leftmfy

What I could not achieve in nine years, including a year in court and six stipulations, you were able to settle in just one month! I am so very grateful.
—Housing Client

SUCCESS STORIES

Housing

NYCHA Housing Saved
When the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) tried to evict Ms. A and her son, both of whom are severely psychologically disabled, their social worker called MFY for help. NYCHA sought the eviction because one of Ms. A's two older sons, who stay with her occasionally, had been arrested. Although MFY worked out a settlement agreement with the NYCHA attorney to exclude the older sons from the apartment, NYCHA's supervising counsel rejected the settlement. We believed it was grossly unjust and against decent public policy to evict and potentially render homeless two disabled people because of the bad acts of other adults whom they could not control. Our strategy was to negotiate for NYCHA to relocate Ms. A and her disabled son. Although this seemed impossible, we mobilized Ms. A's social service staff and several elected officials to pressure NYCHA on Ms. A's behalf, and we redoubled our own efforts to achieve a just settlement. In Ms. A's case, MFY's persistence and our ability to activate support within the community eventually bore fruit when NYCHA agreed to relocate Ms. A and her son to a different, more appropriate NYCHA apartment.

Mr. J's Struggle with an Unscrupulous Landlord
After having been turned down by several other legal services agencies, Mr. J came to MFY, desperate to save his apartment. When Mr. J's building had changed ownership a year earlier, the new landlord told him he had to move out. Mr. J was not aware that his new landlord had no right to force him out of his rent regulated apartment or that the fact that the new landlord did not renew his lease had no legal effect on his right to stay in the apartment. Feeling vulnerable, Mr. J enrolled in a commercial prepaid legal services plan and called the plan to ascertain his rights. Unfortunately, this service provided generic "legal" advice and told Mr. J he had no rights at all without a lease. Mr. J had no reason to know how bad that advice was.

The new landlord told Mr. J he would make a deal with him, and that he shouldn't pay rent for several months. Mr. J, whose income is quite low, availed himself of the offer. A non-payment eviction action ensued. In court, the landlord's attorney wrote an agreement whereby Mr. J surrendered his tenancy rights in exchange for the few months rent owed, and a month's time to move out. When he could not find alternative housing, Mr. J looked in desperation for help. Again, several organizations turned him down, since undoing a court agreement is difficult. We wrote a motion, with substantial supporting legal memoranda, seeking an order vacating and setting aside the agreement. To deal with the back rent that Mr. J owed, we helped him make applications to various charities for emergency assistance. In the end, we won the motion, the agreement was set aside, and we eventually settled the non-payment case with a substantial abatement. Without MFY's help, Mr. J would have had no alternative but to move to a homeless shelter.

Mr. & Mrs. M's Case Establishes a Legal Principle on Code Violations
Mr. and Mrs. M, an elderly couple who lived for many years in a regulated apartment on the Upper West Side, came to MFY with a holdover eviction action. The landlord claimed that they had violated the city's Building Code because a brother resided with them in their small apartment. This tactic was being used frequently by landlords in gentrified neighborhoods to force out long-term tenants, particularly people of color. This case involved some complicated legal issues involving landlords' allegations of code violations to harass and remove tenants. After lengthy motion practice MFY attorneys prevailed and won a decision establishing the legal principle that the landlord cannot use allegations of code violations as a sword against tenants. The landlord appealed the decision and the appellate court affirmed with a decision that is now cited city-wide as the leading authority on the issue.

Mental Health

Preventing Eviction of a Mentally Ill Grandmother
Ms. B, an elderly resident suffering from agoraphobia, had a holdover (eviction) action pending against her. The landlord was seeking to evict Ms. B from her home because of the alleged bad behavior of her teenaged grandson on the grounds of the housing development. Since Ms. B's illness prevents her from leaving her apartment, she had no personal knowledge of the allegations, nor could she control her grandson's behavior outside her home. MFY moved for and won appointment of a Guardian ad litem for Ms. B since she couldn't come to court. After negotiations with the landlord's attorneys did not produce a fair settlement, MFY staff began to prepare for trial. In light of the fact that Ms B's disability precluded her attendance at court, we moved for an order directing that the trial take place either through video, or at the apartment itself. Although such a motion was unusual, we believed that equity as well as the ADA required such an accommodation. After receiving several extensions of time to respond in opposition to the motion, the landlord's attorneys raised no legal basis for opposing the order. However, at that juncture, the landlord's position on settlement changed and we were able to work out an agreement making it the responsibility of the housing development staff to enforce the grandson's exclusion. As a result, Ms. B was no longer in danger of eviction.

Workplace Justice

Saving a Senior's Seasonal Employment
Ms. C, a woman in her mid-70's who lived in a co-operative apartment, was solely dependent on the Social Security retirement of her late husband, having depleted her savings several years earlier. Her Social Security barely covered her living costs so each year she applied to work during the busy holiday season at a well known New York retailer. The $2,000 or so dollars that she earned in December helped her make ends meet until the next year. When she was not rehired for her seasonal job despite positive performance in prior years, she believed it was age discrimination and told us "If I don't get rehired this season, I am afraid no one will ever hire me again." Ms. C showed us an advertisement from this retailer in the New York Times indicating that they were still hiring seasonal help. MFY advocated on Ms. C's behalf with the retailer, including writing a letter that enclosed the advertisement and referenced Ms. C's positive employment evaluation, and requested that she be rehired or that the company provide an explanation other than age discrimination for why she was not being rehired. As a result of our advocacy, the employer reevaluated Ms. C's application and hired her for the season. Without our help, Ms. C's ability to age in place would have been severely compromised.

Mr. S's Unpaid Wages Claim
Mr. S's claim for unpaid wages was forwarded to our office from the pro se office of the United States District Court for the Southern District. Mr. S, a 69 year old African-American man, had worked as a security guard for more than 20 years. He had been with his most recent employer for more than six months when he was called to Alabama on a family emergency. Mr. S gave his employer as much notice as he could of his need to relocate, at least temporarily, and he asked that his final paycheck for more than $500 be forwarded to him in Alabama. In spite of multiple requests, the employer failed to send his last paycheck. We agreed to send a demand letter to his former employer on Mr. S's behalf. In response to our letter, the company acknowledged the debt and issued him a check.

Adult Homes

17 Elderly Disabled Residents Subjected to Unnecessary Prostate Surgery Win $7 million Partial Settlement
Each week over a period of months, a small group of residents of the Leben Home for Adults arrived at a local hospital and were operated on for alleged prostate problems. A hospital worker became suspicious when she observed that the men did not seem to know why they were there. A subsequent state investigation found that a total of 24 residents had received unnecessary prostate surgery, as part of a scheme to collect Medicare and Medicaid payments. In January 2001 MFY Legal Services, Disability Advocates and Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP filed suit on behalf of 17 of the men affected. The suit, brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act and other federal conspiracy statutes, as well as state law including breach of fiduciary duty, was filed against the adult home, its operator, the home health care agency serving the residents at the home, two doctors and the hospital where the surgery was performed.

As a result of this case, the adult home operator was removed from the home; a receiver was appointed to run the facility; and a new operator ultimately took control of its operation. Federal and state criminal investigations also ensued. The case was partially settled in July 2004. The 17 plaintiffs (including the estates of three plaintiffs who passed away during the litigation) will receive $433,000 each. The monies from the settlement were placed in a supplemental needs trust fund for the plaintiffs and social workers hired by the trust have already assessed the plaintiffs' health and mental health needs, accessed proper services, and are in the process of obtaining alternative living arrangements and services for the men. Also as a direct result of this case, The New York Times became interested in adult homes and began a yearlong investigation resulting in a three-part series that won a Pultizer Prize for investigative reporting in 2003. This series triggered national awareness of conditions in the homes, and the state instituted better oversight and enforcement practices.

Family Law

A Ten-Year Struggle to Give a Girl a Permanent Home
F. was nine years old in 1993 when she was removed from an abusive home and placed with Ms. H. F., who is developmentally delayed, quickly found a place in both Ms. H's home and heart. Ms. H made repeated requests to her foster care agency to adopt F. Although there were sufficient grounds to terminate parental rights and ASFA had mandated that rights be terminated, the agency never took action. As the case languished for over ten years, F. turned 19 years old. Some officials at the agency told Ms. H. it was too late to adopt Frances and pointed to other barriers. Several attorneys referred by the agency had refused to take the case. Ms. H contacted MFY's Pro Bono Adoption Project and was immediately assigned a pro bono attorney. Although the case was complicated, the Project and the pro bono attorney assigned to the case worked through the problems. The pro bono attorney's dedication and tireless efforts paid off, and F. became a permanent member of Ms. H's family in November 2004.