing. (4) Town Board Public Hearing. In summary, the proposal is to construct transitional housing for 108 homeless families by utilizing 30 acres of vacant County land off Knollwood Road. The land is located on the southerly side of the Knollwood entrance driveway to Westchester Community College and is not a part of the lands dedicated to Westchester Community College, but is in fact County land available for any County purpose. Approximately 4 Of- the 30 acres would be used for the construction of six two-story buildings to hoyse homeless families and a seventh one-story building to provide day care, counseling and other social services. The buildings would be arranged around a center courtyard which would also serve as a recreation area. The remaining 26 acres would remain in a forever green densely wooded conservation area providing a buffer between the proposed housing and all adjoining properties varying in width from 400 feet to 850 feet. -1- # The buildings would be constructed by H.E.L.P., Inc. a not-for-profit corporation, and would be turned over to the Town after 10 years for use as permanent housing for senior citizens or municipal workers. In general, H.E.L.P. provides better housing for the homeless at less cost to the taxpayer.- In Westchester, taxpayers will spend $52 million this year for welfare hotels and motels. The H.E.L.P. approach offers a substantial savings in dollars and in lives salvaged. H.E.L.P. can provide homeless families with shelter and social services while at the same time paying off the cost of a stock of permanent housing. Contrary to popular perception, the homeless are not typified by bag ladies or street people. The proposed H.E.L.P. facilities will service only families, not singles. Assuming an average 95* occupancy, the population of the proposed 108-unit facility would consist of approximately 107 homeless mothers, averaging age 20, and their 210 children. Of the 210 children, 95 will be less than 5 years old and will not attend school. The remaining 115 children will be of school age, most below the age of 10. The fear that large numbers of homeless children might gain admittance to the local schools is unfounded. The H.E.L.P. proposal stipulates that in keeping with County policy, the children will be bused back to the schools in their former locations. The County's experience has been that to date less than one percent of homeless children have changed school districts. We will be working closely with State and County officials to ensure the permanence of thiB policy for now and the future. Among other anxieties that should be addressed is the fear that the H.E.L.P. facility would become a place of drug and alcohol ahuse. Unfortunately, when families are warehoused in the deplorable conditions of welfare motels they fall prey to drug addicts and derelicts. The H.E.L.P. approach has been designed to avoid such a situation by separating the families, the mothers and their children, from the single homeless and the motel environment. Only families will be housed at the H.E.L.P. site under the strict supervision and security of a full-time private operator. Counseling, day care and case worker assistance will be available on-site for each family. In addition, the private operator will enforce a code of conduct and will have the right to evict those that do not adhere to that code. All family residents will be carefully screened. Derelicts, drug addicts, pushers, and the mentally ill will not be allowed to be housed at the site. As I said at the opening of:this letter, I welcome your comments and look forward to discussing the proposal with you at the public forum and informational meeting. If you have not yet picked up a copy of the proposal you may obtain one by calling my office at the number shown above. Verv trulv vours. ANTHONY F. VETERAN Supervisor -2- SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER . .. A '*;' ■ . -v;if --,vT-.i - *• .. •COALITION OF UNITED PEOPLES, INC., MYLES GREENBERG AND FRANCES M. MULLIGAN, Plaintiffs, -against- ANTHONY F. VETERAN, individually and as Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh, ) ) ) ) ) )) Index No. 3316/88 ) )) Assigned Judge: New York, the TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GREENBURGH, New York, the TOWN OF GREENBURGH, New York, THE COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER, New York, H.E.L.P., INC., a/k/a HOMELESS EMERGENCY LEVERAGE PROGRAM, INC. and the HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY of the'.State of New York, \\ Defendants. ) Hon. ) ) ) ) Aldo A. Nastasi ) ) ) ) ' ̂ ‘ ^ ^ - r - "1-- ■) ■' * < L ' vŴ r- X ‘ V• > ; . * MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF HELP AND THE TOWN OF GREENBURGH DEFENDANTS DONOVAN LEISURE NEWTON & IRVINE Attorneys for Defendants Anthony F. Veteran, the Town Board of the Town of Greenburgh, the Town of Greenburgh and H.E.L.P., Inc. 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10112 (212) 632-3000 Of Counsel Frank S. loppolo Thomas R. Trowbridge III Stephen D. Houck i / prohibited from providing low income housing has no merit. Moreover, in any event, the County is not providing housing in - exchange for rent, but is giving transitional shelter and corresponding social services only to the needy. Amended Complaint at II 18. In providing this assistance, the County is acting well within its constitutional authority to aid the needy. b. HELP Is Not Subject To Local Laws When Providing Transitional Shelter To the Homeless On Behalf Of the County Private parties are not subject to local laws, such as those pertaining to zoning, site development and building code requirements, when performing a governmental function on behalf of a governmental body.^ See Little Joseph Realty, Inc, v. Town of Babylon, 51 A.D.2d 158, 379 N.Y.S.2d 436 (2d Dep't 1976), aff'd, 41 N.Y.2d 738, 395 N.Y.S.2d 428 (1977) (private business entity operating sanitary landfill as lessee of town exempt from local zoning); People v. Rodriguez, 115. Misc. 2d 866, 454 N.Y.S.2d 796 (Crim. Ct. Queens Co. 1982) (private business entity operating hotel as lessee of the Port Authority of New 5 Agencies and political subdivisions of the State, such as the County acting either in its own capacity or as a local, social services district, are exempt from local regulatory controls in the performance of governmental functions. See, e .g ., Nehbras v. Lloyd Harbor, 2 N.Y.2d 190, 159 N.Y.S.2d 145 (1957); Gedney Ass'n v. Dep't of Mental Hygiene, 112 Misc. 2d 209, 446 N.Y.S.2d 876 (S. Ct. Westchester Co. 1982). As noted above, the New York Constitution itself establishes care of the needy as a governmental function. N.Y. Const. Art. XVII, § 1. -18- -.. ... — nv nn m " r «n )« m in i;. f > »< *-*► » W'1 York and New Jersey exempt from local fire regulations); People v. Witherspoon, 52 Misc. 2d 320, 275 N.Y.S.2d 592 (Dist. Ct. Suffolk Co. 1966). For example, in People v. St. Agatha Home for Children, 47 N.Y.2d 46, 416 N.Y.S.2d 577, cert, denied, 444 U.S. 869 (1979), the Court of Appeals held that a private child care organization was not required to comply with local zoning law in the operation of a nonsecure detention center in an area restricted to one family occupancy where it had been established that [the] operation was established at the behest of the county, that its location has been ap proved by the county, and that it is funded by and through the county. The county having determined, as it is authorized to do by the statute, to fulfill its obligation through the vehicle of privately operated homes, that decision may not be overruled by application of a local zoning ordinance. 47 N.Y.2d at 49, 416 N.Y.S.2d at 578-79. In this case, HELP'S relationship to the County is similar to that of the private child care organization in St. Agatha. The Amended Complaint itself indicates that HELP will be acting on behalf of the County, Amended Complaint at f 10, the facility will be located on County land, id. at f 12, and will be funded by and through the County. _Id. at f 18. Paraphrasing the Court of Appeals in St. Agatha, local zoning and other regulations may not interfere with the^County's -19- decision to provide aid to the needy through the vehicle of a shelter operated by a non-governmental entity. Thus, the County of Westchester is constitutionally authorized to undertake the project, and HELP is not constrained by local laws when constructing and operating the project on behalf of the County. As a result, neither the Town Board resolution endorsing the project, nor its construction and associated environmental review activities, are illegal as alleged by plaintiffs. The Eleventh, Twelfth and Thirteenth causes of action therefore should be dismissed. . 3. Plaintiffs' Allegation Regarding ' The Schools To Be Attended By . Children In The Shelter At Some Time' In The'Future Does Not State A Cause Of Action_________ In the earlier Counts, plaintiffs purported to champion the right of homeless derelicts and drug addicts to obtain shelter in their neighborhood. The Sixteenth cause of action is equally insincere. Here, plaintiffs speak up for school children, protesting an alleged conspiracy to exclude children in the shelter from the Valhalla School District. The substantive allegation underlying this cause of action is that defendants "have entered into an agreement, conspiracy and policy to deny school age children who will reside at the Project their right to attend the Valhalla Union School District." Amended- Complaint H 31. Defendants haMe-- engaged in no such*unlawful behavior and have denied a like -20- SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER _______________________________________________ _ )COALITION OF UNITED PEOPLES, INC., MYLES ) GREENBERG AND FRANCES M. MULLIGAN, ) )Plaintiffs, ) ) -against- ) ANTHONY F. VETERAN, individually and as ) Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh, ) New York, the TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN ) OF GREENBURGH, New York, the TOWN OF ) GREENBURGH, New York, THE COUNTY OF ) WESTCHESTER, New York, H.E.L.P., INC., ) a/k/a HOMELESS EMERGENCY LEVERAGE ) PROGRAM, INC. and the HOUSING FINANCE ) AGENCY of the State of New York, ) )Defendants. ) )x Index No. 3316/88 Assigned Judge: Hon. Aldo A. Nastasi MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF HELP AND THE TOWN OF GREENBURGH DEFENDANTS Of Counsel __ Frank S. Ioppolo Thomas R. Trowbridge III Stephen D. Houck DONOVAN LEISURE NEWTON & IRVINE Attorneys for Defendants Anthony F. Veteran, the Town Board of the Town of Greenburgh, the Town of Greenburgh and H.E.L.P., Inc. 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10112 (212) 632-3000 *7" •ft" m n UJ J I V TTTI gac? On each count, plaintiffs ask for, among other things, a permanent injunction preventing defendants from constructing and developing the project. This is sought . because of plaintiffs' position that the eligibility criteria for the project will be too narrow. For the reasons discussed above, defendants believe that the project is properly a family one and that, as such, it is legal and not discriminatory. If, however, it were determined that the criteria which ultimately are adopted ought to be broader than those extrapolated by plaintiffs from the remarks of Town and Country officials, the solution would be to change the criteria. It should not be to throw out the baby with/ the bath water, as plaintiffs request, preventing the entire project from ever being built. B. The County Has The Authority To Establish The Shelter Free Of Zoning And Other Local Regulation: It Is Not "Low Income Housing" As defendants have demonstrated, the County is constitutionally authorized to construct and operate a shelter for the homeless, as aid and care for the needy under Article 17 of the New York Constitution. Defendants' Br. at 16-18. Plaintiffs have not challenged this basis of the County's authority. Instead, they attempt to characterize the shelter as a "low-income housing project" under Article . 18 and argue that the County is not empowered to construct such housing. -13- / The answer to this argument is simple: a homeless shelter is not low-income housing. Low-income housing and shelters provide different services, serve different groups and impose different conditions.6 7 Low-income housing provides permanent homes to those with low incomes in exchange for rent, whereas a shelter provides a temporary place to stay, counseling and other social services even to •7people with no income at all on the basis of need. In addition to the authority under Article 17, which plaintiffs have not called into question, the Constitution contains an explicit directive regarding aid to the needy: 6 The purpose of a shelter, to assist those in need, is also different from that of low-income housing. "That persons of low income may ultimately be benefited by being housed in a low rent project...is only incidental to the real purpose of the [Public Housing Law], which is to eliminate slum areas." Amalgamated Housing Corn. v. Kellev. 193 Misc. 961, 965, 82 N.Y.S.2d 577, 581 (S. Ct. Bronx Co. 1948). The Public Housing Law was enacted to implement the policy established in Article 18 of the Constitution. 7 Plaintiffs argue that because the County sought to amend Article 18 of the Constitution so that it could build low income housing, in part to address the homeless problem, it lacks authority to build the shelter. There is no connection. The County attempted to avoid making still more families homeless by increasing affordable permanent housing. The shelter is not permanent housing. Whether or not Article 18 applies to the County is irrelevant for this purpose 'because the County has authority to construct the shelter under Article 17. See N.Y. Const. Art. VII, § 8 and Art. VIII, § 1. -14- fNlothinc in this constitution contained shall prevent a county . . . from making such pro vision for the aid, care and support of the needy as may be authorized by law. New York Const. Art. VIII, § 1 (emphasis added). See id. at Art. VII, § 8. Thus, the Constitution itself makes clear that neither Article 18 nor anything else in the Constitution can stand in the way of that aid. Plaintiffs' position that the project is subject to zoning and other local laws is based entirely upon their argument that the County has no authority to establish the shelter. The County's authority to shelter the homeless, however, is firmly established by the Constitution as a governmental function.8 Consequently, because it is an authorized County project, the shelter is not subject to zoning and other local regulation,8 and Counts Eleven through Thirteen should be dismissed. Plaintiffs argue that the construction of the shelter cannot be a governmental function because the work is being done by the private sector. Defendants have cited authority for the self evident proposition that when private entities perform governmental functions on behalf of the government, those functions remain governmental, and the governmental immunity extends to the private entities. Defendants' Br. at 18-20. Plaintiffs have made no response. Plaintiffs' contention that welfare hotel and motel operators are agents of the County does not withstand even superficial analysis. These operators function'as independent businesses and treat the County like anyone else who wants to rent something from them. HELP, on [Footnote continues on following page] -15- • • LOVETT & GOULD A T T O R N E Y S AT LAW JONATHAN LOVETT JANE BILUS GOULD Ch r is t in e v kn eppefi ALSO MEMBER OF 0 .C .4 MO. BAAS 180 EAST POST ROAD WHITE PLAINS, N. Y. 1C601 9 14 - 4 2 8 *8 4 0 1 November 29, 1988 Melinda Levine, Esq. Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019 Re: Deutsch v. Jones, et al. 88 Civ. 7738 ( GLG)______ Dear Ms. Levine: I am writing to memorialize our discussion last Wednesday morning during which I requested that the plaintiffs voluntarily discontinue the above-indicated action since we believe it to be entirely frivolous. As I expressed to you, in my opinion all of the defendants' conduct which is challenged in the complaint is absolutely privileged under the First Amendment. Judge Weinfeld has addressed this identical issue in Weiss v. Willowtree Civil Assoc., 467 F. Supp. 803 (SDNY 1979). With respect to the first, second and third claims in the complaint, there exists no case and controversy. The homeless issues can hardly be presently actionable since, inter alia, (a) none of the defendants have the legal or factual capacities to zone any West-Help project out; (b) no entity presently exists with such zoning authority; (c) no such entity may ever exist in the event Supervisor Veteran rejects the petition and that rejection is not successfully challenged in State Court; (d) plaintiffs cannot prove with any degree of probability that the County of Westchester will ever make the acreage available for the West-Help project; (e) none of the plaintiffs are without housing/shelter; and (f) there is no way you can prove that any one of the plaintiffs has a reasonable probability of becoming a resident at the West-Help development if in fact he/she is homeless at such time as it is ever constructed. Me 1inda Levine, Esq. November 29, 1988 Page -2- With respect to the voting rights issues, I perceive similar problems. How can a vote be diluted when there is not and may never be a municipal corporate entity, the boundaries of which will supposedly result in that dilution? How are the votes of persons who do not live in the proposed village boundaries even theoretically diluted with respect to the Town of Greenburgh or any other entity? How can you determine at this juncture that a ward system as opposed to an at-large system would not counter any supposed dilutive effect of the village boundary? In short, it appears to me that, at best, the complaint is premature and its targeted defendants gravely inappropriate. Indeed, given the not so coincidental fact that service of the complaint was timed to coincide with the public hearing and media hype generated by plaintiffs, it is readily apparent that the institution of this action was intended to chill the exercise of the First Amendment Rights of both the defendants (except Veteran) and other persons whom you style to be co-conspirators. Since I believe the complaint to be totally unwarranted by any conceivable notion of existing law, I strongly urge that a voluntary discontinuance be agreed upon. Short of that, we will be moving for dismissal, attorneys fees and Rule 11 sanctions. On a separate matter, I wish to thank you for consenting to an extension until December 19, 1988 of our time to respond to the complaint. Very truly yours JL:clp cc: TTimothy C. Quinn, Jr., Esq bcc: L. Deutsch S. Goldrich M. Tone P A U L, W E I S S , R I F K I N D . 1 2 0 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 0 9 0 T E L E X W U I 6 6 6 - 0 4 3 R A N D O L P H E. P A U L ( 1 0 4 6 1 9 5 6 ) L O U IS S W E IS S ( 1 0 2 7 1 9 3 0 ) JO H N F W H A R T O N ( 1 0 2 7 1 0 7 7 ) M O R R IS 0 A 0 R A M A D R IA N W. DEW IN D L L O Y D K G A R R IS O N JO S E P H S. I8 E M A N JA M E S 0 LE W IS P A U L J N E W LO N M O R O E C A I R O C H L IN H O W AR 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 FA 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 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 STR 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 6 2 3 7 PWA 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 PAR IS F R A N C E T E L E P H O N E ( 3 3 - 1 ) 4 3 4 9 .3 3 6 3 T E L E C O P IE R ( 3 3 * 1 ) 4 2 .2 2 0 4 3 8 T E L E X 2 0 3 1 7 8 F 2 0 0 8 TW O E X C H A N G E SQ U AR E 6 C O N N A U G H T P LA C E . C E N T R A L H O N G KO N G T E L E P H O N E ( 8 3 2 ) 3 - 2 2 0 0 4 1 T E L E C O P IE R ( 8 5 2 ) 3 - 0 6 6 0 1 2 4 T E L E X H X 6 0 2 O 8 A K A S A K A TW IN TOW ER 1 7 -2 2 . A K A S A K A 2-C H O M E M IN A T O — KU . T O K Y O 1 0 7 . JA P A N T E L E P H O N E ( 0 1 - 3 ) 3 0 3 0 2 9 1 T E L E C O P IE R ( 0 1 - 3 ) 3 0 5 - 4 3 4 0 T E L E X 0 2 4 2 8 1 2 0 PWRWGT N E A L E M. A LB E R T M A R K H A L C O T T D A N IE L J . S E LLE R M A R K A. B E LN 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 LIO D A V ID C. BR O D H E A D R IC H A R D J B R O N S TE IN JO S E P H E BROW OY C A M E R O N C LA R K LE W IS R C L A Y T O N JE R O M E A LA N C O H E N ED W AR 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 FAG EN PETER L FELC 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 FLE D E R M A R T IN F LU M E N B A U M TE R E N C E J F O R T U N E * M A X G ITTER 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 EEN E JA Y G R E E N F IE LD PETER R H A JE A L B E R T P H A N D G ER AR D E H AR PER S E Y M O U R H ER TZ R O B E R T M. H IR S H J A M IE P H O R S LE Y * A R T H U R K A U S H LE W IS A K A P L A N A N T H O N Y B. K U K L IN JE R O M E KU R TZ S T E V E N E LA N D E R S R O BER T L LA U F E R W A LTE R F L E IN H A R D T A R T H U R L. U M A N M A R TIN LO N D O N B A Y L E S S M A N N IN G JO H N E M A S S E N G A LE JO H N P M CENROE C O L L E E N M C M AH O N R O B E R T E M O N TG O M E R Y . JR R O B E R T H. M O N TG O M E R Y . JR D O N A L D F M OORE T O B Y S M YER SO N M ATTH EW N IM ETZ K E VIN J O 'B R IE N L IO N E L H O LM E R * JO H N J . O 'N E IL S T U A R T I. ORAN M AR C E P E R LM U TTE R JA M E S L . P U R C E LL L E O N A R D V O U IG LE Y C A R L L REISNER S IM O N H R IF K IN D _ S T U A R T R O B IN O W ITZ S ID N E Y S R O S D E ITC H E R R IC H A R D A. ROSEN S TE V E N B. R O S E N F E LD PETER J . R O TH E N B E R G • E R N E S T R U B E N S TE IN TER R Y E. S C H IM E K JO H N A. S ILB E R M A N M O S E S S ILV E R M A N E ILE E N S S ILV E R S S T E V E N S IM K IN R O B E R T S S M ITH M A R IL Y N SO B E L T H E O D O R E C S O R E N S E N JO H N C. T A Y LO R . 3«D A L L E N L . T H O M A S J U D IT H R TH O Y E R JA Y T O P K IS JO S E E T R IA S DAVIO T W ASH BU R N A L F R E D D YO U N G W O O D •H O T A O M IT T C D T O NEW Y O R K BAR - C O M 6 C IL J U R tD tO U C IN F R A N C E O N LY (212) 373-3287 December 5, 1988 Jonathan Lovett, Esq. Lovett & Gould 180 East Post Road White Plains, NY 10601 Deutsch v. Jones et al. 88 Civ. 7738 (GLG) Dear Mr. Lovett: Although such exchanges of correspondence are invariably a total waste of time, your letter of November 29 warrants a brief response if only to ensure that the paper record you are seeking to create is not wholly one-sided. Please bear in mind that your clients are actively pursuing — not merely advocating — a plan that tramples on the statutory and constitutional rights of the plaintiffs. The issue addressed by Judge Weinfeld in the Weiss case was hardly identical. You might want to take a look at People v. 11 Cornwell Co.. 695 F.2d 34 (2d Cir. 1982), modified. 718 F.2d 22 (2d Cir. 1983), and some of the cases cited by the Second Circuit in that decision before you become overly entranced with your position. I would urge you and your clients to take a longer view than the one reflected in your letter. Stop this J ' r PAUL, WE 155, RIFICIND, W H A R T O N 8 C A R R I SON Jonathan Lovett, Esq. December 5, 1988 inglorious maneuvering now, and let the homeless housing go forward with the community support that it needs and deserves. Sincerely Cameron Clark CC/mp BY TELECOPY cc: Timothy Quinn, Esq. Check Ai index No. 8 8 Civ. 7 73 8̂ ^ e a r 19 (GLG) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN STATE OF NEW YORK YVONNE JONES, et ano., Plaintiffs, -against- LAURENCE DEUTSCH, et at., Defendants. NOTICE OF MOTION LOVETT & GOULD Attorneys for Defendants Deutsch, Goldrich, Tone and Coalition of United Peoples, Inc. 180 EAST POST ROAD WHITE PLAINS. NEW YORK 10601 (914)428-8401 To: Attorney (s) for Service of a copy of the within Dated: is hereby admitted. Attomey(s) for PLEASE TAKE NOTICE □ j> NOTICE OF • ENTRY-O that the within is a (certified) true copy of a entered in the office of the clerk of the within named Court on 19 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT that an Order of which the within at on is a true copy will be presented for settlement to the Hon. one of the judges of the within named Court, 1 9 . a t M . Dated: LOVETT & GOULD Attorneys for 180 EAST POST ROAD WHITE PLAINS. NEW YORK 10601 N 912 CL