Federally-funded legal services programs in New York deviate from their
mission of helping the deserving poor by defending the right of drug dealers
to stay in public housing and pressuring local governments to spend scarce
dollars on inefficient welfare programs.
Legal Services Defends Accused Drug Criminal
In 1991, Bronx Legal Services sued a low -income housing corporation for trying to expel a tenant who allegedly used his apartment to sell drugs. Tenants repeatedly complained that Victor Hernandez was heavily involved in drug activity. Several testified that they observed what they considered probable drug buys taking place in his apartment and being awakened at all hours of the night by fights and yelling. Legal services sought to stop the eviction on the grounds that there was no definite proof of Hernandez’ drug activity. A court rejected legal services claim, ruling that the housing development doesn’t have to prove the existence of illegal drug activity but only have considerable circumstantial evidence. However, the court delayed the eviction on the condition Hernandez desist from his disruptive behavior and get psychiatric help.
See St. John Housing Development Fund v. Hernandez, 584
N.Y.S.2d, 1992
Tenant Represented in Drug-Related Eviction
In 1994, Queens Legal Services sought to stop the eviction of a woman
who allowed her son, a known drug dealer, to live in her apartment. Under
the rules of the New York City Housing Authority, tenants who permit relatives
or friends to use their residences for illegal activity are subject to
eviction. In this case, there was no doubt that the tenant was permitting
her son to live with her while he committed crimes. The son, who had sold
drugs on the property of the housing project, admitted to his living in
the apartment as did the mother. The state supreme court rejected legal
service's attempt to overturn the eviction in view of the overwhelming
evidence against the woman. Despite recent restrictions, legal services
lawyers can still represent family members who know about illegal drug
activity as long as they aren’t charged with the crime.
See Kilafofski v. Blackburne, 609 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1994
Long Island Drug Dealers Defended in Eviction From Public Housing
In 1992, Nassau -Suffolk Law Services sought to stop the eviction of
a public housing tenant involved in dealing drugs. In 1991, Tyrone Wells
and Lauralyn Wells, were arrested and charged with using their residence
in the Hampstead Housing Authority for the manufacture, sale or distribution
of drugs. Both pled guilty to the charges. Tyrone Wells was sentenced to
prison; Lauralyn Wells did not go to jail. Eleven months after pleading
guilty, the housing authority commenced eviction proceedings against Lauralyn
Wells. Legal services lawyers argued that the authority waived its right
to evict by continuing to accept rent from Wells following her arrest.
A Nassau County court rejected the claim, ruling that federal law clearly
permits public housing authorities to terminate the leases of tenants engaged
in drug-related criminal activity.
See Hampstead Housing Authority v. Wells, 590 N.Y.S.2d 1014,
1992
Nassau-Suffolk Law Services Forces Additional Welfare Spending
In 1990, Nassau-Suffolk Law Services won a court order requiring Suffolk county to pay welfare recipients as much as $800 a month in housing allowances. The county had been paying a maximum of $450 per month. The immediate result of the suit was to force the county to spend an extra $1 million on housing payments when the county welfare system was already burdened with a $51 million deficit. Officials worried that the suit would cause social services spending to explode. Social services officials also worried that by paying the rents of recipients to live in comfortable surroundings, they were removing any incentive for them to get off welfare.
See William Falk, “Challenging a Welfare Catch,” Newsday,
Dec. 27, 1991, pg. 7
Governor Pataki Pushes New Welfare Law to Stop Legal Services Suits
In 1995, Governor George Pataki proposed a law capping shelter allowances
for welfare recipients to prevent legal services from forcing the state
to spend more money. Over the years, several lawsuits had been filed, including
one by Nassau-Suffolk Law Services, that forced the state and county governments
to double the housing allowances paid to welfare recipients. By capping
shelter grants at their current levels, the law would save as much as $50
million. Under current law, state and local governments are obligated to
provide housing allowances to welfare recipients at risk of homelessness
regardless of cost. However, state officials said this only encouraged
individuals to fall behind in their rent. “It did not seem correct,” said
Pataki spokeswoman Claudia Hutton, “to encourage a system of allowing people
to fall behind on rent knowing that the state would ride in on a white
horse and give them money.” Officials singled out legal services for fostering
this abuse.
See Somini Sengupta, “Homeless Advocates Rip Pataki Plan,” Newsday,
February 3, 1995, pg. A19
Suffolk Legislators Cut Local Funding of Legal Services
Exasperated by legal services lawsuits, Suffolk County legislators voted
in 1992 to bar Nassau-Suffolk Law Services from using state and local funds
to sue the county. In addition to prohibiting Nassau-Suffolk from using
a $100,000 state grant to finance suits, legislators also discontinued
a $72,000 local grant for the group. Suffolk lawmakers took the step after
Nassau-Suffolk had filed numerous suits against the county demanding higher
welfare expenditures and opposing their efforts to reduce a $127 million
budget deficit.
See Katti Gray, “Use of State Funds to Sue County Barred,” Newsday,
June 12, 1992