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