Bronx Legal Services Fights Eviction of Drug Dealer
This year, Bronx Legal Services tried to stop the eviction of a woman
from public housing even though she was dealing drugs from her residence.
The case started when the Bronx District Attorney ordered the eviction
of Delores Jackson after determining that she was using her apartment to
conduct an illegal narcotics trade. Legal services then tried to stop the
eviction on a technicality. After the DA ordered Jackson's eviction, the
New York City Housing Authority accepted a rent payment from her. Legal
services argued that by accepting rent money from Jackson, her tenancy
was reinstated thereby voiding the DA's earlier decision. A state court
rejected the argument ruling that an eviction based on criminal conduct
can not be stopped because the Housing Authority accepts rent.
See Bronx Dist. Att. v. Jackson, Supreme Ct. of New York, Appellate
Term, 1997
Lazy Man Seeks Disability
In 1996, Neighborhood Legal Services of Buffalo, New York tried to get
disability for a man whose only claim to welfare was that he was too lazy
to work. In arguing for Luis Velezquez’s right to collect Social Security
Disability benefits, legal services lawyers’ asserted that Velezquez suffered
from a variety of physical ailments which prevented him from working. However,
examining doctors testified that these so-called “disabling” ailments included
a relatively minor bout with bronchitis that left no long term respiratory
problems. Furthermore, based on his last exam doctors reported that the
worst thing Velezquez was suffering from was a headache and nasal congestion,
symptoms of a common cold that doctors felt was too minor to recommend
treatment. A federal judge concluded that about the only thing wrong with
Velezquez was that he was lazy. The court referred to a variety of observations
made by welfare officials evaluating Velezquez’ application: “The claimant
leads a totally empty life and does not care to work.” He “lives with his
father, with whom he fights. His brothers take care of him. He does not
cook. He does practically nothing. He watches television and sleeps around
twelve hours daily and eats well. He is not married but he has a child.
He does not take care of him .” He has lived in the United State for five
years, but has not learned English and “has never worked.” According to
his own brother, Velezquez just “does not care too much.” Nevertheless,
legal services lawyers argued that this wasn’t enough evidence to deny
Velezquez' welfare claim. Specifically, they argued that “the speculation”
on which officials based their denial “falls well short of the ‘substantial
evidence’ doctrine, requiring the quantum of evidence together with the
principled rationale, that a reasonable person would accept as adequate
to support a conclusion.” The judge rejected legal services’ arguments
as “meritless,” “overwrought,” and “illusory.”
See Velezquez v. Chater, 93-CV-0264E(F), U.S. Dist. Ct., 1996
Brooklyn Legal Services Harasses Children in Abuse Case
In 1996, Brooklyn Legal Services defended a man accused of child abuse
by attempting to subject the children involved in the case to harassing
legal tactics. The man in question, Carl S., was accused of hitting one
of his sons by his daughters, Elizabeth and Latoya. Caseworkers only got
the girls, ages 13 and 11, to provide evidence after they were removed
from the home. In the middle of the trial, BLS filed a motion to depose
the girls and make them give their statements one more time. A Family Court
Judge rejected the claim on account of the severe emotional consequences
the children may suffer. While BLS claimed it only wanted to get the facts,
the judge observed that "a skillful opponent will simultaneously attempt
to create confusion in the witness's mind [and] cultivate inconsistencies."
In addition, "an even greater risk to the children's emotional well-being
may come from placing them in a situation where they must defend themselves
against the most powerful figures in their lives." Most disturbing, however,
is BLS's apparent effort to intimidate the children with harassing legal
tactics. The judge observed that it is not "possible to ignore the fact
that , , , [BLS] has singled out Elizabeth and Latoya, who are not themselves
victims of any alleged abuse or neglect. Consequently, the motion appears
to be a vehicle for harassing children rather than a tool for legitimate
discovery."
See In the matter of Carl S., 170 Misc. 2d 126, Fam. Ct. of
New York, Kings Cnty., 1996