Jones v. Deutsch Notice of Motion

    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