MFY works to end the root causes of inequities through impact litigation, law reform and policy advocacy. Our impact litigation focuses on two broad areas: Disability and Aging Rights and Economic Justice.
DISABILITY AND AGING RIGHTS
Amicus Brief Challenges Parole Revocation Process for People Adjudicated Mentally Incompetent
As part of the Correction and Community Reentry Committee of the New York City Bar Association, MFY participated in writing an amicus brief on whether a person who is adjudicated mentally incompetent may lawfully be subjected to a parole revocation proceeding by the state. The brief argues in favor of the Respondent, Edwin Lopez (represented by the Legal Aid Society), that a person who is deemed mentally incompetent should not be subject to a parole revocation proceeding because it (1) violates due process and (2) is counter to public policy, public safety and rehabilitation.
Lawsuit Challenges Discrimination Against People Who Use Wheelchairs
In February 2014, this case was brought by four adult home residents who are facing eviction because they use wheelchairs. After Regency of Boro Park was taken over by new management, staff began telling residents who use wheelchairs that they should not use the first floor common areas, they should not attend certain social events, and they would have to move out of the home. The four plaintiffs soon received termination notices citing discriminatory state regulations that prohibit the retention of residents who are “chronically chairfast” and “unable to walk without assistance.” The plaintiffs, who have lived in the home without incident for many years, made reasonable accommodation requests asking Regency to seek a waiver of these regulations from the New York State Department of Health. Regency never responded to the residents’ reasonable accommodation requests. The residents brought this action under the Fair Housing Act alleging disability-based discrimination, including Regency’s failure to grant their reasonable accommodation request.
Kramer et al v. Chesty Properties, LLC, 14-cv-01344 (E.D.N.Y.)
Landmark Settlement for NYC Adult Home Residents Ensures that NY State will Offer Housing in the Community and Services to Enable Independence and Integration
On July 23, 2013, three adult home residents filed this lawsuit on behalf of a class of similarly situated residents. The class action lawsuit claims that New York State has violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to give adult home residents an opportunity to live in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a similar lawsuit against New York State. A settlement was filed the same day, and it resolves both lawsuits. This landmark settlement ensures that thousands of residents of large adult homes will have the opportunity to live in their own homes with the services they need to succeed and be part of their communities. The settlement follows years of litigation in a related case, Disability Advocates, Inc. v. Paterson. In 2009, after a trial, a federal court held that New York’s practice of segregating thousands of people with mental illness in large adult homes is discrimination in violation of the ADA. In 2012, that decision was vacated on appeal on a technical ground, but the trial court’s finding of discrimination was not questioned. If the court approves the settlement, residents with serious mental illness in 23 New York City adult homes will have the opportunity to move to community housing if they qualify and want to move. Community housing will come with the appropriate support services that residents want and need to succeed. The State will fund at least 2,000 units of supported housing for adult home residents and more if needed. Every adult home resident who qualifies will have the choice to move to community housing within five years. MFY represents the adult home residents with co-counsel Disability Rights New York, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, Urban Justice Center and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP.
O’Toole et al v. Cuomo et al., 13-cv-4166 (EDNY).
Lawsuit Challenges Blatant Discrimination by Senior Residences
In May 2013, the Fair Housing Justice Center (FHJC) filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against The Esplanade Residences, five senior residences with more than 600 apartments in Staten Island, Manhattan, Westchester County, and Rockland County. The lawsuit alleges that The Esplanade Residences discriminate against prospective renters on the basis of disability, race, and religion, in violation of local, state, and federal fair housing laws. For example, the lawsuit alleges that The Esplanade Manhattan refuses to rent to prospective residents who use wheelchairs and, if existing residents start using a wheelchair, they have to eat in a separate dining room with other residents who use wheelchair and their aides. The lawsuit requests damages and injunctive relief to stop the discrimination and obtain future compliance with fair housing laws. With co-counsel Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP, MFY is representing the FHJC.
Fair Housing Justice Center v. Esplanade Venture Partnership et al., 13 Civ. 3600 (S.D.N.Y.)
Class Action Alleges Dangerous Conditions & Civil Rights Violations in Adult Home
In May, 2012, residents of Surf Manor Home for Adults filed a class action lawsuit against the facility to address longstanding violations of their rights, including poor conditions, a perennial bed bug infestation, a lack of essential services, and verbal abuse and retaliation. The lawsuit alleges that Surf Manor, which is located in Coney Island, Brooklyn, has breached residents’ admissions agreements and the implied warranty of habitability and violated the New York Social Services Law and New York Human Rights Law. The lawsuit requests injunctive relief and damages to remedy hazardous conditions in the home and require Surf Manor to provide residents with services they are entitled to under the law. Kings County Supreme Court Justice David B. Vaughan granted residents a Temporary Restraining Order preventing Surf Manor’s administration and staff from retaliating against residents for filing this lawsuit.
Bloomfield et al. v. Surf Manor Home for Adults et al., 9038/2012, Supreme Court, Kings County
Class Action Claims that the Department of Health’s Procedures for Handling Adult Home Complaints Violates SAPA and the ADA
In January 2012, MFY filed a class action lawsuit against the New York State Department of Health (DOH) on behalf of approximately 20,000 people with disabilities who reside in New York adult homes. Many class members face unsanitary conditions, psychological abuse, and financial exploitation at the hands of adult home operators. All of these residents rely on the DOH’s Adult Home Complaint Intake Unit to conduct investigations into regulatory violations within the facilities and to order enforcement. However, the DOH’s complaint investigation and enforcement procedures are biased in ways that dramatically disfavor residents and allow many adult home operators to violate residents’ rights with impunity. The DOH’s procedures were also never officially promulgated as required under the New York State Constitution and the State Administrative Procedure Act. Although defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted on April 19, 2013, the court specifically noted that the case raised a “serious issue” and that “[t]he SAPA process would afford a valuable opportunity for public comment on inspection procedures which affect the living standards of people who are among the most vulnerable citizens of New York.” Plaintiff is appealing the trial court’s decision to the Appellate Division, First Department.
Bloomfield v. Cannavo, et al., 40082/2012, Supreme Court, New York County
Suit Alleges NYCHA Discriminates against Tenant with Disabilities
In November 2010, Justin Williams, who is blind, sued the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) for failing to provide him with important notices in an accessible format. Mr. Williams had been a Section 8 tenant for fifteen years, and NYCHA was aware that he was blind. Mr. Williams’ lawsuit claims that NYCHA’s policy of mailing only written notices to Section 8 tenants does not reasonably accommodate people with visual impairments, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the New York City Human Rights Law. NYCHA asked the court to dismiss the case, but the court denied its motion. Mr. Williams seeks an order requiring NYCHA to cease its discriminatory practice by providing him with notices in an accessible format. Such an order would ensure that hundreds of tenants who have visual impairments will not face homelessness because they cannot read important notices. With co-counsel Patton Boggs LLP, Staten Island Legal Services, and Legal Services NYC, MFY represents Mr. Williams.
Williams v. Rhea, et al., 10-CV-5440 (EDNY)
Suit Claims Adult Home Failed to Provide Legally-Mandated Number of Phones and Charged Residents for “Toll-free” Telephone Calls
Green v. Lakeside Manor et al. This case, filed in 2007, concerns Lakeside Manor’s failure to provide telephone service as required by the plaintiffs’ admission agreements and in violation of the warranty of habitability and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The plaintiffs won their appeal to the Appellate Division, Second Department, in a decision dated December 12, 2012. The decision reversed the trial court’s decision dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division once again affirmed adult home residents’ private right of action under the Social Services Law for violations of their admissions agreements and breaches of the warranty of habitability. Most significantly, the court found that, with respect to the plaintiffs’ discrimination claim under the Fair Housing Act, “[t]he defendants’ own submissions demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiffs’ disabilities were a ‘motivating factor’ behind the defendants’ alleged failure to provide the mandated level of telephone service.” After more than five years of litigation, the plaintiffs will finally have their day in court.
Green et al. v. Lakeside Manor, Index No. 2011/08580, Appellate Division, Second Department
Court of Appeals Decision Protects Rent Stabilized Tenants in Bankruptcy
In August 2014, MFY and Legal Services-NYC submitted an amicus brief to the New York Court of Appeals in the case of Santiago-Monteverde v. Pereira. The case, certified to the Court by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, concerns protections for rent-stabilized tenants in bankruptcy, and MFY’s brief urges the court to find that rent-stabilized leases are not assets subject to liquidation in a bankruptcy proceeding.
The Bankruptcy Code gives the bankruptcy trustee the power to “assume and assign” unexpired leases of the debtor. Some bankruptcy trustees have taken the position that this permits them to assume a debtor’s rent-stabilized lease and assign it, for a substantial amount of money, back to the landlord, subjecting tenants to eviction. While beneficial for the trustee, the creditors and the landlord, this practice can leave people without a place to live, and worse off than if they had never filed for bankruptcy. This practice denies the promise of a fresh start to two million New Yorkers residing in rent-stabilized apartments. MFY filed the amicus brief in support of the debtor-appellant, who is appealing a decision allowing the trustee to strike the debtor’s claim that her lease is exempt. MFY’s brief describes the scope and importance of rent stabilization, argues that rent-stabilized leases convey rights on tenants which are not subject to liquidation, and explains why permitting assumption and assignment of a rent-stabilized lease undermines the policies behind both bankruptcy law and rent regulation.
On November 20, 2014, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that rent-stabilized leases are a public benefit and as such are exempt from a debtor’s bankruptcy assets.
Food Cart Workers Awarded $60,000 in Unpaid Wages
MFY represented two street food cart vendors in claims for unpaid wages and overtime. On July 14, 2014, a Manhattan judge awarded the vendors over $60,000 for unpaid wages, overtime, and penalties. The judge found that they had worked 12 hours per day, six days per week in all types of weather, including severe snow conditions. The vendors often received partial or no payment for their work, and never received legally required overtime pay. Contrary to the business owners’ claims that they were a “mom-and-pop establishment,” the judge found that they operated several food carts and employed numerous non-family members.
Low-Wage Workers Fight Arbitrary Barriers to Vindicating Rights
On April 22, 2014, MFY joined other advocates and worker groups as amici curiae, calling on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York to allow low wage workers who allege they were illegally denied overtime to bring their claims as a class action. As the brief explains, low-wage workers are particularly vulnerable to wage theft. In practical terms, they often can only vindicate their rights through class actions. The brief argues that this right should be preserved, contrary to the lower court’s ruling that recent United States Supreme Court cases take it away. Class actions allow workers “to achieve remedies in common proceedings, share the financial burden of the litigation, and reduce the likelihood of retaliation through safety in numbers.” It is also more efficient for the court system to deal with one case rather than dozens or hundreds of separate cases.
MFY Represents Homeowner in Federal Suit Charging Predatory Lending Scheme against U.K. Bank
On April 30, 2014 MFY filed a federal lawsuit against Barclays Bank PLC, alleging it operated a predatory lending scheme that overwhelmingly targeted New York City’s minority borrowers. The plaintiff in the case is a Staten Island homeowner who was duped into refinancing with Barclays’ wholly owned subprime subsidiary EquiFirst Corporation with a mortgage that was engineered to fail.
MFY Represents Superintendent in Unpaid Wages and Age Discrimination Case
On March 26, 2014, a Washington Heights superintendent represented by MFY filed a claim for unpaid wages and age discrimination. The complaint alleges: He worked and lived in the residential apartment building for 24 years. Last fall, a new landlord pressed him to retire and then fired him, replacing him with a younger employee. The landlord is also bringing an action to evict him and his family. The landlord also failed to pay him overtime for the hours he worked.
MFY Files Class Action Suit on Behalf of Cable Installers
On March 14, 2014, MFY Legal Services and co-counsel Levy Davis & Maher LLP filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of former employees of C & I Associates, Inc., a cable installation services company, alleging that it systematically failed to pay its employees for waiting time and overtime.
MFY Defends Dismissal of Foreclosure Action
In March 2013, MFY filed a brief in the Appellate Division, Second Department defending the dismissal of a foreclosure action it won in Kings Supreme Court on behalf of a life-long Brooklyn resident. In the court below, MFY successfully demonstrated that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the foreclosure in the first instance, and that its after-the-fact arguments in favor of standing were not supported by any, much less admissible, evidence.
Parking Lot Attendant Sues for Unpaid Wages
In February 2014, a worker represented by MFY Legal Services filed suit in New York Supreme Court alleging that the operators of the Queens parking lot where he frequently worked over 80 hours per week failed to pay him the minimum wage and did not pay any overtime.
MFY Defends Sanctions Imposed on Bank for Failure to Negotiate in Good Faith
In January 2014 MFY filed the second of two briefs at the Appellate Division, Second Department, related to a consolidated appeal from an interim and final decision imposing sanctions against a foreclosing plaintiff based upon its failure to negotiate in good faith during the CPLR 3408 foreclosure conference process. Under New York law, mortgage lenders/servicers and homeowners are obligated to negotiate in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable resolution, with the aim of keeping the borrower in his or her home. Plaintiff, however, engaged in obstructive and dilatory tactics that stymied our client’s good faith efforts to save her home. After more than a year of submitting and resubmitting mortgage loan modification request packages in the Foreclosure Settlement Conference Part, our client filed a motion by order to show cause in the Supreme Court requesting summary judgment and equitable relief. The order to show cause was signed on September 25, 2012 and tolled interest that had unfairly accrued due to Plaintiff’s delay. An October 5, 2012 interlocutory order continued the tolling of interest and noted Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders indicating its failure to negotiate in good faith. In May 2013, MFY Legal Services was substituted as counsel for Smith. On July 5, 2013, King’s County Supreme Court Judge Solomon issued a decision and order holding that Plaintiff failed to negotiate in good faith and upholding the tolling of interest from September 25, 2012 through July 5, 2013. Plaintiff separately appealed the October and July orders. MFY Legal Services opposed both appeals, arguing the Supreme Court is authorized to redress failures to negotiate in good faith, interest tolling is a proper remedy for such violations, and the Supreme Court correctly found that Plaintiff failed to uphold its obligation and the interest tolling remedy imposed in this case was proper. The now-consolidated appeals are currently pending in the New York Second Judicial Department Appellate Division.
Immigrants Sue Former Employer for Harassment
On November 27, 2013, immigrant factory workers filed suit against their former employer. The complaint charges that the women suffered years of harassment that included sexual touching, kissing, and sexual and racial comments at the hands of the Plant Manager; when they complained the owner, rather than addressing the harassment gave them more and heavier work. The suit also alleges that the Plant Manager ultimately fired all the women at the factory, stating that he had decided to send all the “f—king ladies home.” The workers are represented by MFY and Washington Square Legal Services, Inc. This case has been resolved.
MFY Files Suit Against Bronx Restaurant Owner
MFY filed suit in Bronx Supreme Court on Tuesday, December 3, 2013, on behalf of a former worker of Rio Cobre Restaurant & Lounge, charging that the restaurant’s owner violated minimum wage and overtime laws, and violated the New York City Human Rights Law by firing the worker because of his sexual orientation.
MFY Files Suit against Mortgage Scammer
On November 18, 2013, MFY filed a lawsuit on behalf of Ms. Elva Brardo, a 60-year-old Queens County homeowner who lost thousands of dollars as part of a foreclosure rescue scam perpetrated by American Hope Group, Inc., The Donado Law Firm A Professional Corporation, and multiple individual defendants. After charging Ms. Brardo an illegal, upfront fee, defendants falsely promised that an alleged “Securitization Mortgage Audit” would identify errors in her mortgage loan documents and this so-called erroneous information would be used to compel her lender to provide her with a more affordable monthly mortgage payment. In addition to a loan modification, Ms. Brardo was promised legal representation to prevent foreclosure.
Even though Ms. Brardo signed a purported retainer agreement with The Donado Law Firm at American Hope’s office and authorized American Hope Group to automatically debit nearly $700 per month from her checking account in additional fees, defendants never obtained a more affordable mortgage payment for Ms. Brardo and never provided her with the promised legal representation. In fact, Ms. Brardo never met nor spoke to any attorney. The complaint asserts claims for violation of New York’s “distressed property consultant” law, Real Property Law § 265-b, which among other things makes it illegal to charge up-front fees for loan modification services; violation of New York’s Deceptive Practices Act, General Business Law § 349; and breach of contract. The lawsuit seeks to recover the illegal upfront fees paid to the defendants and also seeks to enjoin defendants from engaging in the deceptive acts and practices alleged.
Brardo v. American Hope Group, Inc., et al, Index No. 21154/2013, Supreme Court, Queens County
MFY Files Amicus in Support of NYS Department of Financial Services’ Crackdown on Payday Lending
Payday loans, which are exorbitantly expensive financial products that carry fees that often amount to an annual percentage rate (APR) of 390% to 780%, violate New York’s usury laws and are illegal in this state. The fact that such loans are illegal has not stopped Internet payday lenders from marketing themselves as providers of short-term cash to New Yorkers who become ensnared in a debt trap and worse off than if they had never taken the loan to begin with. To combat this scourge, the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) sent letters to 35 online payday lenders in August 2013 demanding that they cease and desist offering illegal payday loans to New Yorkers. In response to this crackdown, two payday lending companies based on Native American reservations and affiliated companies filed suit against DFS in the Southern District of New York, seeking a preliminary injunction. That request was denied and the tribes appealed to the Second Circuit. MFY, along with New Economy Project and DC37 filed an amicus curiae brief in support of DFS on November 13, 2013, explaining in detail the harms that our clients have suffered as a result of usurious internet payday loans, and arguing why New York has a compelling state interest in regulating high-cost loans that harm its residents.
MFY Represents Queens Man Swindled by Car Dealership
On October 4, 2013, MFY filed a lawsuit against New York Motor Group, LLC and M&T Bank based on the Queens dealership’s fraudulent conduct towards Shahadat Tuhin, a 41-year-old Queens resident, who purchased a used car in June so he could take his chronically ill daughter to and from the hospital. After Mr. Tuhin signed a contract for $12,000, New York Motor Group’s finance manager rushed him through the signing of a series of documents, refusing to allow him to read them while misrepresenting and physically obscuring the terms. When Mr. Tuhin got home, he discovered that he had unknowingly signed documents that had doubled the price of the vehicle. Mr. Tuhin immediately contacted M&T Bank, the assignee of the financing agreement, but the bank refused to honor his request to cancel the fraudulent loan. The complaint charges both the dealership and M&T Bank with deceptive practices, fraud and breach of contract, as well as violations of the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. It also charges Mamdoh Eltouby, the owner of New York Motor Group, with assault for attempting to run over Mr. Tuhin and other community members at a lawful, peaceful protest at the dealership, as well as an unnamed employee with battery for turning a hose on them. Mr. Tuhin is demanding revocation of the purported contract, actual and statutory damages, attorney’s fees and expenses, and an injunction preventing the defendants from engaging in similar conduct again.
MFY Files Amicus Motion to Protect Consumers from Abusive Debt Collection Practices
MFY advocated for the passage of Local Law 15 in 2009, clarifying that the City’s licensing law applies to debt buyers, and specifically requiring debt collection attorneys to be licensed by the NYC Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA). Two collection law firms and a debt buyer filed suit against the City, arguing, among other things, for the statute to be stricken insofar as it applies to law firms. In September 2012, a judge in the Eastern District of New York granted the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Eric M. Berman P.C. v. City of New York, No. 09-cv-3017 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2012)), finding the municipal law was preempted by the state judiciary law. The City appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Second Circuit, and, on May 31, 2013, MYF Legal Services, Inc., on behalf of 19 amici organizations, moved to file an amicus brief in support of the City. In the proposed amicus brief, Amici argue that the District Court’s decision to invalidate Local Law 15 was improper as a matter of law and public policy. The District Court ignored ample evidence demonstrating that attorneys engaged in debt collection conduct identical non-legal activities as non-attorney debt collectors. The court also erred in holding that state law preempts Local Law 15, in finding that Local Law 15 presents ethical dilemmas for debt collection attorneys, and in failing to abstain from deciding precisely when a municipality may regulate attorneys doing non-legal work. Without the City’s oversight of debt collection lawyers and law firms, consumers have fewer protections from unfair attempts to collect questionable debts, no redress through the DCA, and little chance of obtaining relief through the State’s grievance procedure. Amici believe the District Court was wrong to find that the NYC Council exceeded its authority in passing Local Law 15 and that the decision should be reversed.
Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages and Race and Sex Discrimination by Manhattan Catering Business
On March 8, 2013 MFY filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York on behalf of two immigrant workers alleging minimum wage, overtime and spread of hours violations, as well as sex, race and national origin discrimination against their former employer. The women worked at a Manhattan catering business and performed domestic work at the home of the business’s owner and at the owner’s residential businesses. The complaint alleges that even though they regularly worked over 40 hours a day, they were never paid overtime or spread of hours payments for shifts lasting longer than ten hours. The complaint also alleges that the women endured discrimination by the business owner, who called them names like “dirty Mexican,” and “whore” on a regular basis, and that the chef at the business sexually harassed the plaintiffs, including exposing himself to them multiple times.
NY Supreme Court Certifies Class in Wage Theft Lawsuit Against Home Care Agency
On March 4, 2013, seven home health care workers formerly employed by BNV Home Care Agency, formerly known as Academy Care Givers, Inc., filed a class action in New York County Supreme Court against the company alleging wage theft, including failure to provide overtime and spread-of-hours pay, dating back to January 2006. The plaintiffs, who all provided personal care and assistance to disabled and elderly and disabled clients of BNV, regularly worked over 70 or 80 hours a week. The lawsuit alleges that BNV, which operates in all five boroughs and has offices in the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens, failed to pay the plaintiffs, and all its home health care workers, numbering in the hundreds, the required wages for their long hours. On September 15, 2014, Judge Arthur Engoron granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Abbey Spanier is co-counsel with MFY on the case.
Castillo et al. v. BNV Home Care Agency , Inc. et al.
Amicus Brief to Second Circuit Urges Greater Protections in Bankruptcy for Rent-Stabilized Tenants
MFY submitted an amicus brief to the Second Circuit in January 2013 in In re Santiago-Monteverde (12-4131), on a troubling issue in bankruptcy court that pertains to rent stabilized tenants. The Bankruptcy Code gives the bankruptcy trustee the power to “assume and assign” unexpired leases of the debtor. Some bankruptcy trustees have taken the position that this permits them to assume a debtor’s rent-stabilized lease and assign it, for an amount of money, back to the landlord, subjecting tenants to eviction. While beneficial for the trustee, the creditors and the landlord, this practice can leave people without a place to live, and worse off than if they had never filed for bankruptcy. MFY is particularly interested in this topic because of our extensive housing practice and because we recently established the Low-Income Bankruptcy Project (LIBP), which serves New York City residents who are dramatically affected by this practice. These debtors – unlike similarly situated debtors residing in market-rate apartments, public housing, limited-equity co-ops, or receiving Section 8 benefits – currently face tremendous uncertainty in the bankruptcy system. In order to avoid the risk posed by the current practice of certain bankruptcy trustees assuming and assigning their leases, these debtors must endure harassing phone calls, creditor lawsuits, and wage garnishment. Essentially this practice denies the promise of a fresh start to two million New Yorkers residing in rent-stabilized apartments. MFY filed the amicus brief in support of the debtor-appellant, who is appealing a decision allowing the trustee to strike the debtor’s claim that the lease is exempt. MFY’s brief describes the scope and importance of rent stabilization and argues why rent stabilized leases should be exempt and why permitting assumption and assignment of a rent-stabilized lease undermines the policies behind both bankruptcy law and rent regulation.
Santiago-Monteverde v. Pereira (Trustee)
Home Health Agency Failed to Pay Proper Wages, Alleges Class Action Lawsuit
In January 2013, a home health care worker formerly employed by First Care of New York, Inc. filed a class action lawsuit against the company for wage theft, including failure to provide overtime pay, dating back to January 2007. The lead plaintiff, who provided personal care and assistance to disabled and elderly clients of First Care, regularly worked seven days a week, 12 hours a day — as many as 84 hours a week. The lawsuit alleges that First Care, which has offices in Brooklyn, the Bronx, Manhattan, Queens and Westchester, failed to pay him, and all its home health aides, the required wages for their long hours. MFY and its co-counsel, Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP, filed the lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court, Westchester County.
Castillo v. First Care of New York, Inc.
Operators of Unlawful Three-quarter Houses Violate Rent Stabilization Law
In April 2011, MFY and pro bono co-counsel Weil Gotshal & Manges brought this class action lawsuit against operators of an unlawful three-quarter house in a rent regulated single room occupancy building. The suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the defendants from denying tenants their rights under the rent stabilization law, unlawfully harassing and evicting tenants, compelling them to sign unconscionable contracts, and unlawfully forcing them to attend a treatment program operated by the defendant. The tenants cycle through shelters and treatment programs and are forced back onto the street as soon as they successfully complete substance abuse programs. In August 2011, Kings County Supreme Court Justice Bernadette Bayne dismissed the suit, but in January 2013 the appeals court reversed that decision and ordered the case to proceed with a new judge.
DiGiorgio v. 1109-1113 Manhattan Avenue Partners, LLC, Index No. 8235/2011, Supreme Court, Kings County
Class Action Suit Cites Operators of Illegal Three-quarter Houses for Deceptive Practices and Violation of Tenant Protection Laws
In December 2010, MFY and pro bono co-counsel Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP brought this class action suit against three companies that rent housing units to people leaving the shelter system, substance abuse programs and prisons. It alleges that the defendants engaged in widespread deceptive practices, harassed tenants into signing away their rights, violated the rent stabilization code and laws, and unlawfully evicted tenants onto the street when they became unprofitable. RYB Realty, #1 Marketing Service, and Top of the Hob, Inc. have illegally converted several buildings into so-called “three-quarter houses,” promising to provide substance abuse counseling, social work services, referrals to vocational programs, and assistance obtaining permanent housing to formerly homeless adults and others with few to no housing options. The class has been certified to include both current and former tenants.
David et al v. #1 Marketing Service, Inc., RYB Realty LLC, Index No. 30238/2010, Supreme Court, Kings County
Class Action Suit for Breach of Contract Lodged against Bank of America by Homeowners in Foreclosure
In November 2010, MFY and co-counsel Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP filed this class action complaint alleging that Bank of America and related defendants breached their contractual obligation to permanently modify mortgage payments for New York homeowners who successfully completed the trial modification period under the federal government’s Make Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). Shortly after it was filed, the case was transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern district of New York and made part of a multidistrict litigation against defendants pending in Boston.
Marie Freeman, v. BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP and Bank of America, CV 10-6380 (EDNY), a/k/a In re Bank of America Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) Contract Litigation MDL No. 2193 (D. Mass.)
FDCPA and Related Claims Lodged Against a Debt Buyer, its Debt Collection Law Firm, and a Related Process Serving Entity
In 2009, MFY and co-counsel New Economy Project (formerly NEDAP) and Emery Celli Brinkerhoff & Abady LLP filed this class action complaint alleging that a debt collection law firm, Mel S. Harris and Associates, and a debt-buying entity, Leucadia, and a process serving company, Samserv, purposefully obtain default judgments against consumers in consumer credit transactions in New York City Civil Court by not serving defendants with court papers and obtaining default judgments using fraudulent affidavits of merit. Plaintiffs defeated a motion to dismiss in December 2010. On September 5, 2012, Judge Denny Chin, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, who kept the case after he was elevated from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, certified the class, which is believed to include some 100,000 New Yorkers. In October 2013, Defendants appealed the class certification decision to the Second Circuit. Three Amicus Curiae briefs were filed in support of plaintiffs, authored by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), AARP, and New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG), urging the Second Circuit to affirm Judge Chin’s class certification decision. Oral argument has been scheduled for February 7, 2014.
Sykes v. Mel S. Harris, LLC, 09 Civ. 08486 (SDNY)