Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

X

YVONNE JONES et al., :
Plaintiffs, : 88 Civ. 7738 (GLG)

-against- : NOTICE OF CROSS-MOTION
LAURENCE DEUTSCH, et al., :

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

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the accompanying cross 
moving affidavit of Jay L. Himes, sworn to January 25, 1989, 
and the annexed exhibits and upon all prior papers and 
proceedings, the undersigned will cross-move this Court, 
before the Honorable Gerard L. Goettel, on February 3, 1989, 
at 10:00 A.M., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, 
at the United States Courthouse, 101 E. Post Road, White 
Plains, New York, for an order: (a) pursuant to Rules 15(a)
and (d), Fed. R. Civ. P., granting leave to serve a first 
amended and supplemental complaint, on the grounds that 
matters have transpired since the filing of plaintiffs' 
complaint, and no party will be prejudiced by the new pro­
posed pleading; and (b) directing such other and further



2

relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: New York, New York
January 26, 1989

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON 
1285 Avenue of the Americas 
New York, New York 10019 
(212) 373-3000

BY: 0  ̂  ------/ c” Jay L. Himes
Attorri^ys for the Homeless Plaintiffs and 
the National Coalition and Local Counsel for the Greenburgh Plaintiffs and the NAACP

Grover G. Hankins, Esq.
NAACP, Inc.
4805 Mount Hope Drive Baltimore, MD 21215-3297 
(301) 486-9191

Attorney for the Greenburgh Plaintiffs 
and the NAACP

Of Counsel:
Robert M. Hayes, Esq. 
Virginia G. Shubert 
COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS 
105 East 22nd Street New York, NY 10010 
(212) 219-1900
Julius L. Chambers, Esq. 
John Charles Boger, Esq. 
Sherrilyn Ifill, Esq.
99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013

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



To: LOVETT & GOULD
180 E. Post RoadWhite Plains, N.Y. 10601
914-428-8401
Attorneys for Defendants 
Deutsch, Goldrich, Tone, and 
Coalition of United Peoples, 
Inc.
QUINN & SUHR 170 Hamilton Avenue 
White Plains, N.Y. 10601 
914-949-0800
Attorneys for Defendant Kaufman

PAUL AGRESTA, ESQ. 
Town Attorney 
P.O. Box 205 
Elmsford, N.Y. 10523 914-993-1546
Attorney for Defendant Veteran



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

YVONNE JONES, et al. ,
Plaintiffs,

-against-
LAURENCE DEUTSCH, et al.,

Defendants.

88 Civ. 7738 (GLG)
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 
AMEND AND SUPPLEMENT COMPLAINT

x
STATE OF NEW YORK )) ss. :
COUNTY OF NEW YORK )

JAY L. HIMES, being sworn, states:
1. I am an attorney employed by Paul, Weiss, 

Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, attorneys for plaintiffs. I 
submit this affidavit in support of plaintiffs' cross-motion 
for leave to serve an amended and supplemental complaint.

2. I annex as Exhibits A and B, respectively,
copies of: (a) our present complaint, filed on November 1,
1988; and (b) our proposed form of amended and supplemental 
complaint. We do not seek to change the basic claims of our 
original pleading. However, we do seek to add supplemental 
allegations that take into account the decision by defendant 
Veteran, made a month after we filed the complaint, to reject 
the petition to incorporate Mayfair Knollwood. Specifically:

(a) We propose to allege the decision and 
make it an exhibit to our new pleading. (Ex. B, % 34.)



2

(b) We also seek to drop any allegation to 
the effect that Mr. Veteran was a part of, or furthered, the 
conspiracy by the other defendants. (Compare Ex. A, H  8, 52 
with Ex. B, 11 8, 51.) In turn, we also make minor deletions 
or editing changes in existing allegations that arise gener­
ally from the Veteran decision and the disassociation from 
the conspiracy. (Compare Ex. A, H  33-37 with Ex. B.

32[e], 33, 35, 36.)
(c) The phraseology of the declaratory relief 

sought would be changed slightly to reflect the fact of the 
decision. (Compare Ex. A, p. 23 1 2 with Ex. B, p. 24, 1 2.)

3. We also propose to make minor amendments to 
our pleading. Several are intended to address technical 
standing objections that all defendants other than defendant 
Veteran have raised on motions to dismiss. Thus:

(a) We propose to allege more specifically 
that the West HELP shelter would offer an opportunity for 
alternative shelter to the Homeless Plaintiffs. (See Ex. B, 
152[a].)

(b) We also propose expressly to allege that 
the Greenburgh Plaintiffs are qualified to vote in federal, 
state, and local elections. (See Ex. B, 1 52[b].)

(c) All individual plaintiffs would allege 
injury arising from denial of the benefits of living in a



3

community free from race discrimination. (See Ex. B,
I 52[c].)

(d) As to the organizational plaintiffs —
the National Association for the Advancement of Colored 
People, Inc. - White Plains/Greenburgh Branch and the Nation­
al Coalition for the Homeless —  additional allegations would 
set forth injury to each organization's activities. (See Ex.
B, 1 52[d].)

(e) The NAACP and the National Coalition also 
are expressly identified as plaintiffs in the three substan­
tive counts. (Compare Ex. A, 56, 58, 60 with Ex. B,
II 55, 57, 59.)

(f) As to those plaintiffs who are minors, we 
seek to add an express allegation that they sue by and 
through their respective parents. (Ex. B, 5[m].)

4. We further seek to correct an inaccurate 
statutory reference to the Social Security Act in the exist­
ing complaint. (Ex. A, f 60.) Our proposed pleading substi­
tutes the appropriate statutory reference. (Ex. B, f 59.) 
Also, since the suit began, the addresses of the homeless 
plaintiffs have changed, and we have updated the appropriate 
allegations for two of the three families; we are presently 
trying to determine the new address for the third family.
(Ex. B, «H1 5[a]-[c].) Finally, we have corrected any typo­
graphical errors that came to our attention.



4

5. The amended and supplemental allegations that 
we propose do not materially change the nature of the action. 
Certainly, at this early stage in the litigation, defendants 
cannot claim any prejudice by reason of any change. Accord­
ingly, I respectfully submit that plaintiffs' cross-motion 
should be granted.

i to before me this day of January 1989.

Notary Public

u V  2_
/

Jay L. Himes

ISIS v u i a r
NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York

No. Si-2335700
Qualified in New Y jte  Q °W » 

Commission fo?,iiea_  , <-̂ V1 ' J  —



f

Exhibit A



SSfJTEl
>88

UNITED STATES DISTRICT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

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,

n vVi t • '(  £ a  C ?

n  j  c  111? s

u NOV 1 t9B3
C rL- C, l D ti )

Plaintiffs, 88 Civ.
-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 coin- 
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



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 sea.. Article I, §§ 1 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, § 291(2) of 
the Executive Law of the State of New York, and §§ 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



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

7



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

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

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

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

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

8



requested that the County conduct the required environmental 
review.

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

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

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

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

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

9



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

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

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

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

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

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

10



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

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

We'll go ahead with secession and take a nice piece of 
taxable property with us.

The "secession" plan was and is racially motivated. As 
Defendant Deutsch was quoted as stating in opposing the West 
HELP Development:

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

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

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

11



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

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

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

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

12



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13



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



41. In pertinent part, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 provides
that:

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

42. In pertinent part, 42 U.S.C. § 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.

16



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 seq., 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



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. § 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(l) 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. § 301 
et sea.. 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: "[Ejvery 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 §§ 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

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

Of Counsel,
Robert M. Hayes Virginia G. Schubert COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS 105 East 22nd Street New York, N.Y. 10010 (212) 460-8110
Andrew M. Cuomo 
2 Park Avenue Suite 1415
New York, N.Y. 10016 
(212) 686-1000

Edward Hailes, Jr. 
NAACP, Inc.260 Fifth Avenue New York, N.Y.(212) 481-4100
Julius L. Chambers 
John Charles Boger Sherrilyn Ifill 99 Hudson Street 
New York, N.Y. 10013 
(212) 219-1900

23



x .?& '} U [

PROPOSED 
BOUNDARY OF 
VILLAGE

MULTI-RACIAL
HOUSING

TOWS OF GREESBURG.
Wntckntrr C ***?) Seu Y»rk

EXHIBIT 1





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,
-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,

88 Civ. 7738 (GLG)

FIRST AMENDED AND 
SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT

Defendants

x

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

Nature of the Action and Background

1. This action is brought by a number of black 
citizens of Greenburgh, parents of homeless families in



Westchester County, the National Association for the Advance­
ment of Colored People, White Plains/Greenburgh Branch 
("NAACP") and the National Coalition for the Homeless (the 
"National Coalition") to obtain redress against a racially 
motivated conspiracy formed by the defendants other than 
Anthony Veteran (hereinafter the "Conspiring Defendants") for 
the purpose of depriving racial minorities and homeless 

persons of constitutional and statutory rights. The Conspir­
ing 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 attempt­
ing 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 

establish safe and decent temporary housing for homeless

2



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. §§ 601 
and 602, Article I, §§ 1 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, § 291(2) of 

the Executive Law of the State of New York, and §§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), at 156 South First 

Avenue, Mt. Vernon, New York. This housing has been made 

available to the Jordan family since the commencement of this 
action.

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), at rto be 
forthcoming1. This housing has been made available to the 
Ramos family since the commencement of this action.

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), at 22 Lawrence Street, Yonkers, New York 10705. 

This housing has been made available to the Myers family 

since the commencement of this action.

4



d. Plaintiff Yvonne Jones is a black home- 

owner who has resided in the vicinity of the proposed village 

boundary in the unincorporated part of Greenburgh at 118 
North Evarts Avenue, Elmsford, New York for 35 years.

e. Plaintiff Odell A. Jones is a black 
homeowner who has resided in the vicinity of the proposed 

village boundary in the unincorporated part of Greenburgh at 
19 Van Buren Place, White Plains, New York for 27 years.

f. Plaintiff Geri Bacon is a black homeowner 
who has resided in the vicinity of the proposed village 

boundary in the unincorporated part of Greenburgh at 16 Adams 
Place, White Plains, New York for 33 years.

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

h. Plaintiff Mary Williams is a black 
homeowner who has resided in the vicinity of the proposed 

village boundary in the unincorporated part of Greenburgh at 
179 Sears Avenue, Elmsford, New York for 28 years.

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

j . Plaintiff NAACP is a branch of a nonpro­
fit membership association representing the interests of

5



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.

l. Those individuals identified in subpara­
graphs a through c above are referred to as the "Homeless 

Plaintiffs." Those individuals identified in subparagraphs d 
through i above are referred to as the "Greenburgh Plaintiffs."

m. Those Homeless Plaintiffs who are minors 
(identified in subparagraphs a through c above) sue by and 
through their respective plaintiff-parents.

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

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

6



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

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. Defendant Veteran is named as a 
party only with respect to Count IV.

Co-Conspirators

9. Various other persons not made defendants in 
this action participated as co-conspirators with defendants 
in the violations set forth below, and performed acts and 
made statements in furtherance thereof.

Factual Background 
The West HELP Development

10. West H.E.L.P., Inc. (Homeless Emergency 

Leverage Program, Inc.) ("West HELP") is a not-for-profit

7



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

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

8



developments (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 supervi­
sor and council members, expressed support for the West HELP 

Development and requested that the County conduct the re­
quired environmental review.

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

18. The West HELP Development would provide 
"transitional" housing for homeless families pending their 

establishment of more permanent homes. As planned, it would 
consist of six two-story buildings with approximately 18 
housing units in each. A seventh building would be con­

structed to house day care, counseling, and selected social 
services for the benefit of those lodged at the Development 
Site. The West HELP Development is widely regarded as a 

model in the provision of cost-effective, decent transitional 
housing to homeless families with children.

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

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

9



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 
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 Develop­
ment. Defendant Deutsch is COUP'S president.

22. On or about February 11, 1988, Defendant 

Deutsch participated in a meeting held at the Valhalla High

10



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 
village -- to be called "Mayfair Knollwood" -- within the 

Town. As envisioned, the geographic boundaries of Mayfair 
Knollwood were to include the Development Site.

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

We'll go ahead with secession and take a nice piece of 
taxable property with us.

The "secession" plan was and is racially motivated. As 
Defendant Deutsch was guoted 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.

11



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

26. The proposed boundary for Mayfair Knollwood is 

an irregular, multi-sided configuration designed by the 

Conspiring Defendants and their co-conspirators for the 

manifest purpose of excluding minority residents of the Town. 
The shape of the proposed Village and its purpose and effect 

to exclude racial minorities are shown on the map attached as 
Exhibit 1.

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

28. Defendant COUP, the Conspiring Defendants and 
their co-conspirators seek unlawfully to gerrymander the 
proposed boundaries of Mayfair Knollwood so as to (a) exclude 
racial minorities from the proposed village, (b) appropriate, 
to the detriment of Town residents not within the proposed 

Mayfair Knollwood boundary, essential municipal resources, 

facilities, and amenities, and (c) appropriate a major

12



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.

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 r i.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

13



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;

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

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

e. in the event the decision is adverse to 

the Petition, possible judicial review to the extent provided 
by State law.

33. Following presentation of the Petition to the 
Town on or about September 14, 1988, Defendant Veteran 

conducted the procedures described in paragraphs 32(a) and 
(b) above.

34. On or about December 6, 1988, Defendant 
Veteran issued a written decision with respect to the Peti­
tion. Among other things, Defendant Veteran "determine[d] 
that the aforesaid petition does not comply with the require­

ments of Article 2 of the Village Law, does not comply with 

the requirements of the Constitution of the United States,

14



and does not comply with the Constitution of the State of New 
York...." A copy of the decision is attached as Exhibit 2.

35. Defendant Veteran swore an oath in taking the 
office of Town Supervisor, pursuant to Article XIII, § 1 of 
the New York Constitution and section 25 of the New York Town 
Law, as follows:

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

Approval by Defendant Veteran of the Petition, with its 

racially discriminatory purpose and effect and its breach of 
the numerous constitutional and statutory provisions set 
forth in paragraphs 38 through 48 below, would have: (a)

constituted a breach of Defendant Veteran's oath of office; 
and (b) would have subjected plaintiffs to unlawful discrimi­

nation and deprivation of their rights under those provisions.
36. Notwithstanding the foregoing, COUP and the 

Conspiring Defendants assert that Defendant Veteran had no 

authority to deny the Petition on any ground other than 

technical non-compliance with the specific mandates of the 

Village Law. Plaintiffs, by contrast, assert that Defendant 
Veteran acted in accordance with the law in issuing his 
decision.

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

as set forth above.

15



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

the Constitution of the United States provides that:

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

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

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

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

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

41. In pertinent part, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) pro­
vides that it shall be unlawful "to refuse to . . . otherwise 

make available or deny a dwelling to any person because of 
race, [or] color. . . . "

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

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

16



any citizen thereof, . . . unless by law of the land, or
the judgment of his peers. . . .

43. In pertinent part, Article I, § 11 of the
Constitution of the State of New York provides that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

47. The Federal Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.

§§ 601 and 602, guarantee all eligible homeless families in 

the State of New York safe and decent emergency housing.

17



48. 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.

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

The Violation of Plaintiffs' Rights and Injury

50. Beginning in or about February 1988 and 
continuing thereafter to the present, the Conspiring Defen­
dants and their co-conspirators engaged in a conspiracy in 
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). The conspiracy includes a 

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 —

18



of the equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges 
and immunities under the laws set forth above;

b. Preventing or hindering duly constituted 

authorities of the State of New York —  the County and the 

Town —  from giving or securing to all persons, including 

racial minorities, in such State the equal protection of the 
laws.

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

52. Plaintiffs have been injured in their person 
or property or deprived of having and exercising rights and 
privileges of a citizen of the United States, and have 

thereby suffered and are threatened with irreparable injury. 
The injury includes, but is not limited to, the following:

a. The Homeless Plaintiffs are being denied, 
or threatened with denial of, the opportunity to live in 
improved, alternative housing, such as that represented by 
the West HELP development. They further are being denied, or 
threatened with denial of, housing on account of race.

b. The Greenburgh Plaintiffs, each of whom 

is qualified to vote in federal, state, and local elections, 

are being denied, or threatened with denial of, exercise of 

their current franchise with respect to all matters involving 

the Town or otherwise are sustaining actual or threatened

19



impairment of their franchise. Plaintiff Dixon further has 

sustained actual or threatened dilution of his franchise.
c. All individual plaintiffs are being 

denied the benefits of association, residence, interaction 
and other contact arising from living in a community that is 
free from discrimination on account of race or homelessness.

d. The resources of the NAACP and National 
Coalition are being, and will continue to be, diverted and 

drained by reason of organizational activity undertaken in 
response to the conspiracy alleged. These activities in­

clude, but are not limited to, meetings and other contacts 

with community groups and governmental officials, participa­
tion in tours of the proposed village, and related prepara­

tion. They further include, but are not limited to, advising 
West HELP with respect to homeless matters, and assisting in 
securing public support for West HELP, which has had the 

effect of diverting resources available to aid homeless 
persons to educating various groups so as to overcome opposi­

tion to the West HELP shelter. Moreover, the basic goal and 
purpose of the NAACP to establish and protect the rights of 
racial minorities is being thwarted. Also, the basic goal 
and purpose of the National Coalition to advocate responsible 
solutions for the homelessness is being thwarted.

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

20



CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Count I

54. Plaintiffs repeat paragraphs one through 53.

55. The Conspiring Defendants, by their acts, have 
conspired and are continuing to conspire, in breach of 42 
U.S.C. § 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. The NAACP joins this count 

on its own behalf and on behalf of its members.

Count II
56. Plaintiffs repeat paragraphs one through 53.

57. The Conspiring Defendants, by their acts, have 
conspired and are continuing to conspire, in breach of 42 
U.S.C. § 1985(3), to violate and have violated the housing 

rights of plaintiffs Anita Jordan, April Jordan, Latoya 

Jordan, Anna Ramos, Lizette Ramos, Vanessa Ramos, Gabriel 

Ramos, Thomas Myers, Thomas Myers, Jr., Linda Myers and Shawn 
Myers in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Consti­

tution of the United States, the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 3604, Article I, § 11 and Article XVII, § 1 of the New York

21



Constitution, §§ 40-c(l) and (2) of the New York Civil Rights 
Law, and § 291(2) of the Executive Law of the State of 
New York. The NAACP joins this count on its own behalf and 

on behalf of its members. The National Coalition joins this 
count on its own behalf and on behalf of homeless families in 
Westchester County.

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

conspired and are continuing to conspire, in breach of 42 

U.S.C. § 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. §§ 601 and 602, Article I, § 11 and Article 
XVII, § 1 of the New York Constitution, and §§ 62(1) and 131 
of the New York Social Services Law and the regulations 

promulgated thereunder. The National Coalition joins this 
count on its own behalf and on behalf of homeless families in 
Westchester County.

22



Count IV
60. Plaintiffs repeat paragraphs one through 53.

61. a. Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution
of the United States provides as follows:

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

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. . . . "

62. Under the constitutional provisions set forth 
above, defendant Veteran has a duty to uphold federal and 

state law. Moreover, in assuming his office as Town Super­

visor, defendant Veteran swore an oath to uphold the Consti­
tution and laws of the United States and of the State of 
New York.

63. As set forth in paragraphs 31 through 37 
above, there is a justiciable controversy between plaintiffs

23



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

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

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

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

2. As to Count IV, declaring that defendant 
Veteran has and had the right and obligation, under the 
Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of 

New York, to deny and to refuse to proceed further with the 
Petition.

3. As to all Counts, directing such other and 

further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

24



Dated: Greenburgh, N.Y.
January __, 1989

Respectfully submitted,

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON 
1285 Avenue of the Americas 
New York, N.Y. 10019 
(212) 373-3000

By.
Jay L. Himes

Attorneys for the Homeless Plaintiffs and 
the National Coalition and Local 
Counsel for the Greenburgh Plaintiffs 
and the NAACP

GROVER G. HANKINS, ESQ. 
NAACP, Inc.
4805 Mount Hope Drive 
Baltimore, MD 21215-3297 
(301) 486-9191

Attorney for the Greenburgh 
Plaintiffs and the NAACP

Of Counsel:

Robert M. Hayes, Esq. 
Virginia G. Shubert, Esq. 
COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS 
105 East 22nd Street 
New York, N.Y. 10010 
(212) 460-8110
Julius L. Chambers, Esq. 
John Charles Boger, Esq. 
Sherrilyn Ifill, Esq.
99 Hudson Street 
New York, N.Y. 10013 
(212) 219-1900
Andrew M. Cuomo, Esq.
2 Park Avenue 
Suite 1415
New York, N.Y. 10016 
(212) 686-1000

25



.JTJ

PROPOSED 
BOUNDARY OF 
VILLAGE

MULTI-RACIAL
HOUSING

TOWN OF GREENBURGl
WnicirUer County, Nr* Yrri

EXHIBIT 1



In 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 at the Village of Mayfair 
Kuvllwwd 1»»vitiy duly b«uu xwwcivwd by mm uu S.pL.*uL«i 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, Elmsford, 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 eubmitted 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.

EXHIBIT 2



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 cititens 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-



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 sigs end sags 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 Cardens, 

Hillside-Wyndover, and of course, the public housing and low 

and moderate income housing areas of predominantly black 
Pairview.

Included in the proposed village is all the available
undeveloped lands bordering black areas. These undeveloped 

lands 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 •intent1' 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 

Xnollwood. Such an invidious purpose is not vhat 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 -



1**

secure fire or police protection or other public services. 

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 

homeless residents would be provided on-site day cere,

5 -



M
i

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 organised to stop 

the project by any means possible solely because of the 

irrational argument that it is to be located in their 

"back-yard".
While Article 2 of the Village lav does net 

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 -



t

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 

discriminate against homeless persons who are predominantly 

black.
' 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.
batedi Clmsford, N.Y.

Supervisor 
Town of Greenburgh

- 7 -



Re
vi

se
d 

9/
86

\

88 Civ. 7738 (GLG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

YVONNE JONES, ET AL.
Plaintiffs,

v.
LAURENCE DEUTSCH, ET AL., 

Defendants.

NOTICE OF CROSS-MOTION

Paul, W eiss, Rifhind, Wharton & Garrison 

Attorneys tor p l a i n t i f f s

1

1 2 8 5  A V E N U E  O F  T H E  A M E R IC A S  •  NEW  Y O R K . N Y 1 0 0 1 9  

( 2 1 2 )  3 7 3 - 3 0 0 0

All communications should be referred

t0 Jay L. Himes, Esq.