New York legal aid programs funded by the Legal Services Corporation
grossly misuse taxpayer dollars by filing lawsuits that are sharply at
odds with their mission of assisting the poor. Besides suing municipal
governments for trying to reform welfare, legal services lawyers repeatedly
sue private charities that are really trying to help the poor.
Legal Services Sues to Stop Guiliani Crackdown on Welfare Fraud
Bronx Legal Services, an LSC grantee, and the Legal Aid Society of New York (a Former LSC grantee) filed a federal lawsuit in an attempt to end Mayor Rudolph Guiliani’s successful anti-welfare fraud program. Known as the Eligibility Verification Review, the program was designed by city officials to screen out the thousands of individuals engaging in costly welfare fraud. Since the program was instituted in January 1995, the number of people receiving public assistance through the city’s Home Relief program for single adults has dropped from 244,000 to 179,000. However, like legal services groups elsewhere in the country, New York legal services programs are strongly opposed to such efforts to make welfare more efficient. In the lawsuit, legal services claims the program should be terminated because recipients are illegally intimidated and harassed by investigators. Commented Richard Schwartz, Guiliani’s chief welfare policy advisor: “These legal advocacy groups are defenders of an old and failed system that has hurt the city and the recipients in the program for many years.”
See Kimberly McLarin, “City Sued Over Program to Curb Welfare Fraud,” The New York Times, December 30, 1995, pg. 31
Legal Services Sues Salvation Army
In 1992, MFY Legal Services sued the Salvation Army for trying to evict
individuals from one of its charitable facilities. The Salvation Army’s
“Ten Eyck-Troughton Memorial Residence” in Manhattan, provided women of
low to moderate income lodging, meals and other services for modest rents
of $121 to $134 per week. When the charity moved to evict some residents
for not paying rent, MFY Legal Services sought to stop the action by challenging
its legal status as a charity. In New York City, charities are not required
to go through the onerous eviction procedures that private landlords must
follow in evicting a tenant. The Salvation Army’s Eyck-Troughton residence
was exempted from these rent laws because it was operated “exclusively
for charitable purposes on a non-profit basis.” However, in its suit legal
services argued that the religious mission of the Salvation Army disqualified
the residence from being defined as a charity. According to legal services,
because the residence was operated by a branch of the Christian Church
and religious activities took place on its premises, then the residence
could not be classified as a facility “exclusively” devoted to charitable
purposes. A state appeals court rejected the argument observing that the
religious activities in question, which included a Bible Club and Vespers,
were strictly voluntary and organized by the tenants. Furthermore, the
court noted that the residence was open to all women on a nonsectarian
basis.
See Salvation Army v. Cruz, 615 N.Y.S. 2d 805, 1994
Legal Services Sues Salvation Army
In 1989, MFY Legal Services sued the Salvation Army for trying to change the charitable mission of one of its care facilities. The facility, known as the Anthony Residence, had been operating as an Adult Care facility since the 1970s. As an adult care facility, Anthony Residence provided long-term residential care and services to people unable to live independently. In 1986, the Salvation Army decided to change Anthony Residence from an adult care facility to a home for low-income working women. Over the next two years, the Salvation Army and the state Department of Social Services assisted the relocation of the residents to other licensed care facilities. However, MFY Legal Services sued on behalf of the few residents who didn’t voluntarily leave, claiming violation of landlord-tenant laws. The court rejected legal services’ argument ruling that the Salvation Army did not have to go through time-consuming and costly eviction procedures just so they can change the mission of one their charities. The court also observed that legal services clients had six years to find a new place to live and it was unfortunate that during that time nothing was done to find accommodations for them.
See Salvation Army v. Alverson, 597 N.Y.S.2d, 1992
Long Island Charity Sued for Expelling Disruptive Resident
In 1992, Nassau-Suffolk Law Services Committee sued a private charity
for expelling a disruptive tenant. In January 1992, Barbara Torres and
her two children were admitted into the Haven House Shelter, an emergency
facility operated by the Huntington Coalition for the Homeless that provided
lodging and services to homeless people. As a condition for staying in
Haven House, Torres had to abide by the shelter’s rules and attend rehabilitation
programs. However, she refused to attend rehabilation. In addition to breaking
many rules, including allowing her boyfriend to visit at all hours of the
night, she failed to take proper care of her children. She even refused
to treat them for head lice. Nassau-Suffolk lawyers argued that Haven House
could not evict her without going through lengthy eviction proceedings.
A State Supreme Court Justice rejected the argument. He noted:”To require
places like Haven House to seek judicial intervention each time they” want
to expel somebody “would clog their operation...and greatly disserve the
other residents who are trying to turn their lives around.”
See Edward Adams, “Judge Supports Shelter’s Removal,” New York
Law Journal, August 26, 1992, pg. 1