City of Kansas City, Missouri v. WIlliams Brief for Appellees and Cross-Appellants

    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, STACEY 
FRANKLIN, CHANELLE FRANKLIN, :
RONALD FRANKLIN, JANET LLANOS,
ERIC STEVEN LLANOS, 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,

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):

88 Civ. 7738 (GLG)
FIRST AMENDED AND 
SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT

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

citizens of Greenburgh, parents of homeless families in



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 133 Lincoln 
Avenue, Mt. Vernon, New York 10603. 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 Stacey Franklin is a homeless 
black woman who lives with her two children, Chanelle (age 3) 
and Ronald (age 11 months), at the Coachman Hotel, 123 East 
Post Road, White Plains, New York. The Franklin family was 
placed in the motel by Westchester County.

e. Plaintiff Janet Llanos is a homeless 
hispanic woman who lives with her child, Eric Steven (age 2), 
at the Coachman Hotel, 123 East Post Road, White Plains, New 
York. The Llanos family was placed in the motel by 
Westchester County.

f. 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.

g. 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.

h. 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.

i. Plaintiff James Hodges is a black home- 
owner who has resided in the vicinity of the proposed village

5



boundary in the unincorporated part of Greenburgh at 51 Cabot 
Avenue, Elmsford, New York for two years.

j. 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.

k. 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.

l. Plaintiff NAACP is a branch of a nonpro­
fit 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.

m. 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



n. Those individuals identified in subpara­
graphs a through e above are referred to as the "Homeless 
Plaintiffs." Those individuals identified in subparagraphs f 
through k above are referred to as the "Greenburgh 
Plaintiffs."

o . Those Homeless Plaintiffs who are minors 
(identified in subparagraphs a through e 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

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

7



defendant in that capacity. Defendant Veteran is named as a 
party only with respect to Count IV.

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

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

Factual Background 
The West HELP Development

10. West H.E.L.P., Inc. (Homeless Emergency 
Leverage Program, Inc.) ("West HELP") is a not-for-profit 
corporation organized under the 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

8



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 
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.

9



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 
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

10



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 
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

11



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 some­where 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 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

12



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.

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

13



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 .
the Petition;

within a specified time, a decision on

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

14



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

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

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

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

15



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

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.

16



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, § l 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. . . .

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

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

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

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

17



45 .
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.

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 deter­mine.

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

In pertinent part, Section 40-c(2) of the New

18



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

The Violation of Plaintiffs1 Rights and Iniurv
50. Beginning in or about February 1988 and 

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

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

19



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 
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

20



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.

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, §§ l 
and 11 of the New York Constitution, and §§ 40-c(l) and (2)

21



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, Shawn 
Myers, Stacey Franklin, Chanelle Franklin, Ronald Franklin, 
Janet Llanos and Eric Steven Llanos 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. 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.

22



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, Shawn Myers, Stacey Franklin, 
Chanelle Franklin, Ronald Franklin, Janet Llanos and Eric 
Steven Llanos 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.

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.

23



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. . . . "

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

63. As set forth in paragraphs 31 through 37 
above, there is a justiciable controversy between plaintiffs 
and defendants as to their respective rights and obligations 
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);

24



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

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

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

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

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

February 10, 1989
Respectfully submitted,
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, N.Y. 10019
(212) 323-3000

-  u hBy. _____________________
Jay L. Himes 

Attor/eys for the Homeless Plaintiffs and 
the National Coalition and Local 
Counsel for the Greenburgh Plaintiffs and the NAACP

25



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.
12 East 33rd Street 6th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10016 (212) 779-3350

26





PPO^OSED 
BOUNDARY OF 
VILLAGE

MULTI-RACIAL
HOUSING

TOWN OF G<





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 ae the Village of Mayfair 
KuwllwwJ l»«viuv July bmmu ivwwivwd by mm uu SwpLwubwi 14, 

1988, end 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 Hoads, Slmsford, New York, and said 

hearing having been adjourned until November 21, 1986 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 Onited 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 aubmitted 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 ie 
necessary. Numerous gaps in the proposed boundaries were 

discovered making the description defective.

EXHIBIT 2



The memorandum in opposition submitted by the Tovm 

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 citirens 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 courae 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 
eost.

The boundary sigs and 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 cohasivaly as a unified area sines 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 Bones, Parkway Cardens, 

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

and moderate incone housing areas of predominantly black 
fairview.

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 •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 Lav.

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 fcr 

homeless families near the neighborhood of Mayfair 

Xnollwood. 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-



secure fir* or police protection or other public services. 

Typically, cluster* of people in en otherwise sp&rsely 

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 

aafeguards be made a part of the proposal to adequately 

mitigate against any possible adverse impacts.
The Westhelp project includes e lend set-aside of 

approximately 34 wooded acres, the majority of which would 

remain as a natural woodland buffer around all tides of the 
housing with a minimum of 400 fast of woodlands between all 

buildings and existing homes. The predominantly black 

homeless residents would be provided on-site day cere,

- 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 106 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 be located in their 

•back-yard".
While Article 2 of the Village lev does not 

specifically address itself to the •intent* of the 
petitioners, 2 firmly believe that the rights granted by the 

federal and state constitutions transcend the procedural 

technicalities set forth in the Village Lav.
The proceedures for the formation of a new village 

cannot be used to accomplish an unlawful end.

- 6-



■ V

Therefore, it it ay obligation at a public official to 

defend the conatitution and to reject the petition on the 

grounds that itt purport ia to deny homeless peraont needed 

services, to axclude homeleaa persona, and to raeially 
discriminate against homeless persona who are predominantly 

black.
' 4. The petition ia defective in that a eubetantial 

number of eignatures were obtained under falae 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 ia defective in that a substantial 

number of the aignatures 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.
batedt lias ford, N.Y.

Supervisor 
Town of Greenburgh

7-



R
ev

is
ed

 
9/

86
 

I 
B

4A

C

1

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

YVONNE JONES, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, 

v.
LAURENCE DEUTSCH, ET AL.,

Defendants.

FIRST AMENDED AND 
SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT

r

* Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
A t t o r n e y s  a t  L a w

1 2 8 9  A V E N U E  O F TH E A M E R IC A S  •  NEW YORK. N.Y. 1 0 0 1 9