SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of:
THE CITY-WIDE COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS Index No. ______and AT-RISK COMMUNITY SERVICES INC., Petitioners, Assigned to Justice ______
For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Date Purchased: Practice Law and Rules, VERIFIED ARTICLE 78 -against- PETITION
THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY and SHOLA OLATOYE, as Chair of the New York City Housing Authority, Respondents.
“NYCHA has an obligation to protect the residents of its buildings. Its failure to do so
. . . is inexcusable.”
- Commissioner Mark Peters, NYC Dep’t of Investigation (3/28/17)
Petitioners, the City-wide Council of Presidents (“CCOP”) and At-Risk Community
Services Inc. (“At-Risk”), by and through their attorneys, Walden Macht & Haran LLP, for their verified petition, allege the following:
INTRODUCTION
1. In many important and fundamental ways, the New York City Housing
Authority (“NYCHA”) has exhibited a pattern and practice of failing to protect New York’s low-income community members (“Tenants”), including through blatant violations of the law.
These failures include, but are in no way limited to, failure to protect Tenants from toxic lead, mold and other moisture problems, vermin, roaches, violent offenders who are actively engaging in criminal activity, broken entryway and apartment locks, and dangerous,
1 malfunctioning elevators. NYCHA is currently failing in its duty to provide heat during bitter winter temperatures, which affects hundreds of thousands of Tenants and has resulted in extreme physical hardship.
2. These problems have led to (a) numerous deaths, injuries, and sickness, (b) criminal and civil investigations and cases, (c) multiple findings of wrong-doing by the NYC
Department of Investigation (“DOI”), including a November 14, 2017 Report regarding False
Certification of NYCHA Lead Paint Inspections (the “DOI Report,” a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 1), (d) class action lawsuits, (e) a court-imposed monitor, and (f) staggering judgments. Despite this very real “parade of horribles,” corruption and incompetence within
NYCHA remain part of its very fabric. Many Tenants continue to live—despite the intense media glare on NYCHA’s many failures—in conditions that are simply appalling.
3. What’s more, NYCHA is obligated by law—in addition to protecting Tenants from various physical harms—to provide meaningful economic opportunities to NYCHA
Tenants. NYCHA is also legally required to consult with NYCHA Tenants on significant policy determinations. NYCHA flagrantly and persistently fails in these duties, which effectively ensures that NYCHA Tenants remain powerless and are denied economic justice.
4. With this lawsuit, for the first time in its history, the governing body for the citywide community of NYCHA Tenants, CCOP, brings suit—together with At-Risk, a nonprofit organization devoted to helping NYCHA Tenants secure safe and habitable living conditions, as well as economic justice—to ask this Court to impose an independent monitor over NYCHA for four of its important failures.
5. First, NYCHA has a statutory duty to keep Tenants safe from toxic lead.
NYCHA has not only failed to remediate these toxic conditions, which have significantly impacted Tenants, including young children, but has lied about its compliance even to U.S.
2 Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) officials.
6. Second, NYCHA has a statutory duty to provide heat and hot water in Tenants’ homes. In the midst of record low temperatures this winter, hundreds of thousands of Tenants have been forced to endure long stretches without either.
7. Third, NYCHA has a statutory obligation to share meaningful economic opportunities with Tenants that arise from the billions of dollars of federal funding provided annually to NYCHA, including by hiring Tenants and awarding contracts to businesses that hire, or are owned by, Tenants. NYCHA has consistently failed to abide even minimal compliance with these important standards.
8. Fourth, NYCHA has a duty to include Tenants in all important policy-making decisions, which significantly affect the quality of Tenants’ lives. NYCHA has consistently failed to meaningfully consult Tenants and include their voices in decisions that impact their lives.
9. This lawsuit, once and for all, seeks to hold NYCHA accountable for its systematic failures and impose a court-appointed monitor to ensure future compliance with the law.
10. Petitioners CCOP and At-Risk (together, “Petitioners”), in their capacities as representatives of the Tenants of New York City public housing, bring this proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7803 for a judgment directing and compelling Respondents—NYCHA and its Chair,
Shola Olatoye—to comply with NYCHA’s legal obligations with respect to:
a. Lead inspection and remediation, pursuant to both federal and New York
City lead-related laws, including 42 U.S.C. §§1437d(f), 4822, and 4851; 24
C.F.R. Part 35 and § 5.703(f); and New York City Local Law 1 of 2004
3 (see Toxic Lead at 9–29);
b. Heat and hot water, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1437d(f) and 24 C.F.R. §
5.703(d) (see Heat and Hot Water at 29–33);
c. Employment and economic opportunities, pursuant to Section 3 of the
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (“Section 3”) (see Economic
Opportunities at 33–49); and
d. Meaningful involvement of Tenants in all decisions affecting NYCHA
operations under 24 C.F.R. § 964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1437c (see Meaningful
Involvement of Tenants in Policy Matters at 50–54).
11. Petitioners further bring this proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7803 for a judgment appointing an independent monitor to oversee and enforce NYCHA’s compliance with its above-referenced obligations.
VENUE AND JURISDICTION
12. Pursuant to New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) §§ 7804(b) and
506(b), venue in this proceeding lies in New York County, in the judicial district where a portion of the material events occurred and where the Respondents’ principal places of business are located.
13. CPLR § 7804(b) further provides this Court with subject matter jurisdiction.
PARTIES
14. Petitioner CCOP is the elected body representing all NYCHA Tenants. Its
purpose is to advocate for the concerns and interests of NYCHA Tenants and to engage in such
activities as will improve the quality of their lives. The members of CCOP are the Presidents
of the nine resident District Councils across the city (Bronx North, Bronx South, Manhattan
4 North, Manhattan South, Brooklyn East, Brooklyn West, Brooklyn South, Queens, and Staten
Island).
15. Petitioner At-Risk is a non-profit corporation dedicated to serving the needs of
New York City’s low-income housing tenants.
16. Respondent NYCHA is a corporate governmental agency (N.Y. Pub. Hous.
Law § 3[2]) created by the New York State Legislature as a body corporate and politic (N.Y.
Pub. Hous. Law § 401), with its governing Board, including the chairperson, appointed by the
Mayor of the City of New York, pursuant to New York Public Housing Law § 402. It is
designated as a local housing agency responsible for administering the federally subsidized
housing program in New York City. NYCHA is a Public Housing Agency which receives
federal assistance from HUD under 42 U.S.C. § 1437, pursuant to an Annual Contributions
Contract. NYCHA also receives annual subsidies from the City of New York.
17. NYCHA owns and operates 326 public housing developments in the five
boroughs of New York City.
18. NYCHA maintains its principal offices at 250 Broadway, New York, New York
10007.
19. Respondent Shola Olatoye is the Chair of NYCHA’s Board, as well as its Chief
Executive Officer. Respondent Olatoye is being sued solely in her official capacity. In her capacity as Chair, Respondent Olatoye is responsible for, and has played an active role in,
NYCHA’s false certification of its compliance with federal and local lead laws, the heat and
hot water crisis in NYCHA’s buildings, and NYCHA’s failure to comply with the relevant
requirements of Section 3, 24 C.F.R. § 964, and 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1437c and 1437d.
ARTICLE 78
20. A special proceeding under Article 78 of the CPLR is available to challenge
5 the actions or inaction of agencies and officers of state and local government. Under CPLR §
7803, a Court may determine, inter alia, “whether the body or officer failed to perform a duty
enjoined upon it by law,” and “whether a determination was made in violation of lawful
procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of
discretion.”
21. Under CPLR § 7806, a judgment under Article 78 “may grant the petitioner
the relief to which he is entitled.”
FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS OF COMPLAINT
22. As noted above, NYCHA’s persistent failure to abide its legal obligations and
to protect Tenants is dizzying in scope, and includes (but it not limited to) toxic lead,1 mold
and other moisture problems,2 vermin,3 roaches,4 violent offenders who are actively engaging
1 Yaov Gonen and Bruce Golding, NYCHA lied about doing lead paint inspections, shocking report claims, N.Y. Post, Nov. 14, 2017, available at https://nypost.com/2017/11/14/nycha-lied- about-doing-lead-paint-inspections-shocking-report-claims/ (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 2). 2 Natural Res. Def. Counsel, Court: NYCHA Violating Agreement to Repair Mold & Moisture Problems in Public Housing (Dec. 15, 2015), https://www.nrdc.org/media/2015/151215 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 3). 3 See Greg B. Smith, Invasion of rats for residents at NYCHA apartments and now tenants suing the beleaguered housing agency, N.Y. Daily News, August 15, 2012, available at http://www. nydailynews.com/new-york/bronx/invasion-rats-residents-nycha-apartments-tenants-suing- beleagured-housing-agency-article-1.1137296 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 4). 4 See Greg B. Smith, Queens family’s home infested with roaches, rodents – after NYCHA claimed it fixed issues, N.Y. Daily News, January 20, 2018, available at http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens-family-nycha-failed-fix-roach-infested-home- article-1.3768423 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 5).
6 in criminal activity,5 broken entryway and apartment locks,6 dangerous, malfunctioning
elevators,7 and, most recently, failing to provide heat and hot water during bitter winter
temperatures.8
23. These problems have led to (a) numerous deaths, injuries, and sickness,9 (b)
criminal and civil investigations and cases,10 (c) multiple findings of wrongdoing by the DOI,
5 See Shawn Cohen and Natalie Musumeci, Housing authority accused of ignoring NYPD info on criminal residents, N.Y. Post, March 28, 2017, available at https://nypost.com/2017/03/28/housing-authority-accused-of-ignoring-nypd-info-on-criminal- residents/ (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 6); Greg B. Smith, NYCHA staffer let gang use Brooklyn apartment as drug den, prosecutors say, N.Y. Daily News, January 19, 2018, available at http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/nycha-staffer-gang- apartment-drug-den-prosecutors-article-1.3766940 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 7); Kerry Burke and Larry McShane, Brooklyn woman glad NYPD nabbed her grandson in NYCHA drug gang bust: ‘Let them keep him’, N.Y. Daily News, January 21, 2018, available at http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/grandmother-glad-nypd-nabbed- kin-drug-gang-bust-article-1.3768393 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 8). 6 See Neighbors Furious After Robbers Push Into Woman’s East Harlem Apartment, CBS N.Y. (February 1, 2018), http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2018/02/01/east-harlem-push-robbery/(a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 9); BROKEN LOCKS IN PUBLIC HOUSING BLAMED FOR PUSH-IN ROBBERY THAT COST 73-YEAR-OLD WOMAN $10,000, Spectrum News NY1 (February 1, 2018), http://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2018/02/02/broken- locks-in-public-housing-blamed-for-push-in-robbery-that-cost-73-year-old-woman--10-000 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 10); Monica Morales, East New York families fear for their safety over broken apartment door, WPIX 11 (April 27, 2017), http://pix11.com/2017/04/27/east-new-york-families-fear-for-their-safety-over-broken- apartment-door/ (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 11). 7 See Mireya Navarro, New York City Housing Authority Faulted for ‘Significant Flaws’ in Elevator Safety, N.Y. Times, March 29, 2016, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/nyregion/new-york-city-housing-authority-faulted-for- significant-flaws-in-elevator-safety.html (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 12). 8 See Andrew Keshner, NYCHA flooded with heat complaints from city residents battling the bitter cold, N.Y. Daily News, Dec. 29, 2017, available at http://www.nydailynews.com/new- york/nycha-flooded-complaints-city-residents-heat-article-1.3726832 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 13). 9 See Ryan Sit, et al., NYCHA tenant, 81, dies after falling and cracking skull in Bronx elevator, N.Y. Daily News, December 31, 2015, available at http://www.nydailynews.com/new- york/bronx/nycha-tenant-81-dies-head-injury-bronx-elevator-article-1.2482184 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 14); see also Ex. 6. 10 See Ex. 7; Aebra Coe, US Atty Digs Up Info On Lead In NYC Public Housing, Law360 (March
7 including the DOI Report regarding False Certification of NYCHA Lead Paint Inspections (Ex. 1)11
(d) class action lawsuits,12 (e) a court-imposed monitor,13 and (f) staggering judgments.14
Despite the egregious failures of NYCHA just described, corruption and incompetence persist
within NYCHA’s operations.15 Many Tenants continue to live—despite the intense media
focus on NYCHA’s numerous shortcomings—in conditions that are abysmal and
inexcusable.16
24. As detailed below, this lawsuit demonstrates conclusively the continuous state
of NYCHA’s legal violations, any one of which could warrant—but taken together, compel—
the imposition of a monitor.
17, 2016), https://www.law360.com/articles/772783/us-atty-digs-up-info-on-lead-in-nyc-public- housing (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 15). 11 See, e.g., N.Y.C. Dep’t of Investigation, Investigation into False Certification of NYCHA Lead Paint Inspections (Nov. 14, 2017), http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doi/press-releases/2017/nov/ 27NYCHALeadPaint11-14-2017_UL.pdf (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 1); N.Y.C. Dep’t of Investigation, NYCHA Is Still Failing to Remove Dangerous Criminals from Public Housing (March 28, 2017), http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doi/reports/pdf/2017/2017- 03-28-NYCHAMOUreport.pdf. 12 See, e.g., Paige v. NYCHA, No. 17-cv-07481, Dkt. No. 84 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2017), ECF No. 84; see also David Goodman and William Neuman, Lead Paint Failures Magnified by City Hall’s Failure to Communicate, N.Y. Times, December 4, 2017, available at https://www.nytimes.com/ 2017/12/04/nyregion/lead-paint-nyc-de-blasio-olatoye-nycha.html (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 16). 13 See Mineya Navarro, Judge to Appoint Monitor for Mold Repairs in New York Public Housing, N.Y. Times, December 15, 2015, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/16/nyregion/ judge-to-appoint-monitor-for-mold-repairs-in-new-york-public-housing.html (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 17). 14 See Greg B. Smith, Mom of girl with high levels of lead in blood thrilled after winning $57M verdict against NYCHA, N.Y. Daily News, January 27, 2018, available at http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bronx/nycha-hit-57m-verdict-failing-inspect-tenant- home-article-1.3783070 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 18). 15 See Greg B. Smith, NYCHA rejects funding boost for inspector general who discovered fraud, corruption at agency, N.Y. Daily News, May 4, 2017, available at http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nycha-rejects-funding-boost-ig-found-fraud-agency- article-1.3137948 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 19). 16 See Marian Wang, The Many Failures of the New York City Housing Authority, Pacific Standard (April 7, 2015), https://psmag.com/news/the-many-failures-of-the-new-york-city-housing- authority (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 20); Ex. 18.
8 TOXIC LEAD
I. Lead Inspection and Abatement Statutes, Rules, and Regulations
25. As a New York City landlord that receives federal funding from HUD,
NYCHA is subject to both federal and New York City laws and regulations governing lead- based paint hazards.
A. Federal Lead Statutes and Regulations
1. Housing Quality Requirements for HUD Housing
26. Under the Federal Assisted Housing Program’s “Housing Quality
Requirements,” HUD promulgated “[p]hysical condition standards” applicable to all housing developments in receipt of its federal funding, including housing owned and operated by public housing agencies (“PHAs”) receiving contributions pursuant to contracts with HUD.
See generally 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(f); 24 C.F.R. § 5.703. These physical condition standards are in place to “ensure that public housing dwelling units are safe and habitable.” See 42
U.S.C. 1437d(f)(2).
27. Pursuant to HUD’s physical condition standards, PHAs must ensure that federally-assisted housing is “decent, safe, sanitary and in good repair.” 24 C.F.R. § 5.703.
“All areas and components of the housing must be free of health and safety hazards,” including
“lead-based paint.” 24 C.F.R. § 5.703(f).
28. Any public housing agency “that owns or operates public housing shall make an annual inspection of each public housing project” to determine whether the units are in compliance with the physical condition standards. 42 U.S.C. 1437d(f)(3).
29. Moreover, federally-assisted housing must comply “with all requirements related to the evaluation and reduction of lead based paint hazards,” including the requirements of the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (the “LPPPA”) and the Lead
9 Safe Housing Rule. See 24 C.F.R. § 5.703(f).
2. Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act and the Lead Safe Housing Rule
30. Under the LPPPA, codified as 42 U.S.C. § 4822, all housing receiving federal assistance must comply with requirements put in place by HUD “to eliminate as far as practicable the hazards of lead based paint poisoning.” 42 U.S.C. § 4822(a)(1). These requirements “provide for appropriate measures to conduct risk assessments, inspections, interim controls, and abatement of lead-based paint hazards.” Id.
31. Pursuant to a second federal statute, the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act of 1992 (“RLBPHRA”), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4851 et seq., the “Federal
Government must take a leadership role in building the infrastructure—including an informed public, State and local delivery systems, certified inspectors, contractors, and laboratories, trained workers, and available financing and insurance—necessary to ensure that the national goal of eliminating lead-based paint hazards in housing can be achieved as expeditiously as possible.” 42 U.S.C. § 4851(8).
32. The LPPPA and the RLBPHRA are implemented through the Lead Safe
Housing Rule (24 C.F.R. § 35), which requires a visual assessment of all federally-assisted housing for lead-based paint “at unit turnover and every twelve months,” unless the possibility of lead-based paint has been ruled out through testing. 42 U.S.C. § 4822(c); 24 C.F.R. §§
35.100, 35.1320(a), 35.115, 35.1355(a)(2).
33. Lead-based paint inspections must be conducted by a certified inspector or laboratory, which “shall certify in writing the precise results of the inspection.” 42 U.S.C. §
4822(c); 24 C.F.R. §§ 35.1320(a), 35.115(a)(4).
34. Where results of a lead-based paint inspection demonstrate the exceedance of
10 allowable limits, as defined in the LPPPA, PHAs must notify potential purchasers or tenants of the results. 42 U.S.C. § 4822(c).
35. Where lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards are found to be present in a dwelling, PHAs must have EPA-certified individuals abate them and then screen them for lead hazards to determine whether lead is present in amounts that exceed certain thresholds.
24 C.F.R. § 35.1340(a); 40 C.F.R. 745.227(e), (c)-(f).
36. Thus, the LPPPA and the Lead Safe Housing Rule “require local housing authorities which receive funds from HUD to inspect the units under their management for lead-based paint and to cover or remove such paint where found.” Hurt v. Philadelphia Hous.
Auth., 806 F. Supp. 515, 525 (E.D. Pa. 1992); 24 C.F.R. § 35.
37. As preventative measures, PHAs must provide each dwelling unit with lead hazard information pamphlets and written notice requesting that occupants report certain lead hazards, along with the contact information for the person to whom the occupants should report any such issues. 42 U.S.C. § 4822(a)(1)(A); 24 C.F.R. § 35.1355(a)(7); see also 42
U.S.C. § 4852d.
38. PHAs (such as NYCHA) in receipt of federal funding from HUD must file an
Annual Agency Plan every Fall for the upcoming fiscal year containing details about the
PHA’s programs and initiatives.17
39. PHAs must attach HUD Form 50077, “PHA Certifications of Compliance with
PHA Plans and Related Regulations” (the “HUD Certification”) to the Annual Agency Plan.18
40. The HUD Certification states, “The PHA will comply with the Lead-Based
Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of
17 Ex. 1 at 2. 18 Id. at 2.
11 1992, and 24 CFR Part 35.”19
41. The HUD Certification further states, “The PHA certifies that it is in compliance with all applicable Federal statutory and regulatory requirements.”20
42. The Annual Agency Plans and attached HUD Certifications must be made available for public review, including by NYCHA Tenants.21
B. New York City Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act
43. New York City Local Law 1 of 2004, the New York City Childhood Lead
Poisoning Prevention Act, requires all landlords of multiple dwellings (including NYCHA) to conduct annual lead inspections of multiple dwellings built before 1960, or between 1960 and
1978 where “the owner has actual knowledge of the presence of lead-based paint,” and in which children under the age of six reside. Article 14, Lead Poisoning Prevent and Control
(“Local Law 1”), §§ 27-2056.4(a), 27-2056.18.
44. In connection with the obligations under Local Law 1, housing owners must
“ascertain whether a child resides” in any of their units. Id. § 27-2056.4(a).
45. All leases in such multiple dwelling units must contain conspicuous notice of the landlord’s requirements with respect to lead inspection under Local Law 1. Id. § 27-
2056.4(c).
46. Owners of multiple dwelling units “shall inform the occupant in writing of the results” of any lead inspection conducted under Local Law 1, and “shall provide a copy of any such report received or generated by an investigation.” Id. § 27-2056.4(f).
19 Id. at 3. 20 Id. at 3. 21 Id. at 2.
12 II. NYCHA’s Failure to Comply with Federal and Local Lead Laws and Its False Certifications of Compliance
47. For many years, NYCHA has failed to provide its Tenants with homes that are
“decent, safe, sanitary and in good repair,” failing to remediate lead-based paint and other
health and safety issues. 24 C.F.R. § 5.703.
48. In the last two years alone, four DOI inquiries have led to determinations that
NYCHA neglected laws in place for Tenant safety.22 “In December 2015 and March 2017,
DOI issued reports regarding NYCHA’s failures to exclude dangerous criminal offenders
from public housing. In March 2016, DOI found that NYCHA was not performing critical
elevator inspections, and in October 2016, DOI found that NYCHA was failing to perform
critical inspections inside of NYCHA apartments including testing smoke alarms and carbon
monoxide detectors.”23
49. Moreover, in 2013, under circumstances that mirror NYCHA’s lead failures at
issue here, a class of NYCHA Tenants suffering from asthma sued NYCHA “for failure to
abate mold and excessive moisture” in NYCHA apartments.24 Rather than dispute the
allegations, NYCHA settled the lawsuit and entered into a consent decree that set forth a mold
22 Id. at 1. 23 Id. at 1; see also N.Y.C. Dep’t of Investigation, NYCHA Is Still Failing to Remove Dangerous Criminals from Public Housing (Mar. 28, 2017), available at http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doi/reports/pdf/2017/2017-03-28-NYCHAMOUreport.pdf; N.Y.C. Dep’t of Investigation, NYPD and NYCHA’s Roles in Controlling Violent and Narcotics Crime by Removing Criminal Offenders from Public Housing (Dec. 8, 2015), available at http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doi/reports/pdf/2015/2015-12-08-Pr41nycha_nypd_mou.pdf; N.Y.C. Dep’t of Investigation, Smoke Alarm and Other Safety Deficiencies in NYCHA Public Housing: Routine Neglect of Safety Rules and Falsification of Documents by NYCHA Maintenance Staff (Oct. 4, 2016), available at http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doi/reports/pdf/2016/2016-10-04- 31NYCHA_Smoke_Detectors.pdf. 24 Baez v. NYCHA, No. 1:13-cv-08916, ECF No. No. 88 at 1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2013) (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 21).
13 and moisture abatement program to be undertaken by NYCHA.25 In February 2016, due to
NYCHA’s non-compliance with the consent decree, and at Plaintiffs’ request, the Court appointed a Special Master to monitor NYCHA’s mold- and moisture-related efforts.26 In
March 2017, the Court extended the consent decree and the appointment of the Special Master through April 17, 2018.27
50. In appointing a Special Master to monitor NYCHA’s mold and moisture abatement program, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found that
“the attitude of NYCHA officials appears to be one of indifference.”28
51. NYCHA’s attitude of indifference towards the health and safety of its Tenants is palpable in NYCHA’s complete failure to conduct lead-based paint inspections for the four- year period from 2013 through 2016 while continuing to submit documentation to HUD certifying its compliance with the federal regulations that require these inspections.29
52. On November 14, 2017, NYCHA’s failures with respect to lead-based paint hazards, concealed by NYCHA’s false certifications to HUD for years, became public knowledge in a report published by the DOI in connection with its investigation of NYCHA’s lead-related activities.
53. In the aftermath of the unveiling of NYCHA’s failures, NYCHA has scrambled to explain away its violations of federal and local law while trying to cobble together a rushed and deficient resolution to the lead crisis in New York City public housing, with no success.
25 Id. at 1–2. 26 See id., ECF Nos. 88 & 96 (true and correct copies of which are attached hereto as Exs. 21 & 22). 27 See id., ECF Nos. 143 & 144 (true and correct copies of which are attached hereto as Exs. 23 & 24). 28 See Ex. 21 at 3 (emphasis added). 29 Ex. 1 at 1.
14 In fact, on December 5, 2017, NYCHA Chair Shola Olatoye lied under oath about lead issues
before the City Council, and the General Manager of NYCHA recently resigned from his
position in the wake of this catastrophe.30 Specifically, Chair Olatoye testified that all
NYCHA lead inspectors conducting inspections of the 4,200 units with children under the age
of six years and the possibility of lead presence were properly HUD certified,31 and the DOI
recently “discovered that none of the (lead paint) inspections were conducted by employees
who NYCHA reported as having the HUD certification.”32
54. Meanwhile, Tenants exposed to lead due to NYCHA’s malfeasance are
suffering devastating damage to their brains and vital organs. In fact, a young girl who lives
in NYCHA housing was recently awarded $57 million because exposure to lead caused her
blood-lead levels to reach 9 times the acceptable amount, resulting in serious developmental
delays. 33
30 Greg B. Smith, NYCHA general manager announces resignation amid lead paint scandal, N.Y. Daily News, January 22, 2018, available at http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nycha-exec- announces-resignation-lead-paint-scandal-article-1.3771465 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 25); Greg B. Smith, NYCHA Chairwoman Shola Olatoye did not tell truth to City Council in sworn testimony about lead paint inspections, N.Y. Daily News, January 24, 2018, available at http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nycha-chairwoman-not-truth-lead- paint-inspections-article-1.3774642 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 26). In addition, NYCHA’s Senior Vice President for Operations and its Technical Services Director recently resigned, and its General Counsel has announced he will resign later this month. See Michael Gartland, Another top aide leaving NYCHA while Shola Olatoye remains, N.Y. Post, January 31, 2018, available at https://nypost.com/2018/01/31/another-top-aide-leaving-nycha- while-shola-olatoye-remains/ (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 27). 31 Transcript of December 5, 2017 NYC Council Hearing (“12/5/2017 Tr.”) at 39:20–40:5 (a true and correct copy of the excerpts of the 12/5/2017 Transcript cited herein is attached hereto as Ex. 28). 32 Ex. 26. 33 See Ex. 18.
15 A. Timeline of NYCHA’s Noncompliance With Federal and Local Lead Laws
1. August 2012: NYCHA Ceases Legally Required Visual Inspections for Lead-Based Paint Hazards
55. NYCHA historically performed the legally required visual assessments for lead-based paint hazards as part of its HUD-mandated annual inspections of apartment conditions more generally.
56. In January 2012, HUD issued an e-Newsletter giving PHAs “latitude to schedule unit inspections in a manner that can satisfy the statute’s intent and simultaneously free up resources, especially those necessary to provide unit maintenance.”34 This change in requirements for general unit inspections “did not eliminate the requirement to inspect for lead where relevant.”35
57. Yet, in approximately August 2012, in response to HUD’s e-Newsletter,
NYCHA halted its annual inspections of apartments without establishing a separate process for conducting lead inspections, as required by law.36 As a result, NYCHA ceased annual visual assessments for potential lead-based paint hazards in its housing units, contrary to its obligations under the law.37
2. 2013-2014: NYCHA Files False HUD Certifications
58. In 2013, NYCHA did not conduct the legally required annual lead-based paint inspections of NYCHA housing units.
59. Nevertheless, in October 2013, NYCHA submitted its Annual Agency Plan for fiscal year 2014, along with its HUD Certification (Form 50077), signed on October 11, 2013
34 Ex. 1 at 3 n.8 (internal quotation marks omitted). 35 Id. at 3. 36 Id. 37 Ex. 28 at 15:9–13.
16 by the then-Chair of NYCHA (John B. Rhea), certifying it was “in compliance with all
applicable Federal statutory and regulatory requirements,” including those related to lead-
based paint.38
60. In light of its failure to conduct annual lead-based paint inspections in 2013,
NYCHA’s 2013 certification was false.
61. In 2014, NYCHA again did not conduct the legally required annual lead-based
paint inspections of NYCHA housing units.39
62. But, in October 2014, NYCHA submitted its Annual Agency Plan for fiscal
year 2015, along with its HUD Certification, signed on October 16, 2014 by Chair Olatoye,
certifying it was “in compliance with all applicable Federal statutory and regulatory
requirements,” including those related to lead-based paint.40
63. As a result of its continued failure to conduct annual lead-based paint
inspections in 2014, NYCHA’s 2014 certification was false.
3. 2015: Senior NYCHA Officials Learn of Local Law 1 Violations and Again File a False HUD Certification
64. In 2015, NYCHA senior management was generally aware of the suspension
of annual lead-based paint inspections, as evidenced by the efforts of the General Manager’s
office and others to resume the inspections in the spring of 2015.41
65. By April 2015, certain NYCHA officials were aware that NYCHA was
38 Ex. 1 at 3. 39 Chair Olatoye asserted at a December 5, 2017 Public Housing Committee meeting that, starting in June 2014, NYCHA “resumed biennial apartment inspections,” but a two-year cycle for lead- based paint inspections does not satisfy the requirements of either Local Law 1 or the federal lead regulations. See Ex. 28 at 15:16–18. 40 Ex. 1 at 4. 41 Id.
17 noncompliant with Local Law 1.42
66. One senior operations executive stated during an interview with the DOI that
“he first learned of the Local Law 1 violation in 2015 when he was working with a group on a plan to switch back to annual inspections, focusing first on apartments with children under six.”43
67. On May 7, 2015, a senior NYCHA operations executive asked another
NYCHA official in an email to provide a list of apartments with children under seven years old in connection with lead law compliance.44
68. On June 5, 2015, NYCHA managers held a meeting during which they discussed apartment inspections, including the requirement for annual inspections.45
69. On July 16, 2015, a number of NYCHA managers proposed that development maintenance workers be assigned eight apartment inspections daily with a goal of inspecting
“all apartments that may contain lead and have children under the age of six (6) residing in them, every year.”46
70. In October 2015, despite awareness of its shortcomings with respect to lead- based paint inspections at the executive level, NYCHA submitted its Annual Agency Plan for fiscal year 2016, along with its HUD Certification (Form 50077), signed on October 12, 2015 by Chair Olatoye, certifying it was “in compliance with all applicable Federal statutory and
42 Id. 43 Id. at 4 n.10. See also David Goodman, City Filed False Paperwork on Lead Paint Inspections Inquiry Finds, N.Y. Times, November 14, 2017, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/ 11/14/nyregion/nyc-lead-paint-inspections.html (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 29). 44 Ex. 1 at 4 n.10. 45 Id. 46 Id. at 4 n.10 (internal quotation marks omitted).
18 regulatory requirements,” including those related to lead-based paint.47
71. Again, NYCHA’s certification of its compliance with lead-based paint laws and regulations was false in light of its continued, and now widely known, inspection failures.
72. Chair Olatoye and the General Manager of NYCHA claimed they were not aware that the HUD Certification was inaccurate at the time it was submitted.48
73. One NYCHA operations executive interviewed by the DOI stated that, “if asked, he would have answered that NYCHA was not in compliance with applicable lead laws
– but he was never asked.”49
74. In October 2015, NYCHA received a federal inquiry notice in connection with a variety of issues, including lead paint.50
4. April-July 2016: NYCHA Chair and General Manager Learn of Local Law 1 and HUD Violations
75. Chair Olatoye said she became aware of NYCHA’s noncompliance with Local
Law 1 in April 2016, and informed City Hall at that time.51
76. NYCHA’s General Manager claimed he became aware of NYCHA’s noncompliance with Local Law 1 in April or May 2016, and both he and Chair Olatoye said they learned of NYCHA’s noncompliance with federal lead regulations in the summer of
2016.52
77. In the summer of 2016, a senior advisor at NYCHA concluded that NYCHA was in violation of the Lead Safe Housing Rule (24 C.F.R. § 35) after conducting research
47 Id. at 4. 48 Id. 49 Id. 50 Id. at 5 n.11. 51 Ex. 28 at 16:2–6. 52 Ex. 1 at 4; Ex. 28 at 16:21–24.
19 into the federal lead requirements.53
78. In July 2016, a senior NYCHA advisor circulated a draft chart outlining
NYCHA’s Local Law 1 and Lead Safe Housing Rule (24 C.F.R. § 35) obligations, including a mention of NYCHA’s obligation to conduct “visual assessments ‘at unit turnover and every
12 months.’”54
79. A small group of NYCHA executives were assembled to conduct an urgent assessment of NYCHA’s lead-based paint activity.55
80. At the end of July 2016, Chair Olatoye received a “lead workflow/game plan” for NYCHA’s lead-related obligations.56
5. August-September 2016: NYCHA Discloses Its Noncompliance with Lead Laws to HUD
81. NYCHA senior officials claimed that, in or around August or September 2016,
NYCHA told HUD’s local and regional New York offices about its noncompliance with lead laws on a telephone call.57
82. On September 13, 2016, NYCHA had a routine quarterly oversight meeting with HUD at HUD’s central office in Washington, D.C., during which NYCHA claims it disclosed its lead inspection failures.58
83. Chair Olatoye, the General Manager, and other top NYCHA executives were present at the September 13, 2016 meeting, along with the Assistant Secretary of Public and
Indian Housing.59
53 Ex. 1 at 5. 54 Id. at 5 n.12. 55 Id. at 5. 56 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 57See id. at 5 n.13. 58Id. at 5. 59 Id.
20 84. A PowerPoint presentation slide prepared by NYCHA for the September 13,
2016 meeting on the topic “Accountability: Lead-Based Paint” stated that lead inspections had ceased for two years, starting in 2012.60
6. October 2016: NYCHA Files False HUD Certification
85. On October 18, 2016, just one month after meeting with senior HUD officials,
NYCHA submitted its Annual Agency Plan for the fiscal year 2017, along with its HUD
Certification (Form 50077), signed on October 11, 2016 by Chair Olatoye.61
86. The HUD Certification again falsely certified that NYCHA was in compliance with federal lead-based paint regulations, despite the knowledge of NYCHA’s highest-level executives of the inaccuracy of this statement.62
87. Chair Olatoye has admitted that, when she signed the HUD Certification, she was aware that NYCHA was noncompliant with the federal lead-based paint regulations, which she characterized as “obviously a management failure.”63
88. NYCHA’s General Manager was also aware of NYCHA’s noncompliance with federal lead-based paint laws when he reviewed the HUD Certification in August and/or
September 2016 before it went to a vote of the NYCHA Board.64 The General Manager told the DOI in an interview that “we felt this was something that . . . HUD knew about, and we were submitting the report to HUD so . . . the disclosure was the important part.”65
89. None of the senior NYCHA executives, including Chair Olatoye and the
General Manager, has provided an explanation, to DOI or otherwise, as to why it was
60 Id. 61 Id. at 6; Ex. 28 at 17:5–6. 62 See Ex. 29. 63 Ex. 1 at 6. 64 Id. 65 Id.
21 appropriate to submit the false HUD Certification despite what they knew about NYCHA’s noncompliance with federal lead-based paint regulations.
7. July 2017: NYCHA Publicly Admits Its Noncompliance with Lead Laws in a Revised HUD Certification
90. On July 26, 2017, NYCHA’s Board approved and submitted a substantial amendment to its Annual Agency Plan for 2017 in connection with a real estate operations matter.66 With the submission of its amended Plan, NYCHA included a revised HUD
Certification (Form 50077), which added the following language regarding its compliance with lead-based paint laws:
*As previously discussed with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) and HUD, NYCHA has not complied with certain requirements related to lead-based paint but is working to ensure full compliance. NYCHA is cooperating with an investigation by the SDNY regarding conditions in NYCHA housing. We will continue to engage with both the SDNY and HUD regarding our remedial efforts.67
91. According to Chair Olatoye, a HUD attorney suggested that NYCHA submit a revised HUD Certification (Form 50077) with the qualifying language regarding its lead law noncompliance.68
92. In July 2017, NYCHA released a fact sheet and letter to Tenants regarding lead-based paint that contained an admission of NYCHA’s failures to properly investigate and address lead-based paint hazards.69
8. November 14, 2017: The DOI Issues Its Report Finding NYCHA to be in Violation of Federal and Local Lead Laws
93. On November 14, 2017, the DOI issued a report of the results of its
66 Id. 67 Id. at 6–7. 68 Id. at 7. 69 Id.
22 investigation “into mandated inspections for potential hazardous lead-based paint conditions” at NYCHA apartments.70
94. The DOI “determined that NYCHA failed to conduct mandatory safety inspections for lead paint over a four-year period beginning in 2013, but submitted false documentation to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (‘HUD’) stating that the Authority was in compliance with federal laws that requires these inspections to be performed.”71
95. The DOI found that Chair Olatoye and the General Manager of NYCHA should have been aware of the inaccuracy of the HUD certifications starting in 2015, since certain
NYCHA operations officials were aware of Local Law 1 violations in the Spring of 2015, and so they should have known of a potential violation of the corresponding federal law.72
96. Relatedly, the DOI determined that NYCHA lacked a process for confirming the accuracy of federal forms before submission, constituting “an unacceptable gap in procedures.”73
97. With respect to NYCHA’s supposed self-disclosures to HUD’s local, regional and central offices in 2016, the DOI had “been unable to corroborate NYCHA’s reported self- disclosure.”74
98. The DOI Report further noted that, even if confirmed, the NYCHA disclosures would have been a private statement to several officers of HUD, rather than a publicly available statement to HUD as a whole, like the HUD Certification.75
70 Id., Press Release at 1. 71 Id. 72 Id. at 4. 73 Id. at 5. 74 Id. at 6. 75 Id.
23 99. In connection with the DOI investigation and related results, NYCHA is currently in the process of developing a program to address the lead situation in its public housing and has hired a vendor to conduct visual assessments of units where lead hazards have not been ruled out.76
100. The DOI will monitor NYCHA’s performance of the new lead-based paint program initiative.77
9. December 5, 2017: NYCHA Chair Olatoye Defends NYCHA Before the New York City Counsel
101. On December 5, 2017, the New York City Council conducted a hearing on the
DOI finding “that NYCHA has been in violation of federal and local law on the subject of lead safety.”78 The purpose of the hearing was to “peel, one by one, the layers of failure and falsehood that have begun to surface in the weeks since the DOI report.”79
102. During this hearing, Chair Olatoye admitted that, “[i]n August 2012, annual apartment inspections were suspended” by NYCHA in its units.80 Chair Olatoye stated, “This was done in accordance with a new published HUD rule that relaxed the obligation of public housing authorities to perform annual inspections. NYCHA’s interpretation of HUD’s guidance was wrong, and we now know that lead paint inspections were also not performed.”81
103. Chair Olatoye further admitted that “senior operations executives were aware of some of the gaps” in NYCHA’s lead compliance in April of 2015.82 Chair Olatoye also stated that, “[i]n April 2016, it became clear to [her] that NYCHA was not in compliance with
76 Id. at 7. 77 Id. 78 Ex. 28 at 5:13–16. 79 Id. at 5:18–21. 80 Id. at 15:9–10. 81 Id. at 15:10–15. 82 Id. at 56:24–57:10.
24 Local Law 1, the City’s law pertaining to the inspection of apartments for lead paint hazards”
and that she informed City Hall of this fact.83 Chair Olatoye said, “[i]n July and August 2016,
[she] was informed by staff that NYCHA was out of compliance with HUD regulations, and
informed City Hall and the then-HUD regional administrator and staff.”84
104. Chair Olatoye admitted that signing the HUD Certification (Form 50077) in
2017 “was a mistake[], given what we know” about NYCHA’s failure to comply with federal
and local lead laws.85
105. During the hearing, Chair Olatoye said that, in 2016, NYCHA did inspect for
lead and abate, where necessary, 4,200 units with Tenants under the age of six years. But she
acknowledged that, although 30 NYCHA staff members had the requisite EPA certification
that allows them to abate apartments found to have lead above legal standards, “[t]he
remaining staff that conducted those 4,200 did not have that training” at the time they did this
work.86
106. Chair Olatoye assured the City Counsel, however, that all NYCHA lead
inspectors conducting inspections of the 4,200 units had the HUD certification required in
83 Id. at 16:2–7. 84 Id. at 16:21–24. 85 Id. at 28:11–13. 86 Id. at 37:15–19; see also Greg B. Smith, NYCHA workers lack training in lead paint inspections, may contribute to poisonings, N.Y. Daily News, December 1, 2017, available at http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nycha-workers-aren-properly-trained-inspect-lead-paint- article-1.3671035 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 30); Molly Crane- Newman and Greg B. Smith, NYCHA let children live in homes they knew were toxic, N.Y. Daily News, December 26, 2017, available at http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nycha-children- live-homes-knew-toxic-article-1.3722174 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 31); Greg B. Smith NYCHA response to lead pant crisis is inadequate: tenant lawyer, N.Y. Daily News, January 11, 2018, available at http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nycha- response-lead-paint-crisis-inadequate-tenant-lawyer-article-1.3751385 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 32).
25 order to conduct visual assessments for lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards.87
10. January 2018: The NYCHA General Manager Resigns from His Position and It Is Revealed That NYCHA Chair Olatoye Made Misstatements at the December 5, 2017 City Council Meeting Regarding Lead Inspector Certifications
107. On January 22, 2018, after months of downplaying his role in NYCHA’s lead inspection failures and filing of false HUD Certifications, the NYCHA General Manager announced his resignation.88
108. On January 24, 2018, just two days after the NYCHA General Manager announced his resignation, the DOI issued a letter stating that, while under oath at the
December 5, 2017 City Council hearing, Chair Olatoye made misstatements about the HUD certifications of the NYCHA staff who conducted the lead inspections in the 4,200 units with children under the age of six years in 2016.89
109. The DOI compared the list of NYCHA employees who conducted the 4,200 inspections to a list of all NYCHA HUD-certified employees.90 The DOI found that “none of the (lead paint) inspections were conducted by employees who NYCHA reported as having the HUD certification.”91
110. The DOI contacted a random sampling of 86 NYCHA employees who were part of the group that conducted the 4,200 inspections and learned that “while a handful had received some form of low level training, 85% ‘denied ever receiving the HUD visual assessment course and certificate.’”92
87 Ex. 28 at 39:20–40:5. 88 Ex. 25. 89 Ex. 26. 90 Id. 91 Id. (quoting DOI letter). 92 Id. (quoting DOI letter).
26 111. Chair Olatoye has made no amendments to her testimony since she gave it on
December 5, 2017.
B. Households Impacted by NYCHA’s Noncompliance with Federal and Local Lead Laws
112. As of 2016, there were approximately 55,000 NYCHA apartments for which
the possibility of lead-based paint had not been ruled out, and thus, NYCHA is required to
conduct visual assessments of these apartments annually, pursuant to the Lead Safe Housing
Rule (24 C.F.R. § 35).93
113. Of the approximately 55,000 NYCHA apartments requiring visual assessments
under federal regulations in 2016, approximately 4,200 units had Tenants that reported the
presence of a child under the age of six years, requiring annual visual inspection pursuant to
Local Law 1.94 This number has more than doubled to 8,900 for 2017,95 with part of that
increase due to young children that have just moved into units, but with the other portion of
the jump in number (likely the larger portion) attributable to “apartments that were previously
exempt from inspection” that were “considered free of lead paint last year, but for some reason
93 Ex. 1 at 2. See also Ex. 29; Greg B. Smith, Mayor de Blasio admits city failed to perform lead paint inspections, backs NYCHA boss after lie exposed, N.Y. Daily News, November 15, 2017, available at http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/de-blasio-admits-nycha-failed-perform-lead- paint-inspections-article-1.3636019 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 33). 94 Ex. 1 at 2. See also Greg B. Smith, De Blasio knew NYCHA ignored lead-paint rules for over a year, N.Y. Daily News, November 18, 2017, available at http://www.nydailynews.com/new- york/de-blasio-knew-nycha-lead-paint-rules-year-article-1.3642416 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 34); J. David Goodman, At Hearing on Lead-Paint Test Lapses, Questions Go Unanswered, N.Y. Times, December 5, 2017, available at https://www.nytimes. com/2017/12/05/nyregion/lead-paint-inspections-public-housing-shola-olatoye.html (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 35). 95 See Greg B. Smith, De Blasio to meet privately with NYCHA leaders as more concerns over lead paint inspection crisis emerge, N.Y. Daily News, December 27, 2017, available at http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/de-blasio-meet-nycha-leaders-lead-paint-concerns- article-1.3722920 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 36).
27 are not now.”96
C. NYCHA’s Recent Efforts to Inspect for and Abate Lead-Based Paint are Deficient
114. For years, “these inspections and the resultant clean-ups were performed by
untrained workers in violation of federal regulations.”97
115. As noted above, Chair Olatoye admitted that the NYCHA employees who
conducted the abatements resulting from the inspections of the 4,200 units in 2016 were not
EPA-certified.98 And, although Chair Olatoye claimed NYCHA’s inspectors for these units
were HUD-certified for visual assessments, the truth of her statements to that effect have been
disputed by the DOI, which recently found that none of the NYCHA employees conducting
such inspections were HUD-certified.99
116. NYCHA claims that, starting in October 2017, it stopped using workers
untrained and uncertified in lead paint abatement, but the Resident Association President of
Throggs Neck Houses in the Bronx reported that, in mid-December, the certification issue
persisted, with repainting being performed by what appeared to be an untrained worker.100
117. NYCHA also failed to inspect the common areas of developments on an annual
basis, contrary to what is required by the law.101
118. Moreover, NYCHA is failing to report the results of lead inspections to
96 See Aneri Pattani, Number of Public Housing Units Considered At-Risk for Lead Paint Hazards Grows, WNYC (December 14, 2017), https://www.wnyc.org/story/number-public- housing-units-considered-at-risk-grows/ (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 37). 97 Ex. 32. See also Ex. 36. 98 Ex. 28 at 39:20–40:5. 99 Ex. 1 at 6. 100 Ex. 36. 101 Yoav Gonen, NYCHA admits to another violation of lead paint laws, N.Y. Post, December 21, 2017, available at https://nypost.com/2017/12/21/nycha-admits-to-another-violation-of-lead- paint-laws/ (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 38).
28 Tenants, including, most egregiously, when those results showed the presence of lead in
Tenants’ apartments. NYCHA found lead in 78 apartments in the Throggs Neck Houses at
the end of 2017 but did not inform the Tenants who live in these apartments about the
findings.102
119. NYCHA’s disregard for its Tenants is also clear from its treatment of Tenants
whose homes must undergo abatement. A NYCHA Tenant recently complained that NYCHA
inspectors forced her and her six children to leave their Harlem apartment for a last-minute
emergency cleanup.103 NYCHA inspectors told the Tenant to “find a place to stay for a while,”
and when the Tenant began asking questions, she said she was told that if she did not comply,
NYCHA “would drill her locks and move her out.”104
HEAT AND HOT WATER
120. NYCHA has been in the spotlight most recently for yet another failure to
provide Tenants with habitable homes: the lack of heat and hot water in its Tenants’
apartments, particularly unbearable in light of the unprecedented cold temperatures that New
York City is experiencing this winter.105 NYCHA’s failure to ensure that dwelling units have
functioning heat and hot water both violates the law and places Tenants’ lives in danger.
102 Ex. 36. 103 Greg B. Smith, NYCHA boots tenant, her children from Harlem apartment for lead paint fix, N.Y. Daily News, January 26, 2018, available at http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nycha- boots-family-harlem-apartment-lead-paint-fix-article-1.3781902 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 39). 104 Id. NYCHA claims it provided the tenant with advanced notice that she would need to move her family out of the apartment while abatement was ongoing, but the tenant disputes this assertion. Id. 105 See James Barron, For Many Public Housing Residents, It’s Cold Inside, Too, N.Y. Times, January 5, 2018, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/05/nyregion/for-many-public- housing-residents-its-cold-inside-too.html (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 40).
29 I. Federal Laws and Regulations Governing Heat and Hot Water
121. NYCHA’s obligations with respect to the heat and hot water in its Tenants’
units are governed by the federal “Housing Quality Requirements” and the HUD-disseminated
“[p]hysical condition standards” for federally-assisted housing. See generally 42 U.S.C. §
1437d(f); 24 C.F.R. § 5.703. As noted above, these standards are in place to “ensure that
public housing dwelling units are safe and habitable,” and PHAs must ensure that federally-
assisted housing is “decent, safe, sanitary and in good repair.” 42 U.S.C. 1437d(f)(2); 24
C.F.R. § 5.703.
122. With respect to heat and hot water in its HUD-funded housing, NYCHA must
ensure that “[a]ll areas and aspects of the dwelling unit[s],” including “hot water heater[s]”
and “HVAC[s]” are “free of health and safety hazards, functionally adequate, operable, and
in good repair.” 24 C.F.R. § 5.703(d)(1).
123. “Where applicable, the dwelling unit must have hot and cold running water,
including an adequate source of potable water . . . .” 24 C.F.R. § 5.703(d)(2).
II. NYCHA’s Failure to Provide Its Tenants with Functionally Adequate Heat and Hot Water, As Required by Law
124. During a February 6, 2018 New York City Council hearing, NYCHA admitted that
143,00 of its 175,000 housing units experienced heat and hot water outages at some point between
October 1, 2017 and January 22, 2018, affecting 323,098 NYCHA Tenants (roughly 80 percent of the
entire public housing population).106
106 Transcript of February 6, 2018 NYC Council Hearing, Part 1 (“2/6/18 Tr., Part 1”) at 49:5–12 (a true and correct copy of the excerpts of the 2/6/2018 Transcript, Part 1 cited herein is attached hereto as Ex. 41); see also William Neuman, As 4 of 5 in Public Housing Lost Heat, a Demand for an Apology Is Unfulfilled, N.Y. Times, February 6, 2018, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/06/nyregion/heat-cold-nycha-nyc-olatoye.html (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 42).
30 125. Two chairpersons at the hearing referred to these numbers as “staggering.”107
126. NYCHA further acknowledged that the average duration of heat outages was two
days, which was a “a huge increase in the duration of the outages” as compared with last year.108
127. On average, the duration of hot water outages experienced by Tenants was more than
two days, almost double the average from last winter.109
128. Chair Olatoye admitted NYCHA’s “performance and the interruptions in service were
unacceptable.”110
129. NYCHA’s explanation for the significant increase in outage duration was the inability
of its “aging infrastructure” to handle the record cold temperatures of this winter.111
130. In early January 2018, thousands of Tenants found themselves without heat or hot
water during a record-breaking snow storm and cold period.112
131. During the longest stretch of days with temperatures below freezing in nearly 60 years,
many of NYCHA’s aged boilers failed and NYCHA was ill-equipped to address the problem.113
132. Due to “promotions and lack of hiring and training,” NYCHA had only 248 heat
technicians at the end of 2017, operating with approximately 100 fewer heat technicians than normal,
and 143 fewer than in 2013.114
133. From 2013 to 2017, NYCHA lost “nearly a third of [its] boiler technicians,” and
107 See Ex. 41 at 12:19–21, 48:18–23. 108 Id. at 49:5–12; see also Ex. 42. 109 Ex. 41 at 49:20–23. 110 Id. at 52:23–53:4. 111 Id. at 49:13–19; see also Ex. 42. 112 See Edgar Sandoval, Thousands of NYCHA residents without heat as winter “bomb cyclone” prepares to pummel city, N.Y. Daily News, January 3, 2018, available at http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/thousands-nycha-residents-heat-winter-storm-nears- article-1.3736005 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 43). 113 See Ex. 42; see also Danny Lewis, As Boilers Died, Public Housing Authority Had to Rely on Outside Specialists, WNYC News (February 8, 2018), available at https://www.wnyc.org/story/ height-public-housing-heating-crisis-city-agencies-sent-reinforcements/ (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 44). 114 Ex. 44.
31 NYCHA acknowledged that this was a “crisis of resources.”115
134. As a result of the shortage of NYCHA technicians and the large number of heat and
hot water repair tickets submitted by Tenants, after addressing an outage, NYCHA technicians do not
test the apartments of the Tenants who actually called in a ticket to say they did not have heat.116
Instead, NYCHA stated that they conduct a “random sampling” of apartment temperatures to test
whether service was restored by their work.117
135. With NYCHA failing to address the heat and hot water issues in its housing units,
Tenants have resorted to trying to warm their homes with ovens, stoves, and other sources of heat that
pose fire hazards and put Tenants in danger.118
136. Yet, when NYCHA technicians take measurements of the temperature in the random
sampling of housing units to test the effectiveness of their fixes to heat issues, they are not required to
note “the fact that there are pots of water that are boiling, that there are space heaters, and that the
ovens are on,” and so “tickets are closed not noting the circumstances that have raised the
temperature.”119
137. NYCHA’s testing procedures result in Tenants receiving “robocall” notifications that
heat and hot water outage tickets have been closed when they still have no heat or hot water in their
apartments.120
138. Finally, in certain NYCHA developments, including the Fred Samuel Apartments in
115 Ex. 41 at 80:5–7, 82:12–18. 116 See id. at 62:20–63:9. 117 See id. at 62:16–19. 118 See Lorena Mongelli and Natalie Musumeci, Some NYCHA complexes still without heat after “bomb cyclone”, N.Y. Post, January 5, 2018, available at https://nypost.com/2018/01/05/residents-at-nycha-apartments-say-heat-is-still-too-low/ (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 45). 119 Transcript of February 6, 2018 NYC Council Hearing, Part 2 (“2/6/18 Tr., Part 2”) at 86:10– 87:3 (a true and correct copy of the excerpts of the 2/6/2018 Tr., Part 2 cited herein is attached hereto as Ex. 46). 120 Ex. 41 at 61:19–62:8.
32 Central Harlem, “the electricity is paid by the tenants separately,” and many of the senior Tenants
“have expressed that they were using the oven with the water on top, but when it comes down to using their heaters, they would rather not because it will drive up their Con Ed bill. In other words, they must make a choice between being cold or finances. There is not enough money for the following month’s medicine or food. This is unacceptable.”121
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES
139. NYCHA’s indifference to the plight of its Tenants extends beyond matters of health and safety. Indeed, it infects all aspects of NYCHA operations, including those pertaining to the economic well-being of Tenants. NYCHA is failing to provide Tenants with employment and other meaningful economic opportunities, as required by Section 3 of the
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (“Section 3”).
I. Section 3 and Regulations Thereunder
140. Section 3 seeks to provide public housing residents with employment and other meaningful economic opportunities. It requires that “employment and other economic opportunities generated by Federal financial assistance for housing and community development programs shall, to the greatest extent feasible, be directed toward low- and very low-income persons, particularly those who are recipients of government assistance for housing.” 12 U.S.C. § 1701u. Consistent with this goal, “housing agencies, and their contractors and subcontractors, [are required to] make their best efforts . . . to give to low- and very low-income persons the training and employment opportunities generated by” certain federal funding. 12 U.S.C. § 1701u(c)(1)(A).
141. Under the regulations implementing Section 3 (24 C.F.R. § 135), NYCHA and its contractors and sub-contractors “may demonstrate compliance with the ‘greatest extent
121 Ex. 46 at 166:7–17.
33 feasible’ requirement of section 3” by meeting the following “minimum numerical targets”:
a. at least 30 percent of new hires annually shall be “Section 3 residents”
(defined as NYCHA Tenants or low- or very low-income residents of New
York City);
b. at least 10 percent of the total dollar value of all Section 3-covered
construction contracts shall be awarded to “Section 3 businesses” (defined
as businesses that: (1) are majority-owned by Section 3 residents; (2) at
least 30 percent of their employees are, or were within three years of first
employment, Section 3 residents; or (3) provide evidence of a commitment
to subcontract in excess of 25 percent of the dollar award of all
subcontracts to be awarded to businesses that meet the qualifications set
forth in (1) or (2)); and
c. at least 3 percent of the total dollar value of all Section 3-covered non-
construction contracts shall be awarded to Section 3 businesses. 24 C.F.R.
§§ 135.5, 135.30.
142. NYCHA must comply with Section 3, including the above minimum numerical targets, “in its own operations, and ensure compliance in the operations of its contractors and sub-contractors.” 24 C.F.R. § 135.32. “This responsibility includes . . . refraining from entering into any contracts with any contractor” that is not complying with its
Section 3 hiring obligations. Id. at § 135.32(d).
143. If NYCHA fails to achieve these minimum numerical targets, it “has the burden of demonstrating why it was not feasible” to do so. 24 C.F.R. § 135.30(d)(2).
144. When hiring Section 3 residents, NYCHA and its contractors and sub-
34 contractors must give priority to NYCHA Tenants, particularly those living in the housing
development or developments for which the Section 3-covered assistance is expended. 12
U.S.C. § 1701u(c)(1)(B); 24 C.F.R. § 135.34. Thus, for example, if a construction project is
set to begin at a given NYCHA development, efforts must first be made to hire Tenants of that
development, and then (once those efforts have been exhausted) other NYCHA Tenants, and
finally (once efforts to hire NYCHA Tenants have been exhausted) non-NYCHA Section 3
residents.
145. Any project or activity that is even partially funded with Section 3-covered
assistance is subject to the requirements of Section 3. 24 C.F.R. § 135.3(b).
II. NYCHA’s Noncompliance with Hiring and Contract Award Requirements
146. NYCHA receives billions of dollars every year from the federal government to
pay for capital and operating expenses.122 Section 3 requires NYCHA to use this money to
maximize employment opportunities for its Tenants. NYCHA is failing spectacularly in this
regard.
147. Specifically, NYCHA is systematically failing in its duty to ensure that: (1) at
least 30 percent of new hires by NYCHA and its contractors and sub-contractors are Section 3
residents; (2) at least 10 percent of the total dollar amount of all construction contracts, and at
least 3 percent of the total dollar amount of all non-construction contracts, are being awarded to
Section 3 businesses; and (3) hiring preferences are being given to NYCHA Tenants,
particularly those living in the housing development or developments for which the Section 3-
covered funding is expended.
122 See Report of the Finance Division on the Fiscal 2018 Preliminary Budget and the Fiscal 2017 Preliminary Mayor’s Management Report for the New York City Housing Authority, March 13, 2017, at 8, available at http://council.nyc.gov/budget/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2017/03/ NYCHA.pdf (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 47).
35 148. NYCHA’s noncompliance is so abysmal, that, in or about 2014, HUD official
Staci Gilliam admitted to a group of NYCHA resident leaders, including Daniel Barber and
Charlene Nimmons, that if HUD audited NYCHA’s Section 3 compliance, “NYCHA would get shut down.” Affidavit of Charlene Nimmons (“Nimmons Aff.”) ¶ 6.
149. These failures have three component parts. First, NYCHA does little to help
Tenants obtain employment, and, in fact, undermines the ability of Tenants who are not union members to work on Section 3-covered construction projects. Second, NYCHA does not meaningfully penalize contractors who fail to hire NYCHA Tenants, nor does it sufficiently reward contractors who do hire NYCHA Tenants. Absent such consequences and incentives,
NYCHA Tenants will continue to be denied statutorily mandated employment opportunities.
And third, NYCHA does not give Tenants any meaningful input in which contractors and sub- contractors are awarded contracts, nor which individuals are hired by the contractors or sub- contractors.
150. NYCHA Board meeting minutes are replete with instances of multi-million- dollar, Section 3-covered contracts being awarded with no resident input, and no, or virtually no, projected Section 3 hires.123
151. Often NYCHA and the contractors overseeing construction do not even involve resident leaders in required “Pre-Start” meetings before work begins. Consequently, these resident leaders and, by extension, their Tenants are kept in the dark on critical aspects of the construction projects, including hiring.
123 See, e.g., February 22, 2017 NYCHA Board Meeting Minutes, available at http://www1.nyc. gov/assets/nycha/downloads/pdf/board_meeting_minutes_02222017.pdf (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 48); January 25, 2017 NYCHA Board Meeting Minutes, available at http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nycha/downloads/pdf/board_meeting_minutes_ 01252017.pdf (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 49);
36 152. As a result of NYCHA’s disregard for its Section 3 obligations, a large number of NYCHA Tenants are being denied the employment they so desperately want, need, and deserve.
A. Annual Section 3 Summary Reports
153. NYCHA’s own records confirm that it is not remotely close to ensuring that at least 10 percent of the total dollar amount of all construction contracts, and at least 3 percent of the total dollar amount of all non-construction contracts, are being awarded to Section 3 businesses, as required by law. Indeed, the “Section 3 Summary Report” NYCHA most recently submitted to HUD in April 7, 2017 as part of its annual reporting obligation (see Nimmons Aff.,
Ex. A), disclosed the following:
a. Over $150 million in construction contracts were awarded in 2016 with
funds from the Capital Fund Program. Although at least 10 percent of this
money – over $15 million – was required to go to Section 3 businesses,
only 0.04 percent – $60,857 – actually did.
b. Over $66 million in non-construction contracts were awarded in 2016 with
funds from the Capital Fund Program. Although at least 3 percent of this
money – approximately $1.98 million – was required to go to Section 3
businesses, only 0.96 percent – $634,670 – actually did.
c. Approximately $7.6 million in construction contracts were awarded in
2016 with money from NYCHA’s Operating Fund. Although at least 10
percent of this money – approximately $760,000 – was required to go to
Section 3 businesses, only 3.9 percent – roughly $297,000 – actually did.
d. Over $2.2 million in non-construction contracts were awarded in 2016 with
funds from the Urban Revitalization Program (Hope6). Although at least
37 3 percent of this money – over $66,000 – was required to go to Section 3
businesses, not a single dollar in fact did.
e. Approximately $11,000 in construction contracts were awarded in 2016
using funds from Public Housing Development Grants. Although at least
10 percent of this money – approximately $1,100 – was required to go to
Section 3 businesses, not a single dollar in fact did.
154. Prior years’ Section 3 Summary Reports (see Nimmons Aff., Ex. A) reveal similarly extreme noncompliance:
a. Over $836 million in construction contracts were awarded in 2015.
Although at least 10 percent of this money – over $84 million – was
required to go to Section 3 businesses, not a single dollar in fact did.
b. Over $333 million in non-construction contracts were awarded in 2015.
Although at least 3 percent of this money – over $10 million – was required
to go to Section 3 businesses, only 1.4 percent – roughly $4.7 million –
actually did.
c. Over $413 million in construction contracts were awarded in 2014.
Although at least 10 percent of this money – over $41 million – was
required to go to Section 3 businesses, only 0.002 percent – approximately
$9,000 – actually did.
d. Over $417 million in non-construction contracts were awarded in 2014.
Although at least 3 percent of this money – approximately $12.6 million –
was required to go to Section 3 businesses, less than 1 percent –
approximately $4 million – actually did.
38 e. Over $442 million in construction contracts were awarded in 2013.
Although at least 10 percent of this money – roughly $44 million – was
required to go to Section 3 businesses, not a single dollar in fact did.
f. Over $817 million in non-construction contracts were awarded in 2013.
Although at least 3 percent of this money – approximately $24.5 million –
was required to go to Section 3 businesses, only 0.1 percent –
approximately $1 million – actually did.
155. In none of its Section 3 Summary Reports did NYCHA attempt to either justify its staggering compliance failures or explain how it planned to avoid similar failures in the future.
156. As the data in the Section 3 Summary Reports reflect, NYCHA awards contracts almost exclusively to contractors that are not “Section 3 businesses,” meaning businesses that do not, inter alia, (1) employ at least 30 percent Section 3 residents, or (2) subcontract more than 25 percent of the dollar award of all subcontracts to those that employ at least 30 percent
Section 3 residents. And NYCHA provides no meaningful incentive for contractors to employ
Section 3 residents. As a result, contractors and sub-contractors, knowing they will be awarded contracts regardless, make little effort to hire Section 3 residents (particularly NYCHA
Tenants), and these residents lose out on millions of dollars in income every year.
157. NYCHA’s Section 3 non-compliance is even worse than the data in the Section
3 Summary Reports indicate. Not only is NYCHA failing to ensure that contractors and sub- contractors employ adequate numbers of Section 3 residents, it is also failing to ensure that
NYCHA Tenants are given preference. These Tenants have priority under the law. They also
39 are the most in need. The average NYCHA family earns $24,336 a year.124 A Section 3 Tenant,
by contrast, is anyone whose income is less than 80 percent of New York City’s median annual
income (see 24 C.F.R. § 135.5), which for a one-person household is $53,450; for a two-person
household is $61,050; for a three-person household is $68,700; and for a four-person household
is $76,300.125
B. Current Construction Projects at NYCHA Developments
158. Numerous large-scale, federally funded construction projects are happening now
at public housing developments throughout New York City. Very few NYCHA Tenants are
being hired to work on these projects despite trying, and being qualified, to do so. Those few
Tenants who are hired are disproportionately given temporary, part-time, and/or unskilled
positions that pay less than permanent, full-time, skilled positions.
159. When Resident Association Presidents of these developments approach
NYCHA managers and construction supervisors and ask about employment opportunities for
their Tenants (who have priority under 12 U.S.C. § 1701u(c)(1)(B)), they are often ignored or
made to jump through endless hoops to obtain even basic information. They are also repeatedly
told by both the contractors and NYCHA managers that their Tenants will not be hired because
they do not belong to a union. See Affidavit of Lillie Marshall (“Marshall Aff.”) ¶ 3; Nimmons
Aff. ¶¶ 4–5; Affirmation of Jacob Gardener (“Gardener Aff.”) ¶¶ 8–9.
160. Thus, not only is NYCHA failing to make an effort to provide employment
opportunities to its Tenants, it is actively thwarting Tenants’ attempts to obtain employment.
124 See New York City Housing Authority, NYCHA 2017 Fact Sheet, (April 13, 2017), available at https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nycha/downloads/pdf/factsheet.pdf (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 50). 125 See New York City Housing Authority, How to Determine your Tenant’s Household AMI and Maximum Rent, https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/hpd/downloads/pdf/NSP-tenant-lease- guidelines.pdf (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 51).
40 161. The Project Labor Agreement (“PLA”) between NYCHA and local unions
serves as a barrier to NYCHA’s compliance with Section 3. The PLA, which was negotiated
without the participation or input of NYCHA Tenants (and should therefore be deemed invalid)
and does not require Section 3 compliance, funnels all hiring on Section 3-covered projects
through labor unions, who have created, with NYCHA’s support, an exclusive and opaque
hiring process whereby NYCHA Tenants are denied employment in favor of union members.
162. HUD has denounced this very type of agreement. In its proposed rule updating
Section 3 regulations, HUD states: “Recipients that are located in jurisdictions that are governed
by bargaining agreements with labor unions typically have low rates of compliance with the
minimum numerical goals for contracting because unions operate outside of Section 3
obligations. In fact, a review of project labor agreements in Chicago and New York City
revealed that these documents do not make any reference to HUD requirements, including
Section 3. This proposed rule would require recipients to amend all existing agreements with
labor unions to ensure that Section 3 obligations are included and to prevent labor unions from
obstructing the recipients’ ability to achieve compliance.”126
163. The PLA cannot supersede Section 3, nor can it be used as an excuse for non-
compliance. Yet it is regularly cited by NYCHA officials and contractors as justification for
their refusal to hire NYCHA Tenants who are not union members. Marshall Aff. ¶ 3; Nimmons
Aff. ¶¶ 4–5; Gardener Aff. ¶¶ 8–9.
164. There are many NYCHA Tenants who possess the qualifications and desire to
126 See HUD Proposed Rule Updating Section 3 Regulations, Creating Economic Opportunities for Low-and Very Low-Income Persons and Eligible Businesses through Strengthened “Section 3” Requirements, Docket No. FR-4893-P-01, available at https://www.hud.gov/sites/ documents/SECTION3PROPRULE031705.DOCX (a true and correct copy of an excerpt of which is attached hereto as Ex. 52).
41 be hired on Section 3-covered projects, but lack the resources, connections, and/or time necessary to become members of the particular union or unions from which contractors and sub- contractors hire.
165. The imposition of union membership as a condition of employment is a violation of Section 3 and lawful procedure.
166. At Walt Whitman Houses, a 32-building NYCHA complex in Brooklyn where construction has been ongoing since 2016, none of the approximately 60-100 construction workers are residents of that development. Gardener Aff. ¶¶ 6–7. Before construction began, the Resident Association President of Walt Whitman Houses submitted a list of eight Tenants who had the qualifications and desire to work on the various projects (which consists of roof repairs, outside brick work, scaffolding, and boiler replacement). Id. ¶ 8. All were rejected by the contractor and sub-contractors for the stated reason that they were not union members. Id.
NYCHA officials were present for these conversations and confirmed that the Tenants would not be hired because of their lack of union membership. Id. Since that initial attempt to obtain employment for these eight individuals, the Resident Association President has attended over
30 meetings with representatives from NYCHA, the contractor, and sub-contractors. Id. ¶ 9. At each meeting, the President has asked for information about who was being hired and has urged
NYCHA and the contractor/sub-contractors to hire Walt Whitman Houses Tenants. Id. The
President’s efforts to obtain employment for her Tenants have been consistently rebuffed, and she has been told repeatedly that the Tenants would not be hired because they are not union members. Id.
167. Similar events are occurring at NYCHA developments throughout New York
City – including at Alfred E. Smith Houses, Red Hook Houses, Morrisania Air Rights, Coney
42 Island Houses, Linden Houses, O’Dwyer Gardens, Surfside Gardens, and Unity Towers.
Otherwise qualified tenants of these developments are not being hired to work on the lucrative
construction projects happening there.
168. At Morrisania Air Rights, a NYCHA housing development in the Bronx,
NYCHA awarded a multi-million-dollar construction contract to a company that has hired 62
workers. Of those 62, only 8 (less than 13 percent) are Section 3 residents, 4 of whom are low-
wage administrative assistants.
169. At Red Hook Houses, a NYCHA housing development in Brooklyn, NYCHA
awarded a $63 million contract to repair 28 roofs. Marshall Aff. ¶ 2. The contractor (Technico
Construction Services Inc.) and subcontractor (AMP Tech Inc.) are employing a combined 23
workers, only 3 of whom (13 percent) are Section 3 residents, and only 1 of whom is a Red
Hook Houses Tenant. Id. The Resident Association President has inquired about hiring related
to this construction project and has been told in person on multiple occasions by construction
supervisors overseeing the project – in the presence of NYCHA managers assigned to Red Hook
Houses – that only union members are being considered for employment. Id. ¶ 3. NYCHA, the
contractor, and sub-contractor are doing little to provide employment opportunities to tenants
of Red Hook Houses and other NYCHA developments. Id. ¶¶ 2–3.
170. At Alfred E. Smith Houses, a NYCHA housing development in lower
Manhattan, a $69 million construction project is underway.127 Contracts were awarded to STV
Construction Inc (“STV”) and Navillus Tile Inc D/B/A Navillus Contracting
(“Navillus”).128 According to NYCHA, of the 76 new hires by Navillus, a mere 15 (less than
127 See New York City Housing Authority, Sandy Recovery & Progress, Interactive Sandy Transparency Map, http://www1.nyc.gov/site/nycha/about/recovery-resiliency.page (last visited February 25, 2018). 128 Id.
43 20 percent) are Section 3 residents, only 12 of whom are NYCHA Tenants; of the 13 new hires
by STV, a mere 3 (23 percent) are Section 3 residents, only 1 of whom is a NYCHA Tenant.129
171. Section 3 hiring data for various ongoing construction projects was requested
from NYCHA on January 5, 2018 pursuant to the New York Freedom of Information Law
(“FOIL”), N.Y. Pub. Off. Law, Article 6, § 84–90. As of the date of this Petition, NYCHA has
failed to provide any of the requested data.
172. In 2015, NYCHA was awarded $3 billion from the federal government to repair
public housing infrastructure damaged by Superstorm Sandy. NYCHA has awarded contracts
worth $1.85 billion of that so far, but has refused to provide data regarding the contractors
selected.130
C. NYCHA’s History of Indifference to Tenants’ Employment Opportunities
173. NYCHA’s failure to comply with its Section 3 obligations is due to the same
toxic combination of apathy, incompetence, and neglect identified by the New York City
Comptroller’s Office in its scathing 2014 audit report—the most recent such report—on
NYCHA’s Section 3 and Resident Employment Programs (the “Audit Report”).131
174. The audit report focused on a random sample of 29 capital project contracts that
129 See NYCHA Office of Recovery to Resilience - Smith Houses Section 3 Report, February 13, 2018 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 53). 130 Kelly Mena, NYCHA Refuses To Name Contractors Awarded $1.85 Billion, Kings County Politics, February 8, 2018, available at https://www.kingscountypolitics.com/nycha-refuses- name-contractors-awarded-1-85-billion-fema-funding/ (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 54). 131 See City of New York Office of the Comptroller, Audit Report on the New York City Housing Authority’s Section 3 and Resident Employment Programs (August 15, 2014) (“Audit Report”), available at https:// comptroller.nyc.gov/wp-content/uploads/documents/MG13_061A.pdf (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 55). NYCHA’s Resident Employment Program (“REP”), enacted by the NYCHA Board in 2001, is meant to extend the reach of Section 3. It requires contractors to expend at least 15 percent of the total projected labor cost for capital and modernization contracts awarded in excess of $500,000 on NYCHA resident hires.
44 had been awarded by NYCHA. After reviewing these contracts, and records associated with them, and interviewing numerous NYCHA officials, the Comptroller’s Office made the following findings:
a. “NYCHA failed to institute sufficient controls to ensure that its Section 3
and REP programs were carried out in accordance with applicable
guidelines.”132
b. “NYCHA did not take corrective action where contractors were non-
compliant with program requirements. As a result, NYCHA not only failed
to address the underlying hiring problems but also sent the message to its
contractors that their failure to comply with Section 3 and REP
requirements would carry no consequences.”133
c. “[W]e found that NYCHA does not track compliance with hiring guidelines
for its contractors. We found no evidence that [NYCHA] sent any letters
to or had any other form of communication with the eight contractors in
our sample whose contracts ended and who did not comply with the REP
or Section 3 hiring requirements. In addition, we found that NYCHA does
not impose sanctions on or take disciplinary action against any of these
contractors. When we asked [NYCHA] officials how often they found it
necessary to take any type of disciplinary action against non-compliant
contractors, we were informed that it was not an issue because the
contractors were in full compliance. This response was inconsistent with
132 Id., July 23, 2014 Cover Letter. 133 Id.
45 what we found during the course of our audit.”134
d. “[C]ontractors that fail to comply with [hiring] requirements can still be
considered for future contracts, undermining the promise of Section 3 and
REP.”135
e. “[W]e found [c]ompliance and monitoring issues with 83 percent of the
contracts reviewed at [NYCHA’s] Capital Projects Division and with 97
percent of the contracts reviewed at [NYCHA’s] Resident Economic
Empowerment and Sustainability Unit.”136
f. “For 17 contracts . . . , contractors claimed to have expended a total of
$1,453,747 on NYCHA residents, whereas our analysis of certified payroll
records found that the contractors had expended only $977,154 on NYCHA
residents, a difference of $476,593.”137
g. “We identified deficiencies in 28 (97 percent) of the 29 contracts covering
the following areas: verification of documentation submitted by
contractors, determination of Section 3 compliance, resident referrals to
contractors, and corrective action taken in instances of non-compliance.”138
h. “Our audit found that nearly half of all hiring summaries—critical
documents for ensuring Section 3 compliance—were either blank or
incomplete. As a result, NYCHA was unable to properly monitor
compliance with hiring requirements and NYCHA residents and low-
134 Id. at 12. 135 Id. at 11. 136 Id. at 1. 137 Id. at 2. 138 Id. at 8.
46 income New Yorkers may have missed out on available employment
opportunities.”139
i. “Certain NYCHA policies contributed to the deficiencies found in the
contractors’ hiring summaries, including the fact that NYCHA
management did not expect the [NYCHA construction project managers
(“CPMs”)] to verify the information reported on the hiring summary as a
way of determining whether the contractors met the hiring requirements.
Principally, NYCHA contended that the contractors’ unsworn signatures
on the hiring summaries constituted attestations of their accuracy and so
allowed the CPMs to rely on the hiring summaries, rather than require
further review or recalculation be done. In addition, as discussed in more
detail below, staff did not have a clear understanding of who was
responsible for reviewing the accuracy of the hiring summaries.”140
j. “Our audit found that NYCHA lacks adequate controls that would allow it
to determine Section 3 compliance. Specifically, NYCHA does not require
contractors to provide lists of existing staff prior to the commencement of
the contract. Absent such lists of existing staff at the start of a contract, it
is not possible to compare the existing staff to a list of new employees on
the hiring summaries and then against certified payrolls. Thus, without
such lists, NYCHA is hindered in its efforts to determine whether
contractors are accurately recording all new hires on the Section 3 hiring
139 Id. at 9. 140 Id. at 10.
47 summary.”141
k. “Our review of the contract folders for the 29 sampled contracts revealed
that required information about the monitoring efforts was missing for
many of the contracts. . . . We found that 9 (31 percent) of the 29 folders
lacked evidence that the [contract monitor] contacted the contractor to refer
residents for interviews.”142
l. Perhaps most embarrassing of all for NYCHA was the revelation that it
fundamentally misunderstood Section 3. Specifically, the audit report
revealed that NYCHA mistakenly believed that Section 3 only applied to
contracts worth over $100,000.143 The Comptroller’s Office and HUD had
to inform NYCHA that this was false, and quoted for NYCHA the
governing regulations, which clearly state that there are “[n]o thresholds
for section 3 covered public and Indian housing assistance.” 24 CFR §
135.3(a). Despite this obvious error, the City of New York to this day is
still falsely representing that Section 3 only applies to contracts above
$100,000.144
175. The Comptroller’s Office reported that “NYCHA disagreed with all but one of
the audit’s findings.”145 It noted that “the arguments raised in [NYCHA’s] response [were]
141 Id. 142 Id. 143 Id. at 3. 144 See, e.g., New York City Housing Authority, What is Section 3?, http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/hpd/downloads/pdf/developers/What-is-Section3.pdf (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 56) (“Section 3 applies to HUD-funded contracts and subcontracts in excess of $100,000 . . . .”) (emphasis added). 145 Ex. 55 at 2. See also id., Addendum I at 5 (stating that NYCHA “partially agree[d]” with the finding that there was “[i]nadequate follow-up of resident referrals to contractors”).
48 unsupported by evidence, despite NYCHA having been given ample opportunity to provide
such evidence up to, at and following the exit conference” and that “in several instances,
NYCHA’s responses [were] not relevant to the audit findings being discussed.”146 Accordingly,
the Comptroller’s Office “found that those arguments [did] not alter [its] original findings.”147
176. The Comptroller’s Office concluded its Audit Report by making seven common-
sense recommendations to address NYCHA’s widespread compliance failures. NYCHA
disputed the need to implement these recommendations and offered no indication that it would
take the steps necessary to fix the alarming problems identified by the Comptroller’s Office.
The Audit Report noted that “NYCHA management’s failure to explicitly indicate whether or
not it agrees to implement the audit’s recommendations, which are intended to strengthen the
agency’s administration of these vital employment programs, is of great concern.”148
177. NYCHA’s intransigence and refusal to acknowledge its compliance failures
have led to the appalling present-day circumstance in which Section 3, and the well-being of
NYCHA Tenants is continually ignored.
178. NYCHA’s pernicious culture of noncompliance is deeply entrenched and has
existed for years. Indeed, the Comptroller’s Office identified similar problems in its 2004 and
2008 audit reports.149
179. Ending NYCHA’s persistent and continuing violations of Section 3 will require
court intervention and the appointment of an independent monitor.
146 Id. at 5. 147 Id. at 5. 148 Id. at 6. 149 See City of New York Office of the Comptroller, Follow-up Audit Report on the New York City Housing Authority Resident Employment Program (June 23, 2008), available at https://comptroller.nyc.gov/wp-content/uploads/documents/ME08_070F.pdf (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 57).
49 MEANINGFUL INVOLVEMENT OF TENANTS IN POLICY MATTERS
180. NYCHA is failing to meaningfully involve Tenants in decisions that impact their lives, as required by federal law.
I. NYCHA Resident Participation in Public Housing Policy-Making Under 24 C.F.R. § 964 and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1437c
181. Federal regulations provide NYCHA resident councils with the opportunity to
“actively participate through a working partnership with [NYCHA] to advise and assist in all aspects of public housing.” 24 C.F.R. § 964.100.
182. “Residents shall be involved and participate in the overall policy development and direction of Public Housing operations,” and NYCHA “shall involve resident council officers and other interested residents at the development through education and direct participation in all phases of the budgetary process.” 24 C.F.R. § 964.135. NYCHA “shall ensure open communication and frequent meetings between [NYC]HA management and resident councils and shall encourage the formation of joint [NYC]HA management-resident committees to work on issues and planning.” 24 C.F.R. § 964.18(a)(8).
183. NYCHA must meaningfully “consult with” and “consider the recommendations” of CCOP when drafting the “Annual Plan” (a document submitted to HUD every year which lays out NYCHA’s operational goals and strategies for meeting resident needs and through which NYCHA obtains federal funding) and “Five-Year Plan” (a similar document submitted every five years). 42 U.S.C.A. § 1437c-1(c)(2)(A), (e)(2); 24 C.F.R. §
903.13(c).
184. NYCHA “shall allocate reasonable resources to assure the effective functioning” of CCOP, specifically with respect to CCOP’s role in drafting the Annual and
Five-Year Plans. 24 C.F.R. § 903.13(a)(2). To this end, NYCHA “must provide reasonable
50 means for [CCOP] to become informed on programs covered by” those Plans. Id.
185. NYCHA must “negotiate with the duly elected resident council on all uses of community space for meetings, recreation and social services and other resident participation activities.” 24 C.F.R. § 964.18(a)(6).
186. NYCHA, “in collaboration with the resident councils, shall assume the lead role for assuring maximum opportunities for skills training for public housing residents.” 24
C.F.R. § 964.18(a)(11).
187. NYCHA must also administer a program called the “Tenant Opportunities
Program” to “provide[] opportunities for resident organizations to improve living conditions and resident satisfaction in public housing communities,” and to “prepare residents to experience the dignity of meaningful work, to own and operate resident businesses, to move toward financial independence, and to enable them to choose where they want to live and engage in meaningful participation in the management of housing developments in which they live.” 24 C.F.R. §§ 964.7, 964.200(a).
188. NYCHA is required to “officially recognize a duly elected resident council as the sole representative of the residents it purports to represent, and support its tenant participation activities,” 24 C.F.R. § 964.18(a), and must “recognize [CCOP] as the voice of authority-wide residents for input into housing authority policy making.” 24 C.F.R. §
964.105(a).
189. NYCHA and CCOP “shall put in writing in the form of a Memorandum of
Understanding the elements of their partnership agreement and it shall be updated at least once every three (3) years.” 24 C.F.R. § 964.18(a)(10).
51 II. NYCHA’s Failure to Provide Its Tenants with a Meaningful Role in Decisions Affecting Public Housing
190. NYCHA fails to ensure that its Tenants are meaningfully involved in critical
decisions that affect public housing policy, Tenant health and safety, and employment and other
economic opportunities for Tenants.
191. NYCHA makes unilateral decisions on virtually every important policy matter
that affects Tenants’ lives, including: (1) the inspection and abatement of hazards such as lead-
based paint and mold; (2) the negotiation of project labor agreements that govern billions of
dollars of federally funded construction contracts; (3) the hiring of contractors, sub-contractors,
and workers who receive this money; (4) the creation of NYCHA’s Annual and Five-Year Plans,
which detail NYCHA’s operational goals and strategies for meeting Tenant needs and through
which NYCHA obtains federal funding; (5) the design and implementation of Tenant skills
training (which is not being meaningfully provided) and the Tenant Opportunities Program
(which is virtually non-existent); (6) the use of community spaces; and (7) the giving away of
NYCHA land to Mayor Bill de Blasio’s campaign donors for the purpose of building market-
rate housing on public land.150
192. On those occasions when NYCHA holds meetings with Tenants, including
CCOP, it is often a meaningless show, performed to create the appearance of Tenant
participation. At such meetings, NYCHA officials present on decisions they have already made,
rather than seek Tenant input on pending decisions. Tenants may be given a portion of time to
speak, but there is minimal engagement by NYCHA, and their comments and concerns are
150 See, e.g., Greg B. Smith, De Blasio donors chosen to build luxury towers on NYCHA land, N.Y. Daily News, January 26, 2018, available at http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/de-blasio- donors-chosen-build-luxury-towers-nycha-land-article-1.3779939 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. 58).
52 rarely reflected in the ultimate actions taken. Compounding the problem is NYCHA’s failure to provide adequate information to Tenants in advance of meetings. Thus, even if Tenants had a meaningful opportunity to provide input on a given subject, they would not have the information necessary to protect their interests.
193. The above describes decisions made by NYCHA on a daily basis on the city- wide, district-wide, and development level.
194. By way of example, CCOP members met with NYCHA leadership on January
25, 2018 to discuss NYCHA’s upcoming submission to HUD regarding NYCHA’s operational goals and strategies for meeting Tenant needs over the next five years. This “Five-Year Plan” is a dense, hundreds-of-pages-long document that will affect every aspect of NYCHA operations for the next half-decade. CCOP has the right, and obligation, to be meaningfully informed of and involved in the plan-drafting process, and to ensure that its constituents’ interests are adequately protected. As usual, that did not happen. Information concerning the
Plan was not circulated until the day before the meeting, and merely consisted of: (1) a 22-page
PowerPoint deck containing pictures, simple charts, and a small number of high-level bullet points; and (2) a 4-page spreadsheet with cryptic budget items totaling over a billion dollars.
195. NYCHA’s disregard for Tenant participation is further illustrated by its arbitrary decision on January 16, 2018 to withdraw recognition of the duly elected Tenant leaders from the Manhattan South District due to an obscure and contested procedural issue regarding the supposed lack of a quorum at a Manhattan South District Council Board meeting in 2015. As a result of this capricious and unilateral decision, Tenants from at least 40 housing developments in southern Manhattan are currently without officially recognized representation. Although these Tenants’ voices were largely ignored before, they are now completely silenced. NYCHA
53 arbitrarily decided to withdraw recognition of the Manhattan South representatives in 2018 despite knowing about the events that gave rise to the non-recognition for the past two years.
NYCHA refuses to recognize the Manhattan South District until a new election is held at some point in the future. NYCHA’s sudden, unjustified decision to withdraw recognition (and its refusal to provide the required support to resolve the issue) is unlawful, arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.
196. NYCHA treats Tenants and CCOP as sources of annoyance to be ignored rather than as policy-making partners to be consulted. This unlawful approach is reflected in
NYCHA’s failure to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with CCOP since 2003, despite the requirement that such a partnership agreement be updated every three years.
FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(For an Order Pursuant to Article 78 of the C.P.L.R. Compelling NYCHA to Comply with HUD’s Physical Condition Standards, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1437d and 24 C.F.R. § 5.703, the Requirements of the LPPPA, the RLBPHRA and the Lead Safe Housing Rule, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 4822 and 24 C.F.R. Part 35, and New York City Local Law 1)
197. Petitioners repeat and re-allege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 to 196
above.
198. Under federal statutes and regulations, NYCHA is required to conduct annual visual assessments for lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards in apartments where the possibility of the presence of lead-based paint has not been ruled out.
199. New York City Local Law further requires NYCHA to conduct annual visual assessments of dwellings in which children under the age of six reside that were built before
1960, or between 1960 and 1978 “where the owner has actual knowledge of the presence of lead-based paint.”
200. Despite its legal obligations, NYCHA admitted that it completely failed to
54 conduct the necessary lead inspections from 2013 through 2016 (while continuing to certify to
HUD that it was in compliance with federal and local lead laws), and its current lead efforts are insufficient.
201. NYCHA lead inspectors must be HUD certified, and the NYCHA employees conducting any resulting abatement must be EPA certified.
202. NYCHA admitted that its employees working on recent abatements were not
EPA-certified at the time the work was done, and it appears NYCHA inspectors were not HUD certified, based on the findings of a recent DOI inquiry.
203. NYCHA is also required to notify its Tenants of the results of such lead inspections, but, again, NYCHA is derelict in its duty, failing to report the results of lead inspections to Tenants, even when those results showed the presence of lead in Tenants’ apartments.
204. NYCHA’s violation of both federal and local lead laws have resulted in a massive failure to provide NYCHA Tenants with homes that are “decent, safe, sanitary and in good repair,” putting Tenants’ health at risk, which is unacceptable.
205. Petitioners have no adequate remedy at law.
206. Petitioners are entitled to an order pursuant to Article 78 compelling NYCHA to fulfill its obligations with respect to lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards, pursuant to federal and local law.
FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(For an Order Pursuant to Article 78 of the C.P.L.R. Compelling NYCHA to Comply with HUD’s Physical Condition Standards, Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1437d and 24 C.F.R. § 5.703)
207. Petitioners repeat and re-allege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 to 206
above.
55 208. Under federal statutes and regulations, NYCHA is required to ensure that housing units have adequately functioning heat and hot water.
209. Despite its legal obligations, NYCHA admitted that 80% of its Tenants have experienced heat and hot water outages this winter.
210. NYCHA has further admitted that it is severely understaffed and unable to address the substantial heat and hot water problems in its housing.
211. NYCHA’s violation of federal law has resulted in a massive failure to provide
NYCHA Tenants with homes that are “decent, safe, sanitary and in good repair,” putting tenants’ health at risk, which is unacceptable.
212. Petitioners have no adequate remedy at law.
213. Petitioners are entitled to an order pursuant to Article 78 compelling NYCHA to fulfill its obligations with respect to heat and hot water, pursuant to federal law.
FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(For an Order Pursuant to Article 78 of the C.P.L.R. Compelling NYCHA to Comply with Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act)
214. Petitioners repeat and re-allege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 to 213
above.
215. NYCHA is failing to perform duties enjoined upon it by Section 3 and 24 C.F.R.
§ 135.
216. NYCHA is failing to adequately provide employment opportunities to Section 3 residents, particularly NYCHA Tenants.
217. NYCHA is not complying with its duty to ensure that: (1) at least 30 percent of new hires by NYCHA and its contractors and sub-contractors are Section 3 residents; (2) at least 10 percent of the total dollar amount of all construction contracts, and at least 3 percent of
56 the total dollar amount of all non-construction contracts, are being awarded to Section 3 businesses; and (3) hiring preferences are being given to NYCHA Tenants, particularly those living in the housing development or developments for which the Section 3-covered funding is expended.
218. Not only is NYCHA making an insufficient effort to ensure that its Tenants are being hired on Section 3-covered projects, it is actively undermining the hiring of these Tenants by, inter alia: (1) rejecting qualified applicants based on their lack of union membership pursuant to an invalid and illegal Project Labor Agreement; (2) awarding contracts almost exclusively to contractors that avoid hiring NYCHA Tenants; (3) refusing to meaningfully penalize contractors that do not employ NYCHA Tenants; (4) failing to meaningfully reward contractors that employ NYCHA Tenants; (5) refusing to provide information to Tenants and their leaders regarding hiring on Section 3-covered projects; and (6) refusing to let Tenants be involved in the awarding of Section 3-covered contracts and the hiring of workers on Section
3-covered projects.
219. Petitioners have no adequate remedy at law.
220. Petitioners are entitled to an order pursuant to Article 78 compelling NYCHA to fulfill its obligations under Section 3 and 24 C.F.R. § 135 and disregard any contrary commitments under the Project Labor Agreement.
FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For an Order Pursuant to Article 78 of the C.P.L.R. Compelling NYCHA to Comply with 24 C.F.R. § 964 and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1437c-1)
221. Petitioners repeat and re-allege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 to 220
above.
222. NYCHA is failing to perform duties enjoined upon it by 24 C.F.R. § 964 and 42
57 U.S.C.A. § 1437c-1 regarding Tenant participation.
223. NYCHA is preventing Tenants and CCOP from meaningfully participating in decisions that impact public housing policy and operations, including those relating to health and safety, employment, the awarding of contracts, NYCHA’s Annual and Five-Year Plans,
Tenant skills training, the Tenant Opportunities Program, the use of community spaces, and the giving away of NYCHA land.
224. Petitioners have no adequate remedy at law.
225. Petitioners are entitled to an order pursuant to Article 78 compelling NYCHA to fulfill its obligations under 24 C.F.R. § 964 and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1437c-1.
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully request that this Court enter an order granting the relief set forth below:
a. Directing that NYCHA conduct lead-based paint inspections, as required by both federal and local law, and remediate any issues identified through inspections;
b. Directing NYCHA to inform NYCHA Tenants of the results of any lead inspections through written notification;
c. Enjoining NYCHA from falsely certifying compliance with lead-based paint laws;
d. Directing NYCHA to ensure that those conducting lead-based paint inspections and abatement have the required certifications;
e. Directing NYCHA to comply with the federal laws related to heat and hot water;
f. Directing that NYCHA enforce the hiring and contract award requirements set forth in Section 3 and 24 C.F.R. § 135;
g. Enjoining NYCHA from proceeding with any public housing, community development, or construction project that does not comply with the minimum numerical hiring targets set forth in 24 C.F.R. § 135;
h. Prohibiting NYCHA and its contractors and sub-contractors from denying employment to NYCHA Tenants based on their lack of union membership;
58 i. Declaring the Project Labor Agreement between NYCHA and labor unions invalid and illegal, and enjoining NYCHA from abiding by it;
j. Directing NYCHA to meaningfully involve Tenants in all critical decisions affecting public housing operations, including on matters regarding health and safety, employment, the awarding of contracts, NYCHA’s Annual and Five-Year Plans, the use of community spaces, and the giving away of NYCHA land;
k. Directing NYCHA to recognize the duly elected representatives from the Manhattan South District;
l. Appointing an independent monitor to ensure NYCHA’s compliance with Section 3, 24 C.F.R. § 964, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1437c-1, relevant federal and local lead-related laws, and federal laws related to heat and hot water; m. Awarding Petitioners reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees; and
n. Granting such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.
59