Justice Katherine A. Levine

 

Read Full-Text Decision

Petitioners sought to enjoin respondents, including Department of Homeless Services (DHS), from opening a homeless shelter at Bergen St. claiming the neighborhood was already overburdened and saturated with shelters, and DHS failed to conduct a Fair Share review under Fair Share Criteria (FSC) within NYC Charter §203. The court previously issued a temporary restraining order staying the city from opening the shelter. Before oral arguments, the city submitted a lengthy answer containing a fair share analysis of the shelter. The court found petitioners demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits that the city did not comply with FSC, making a prima facie showing the city may have disregarded the FSC so as to give rise to a cause of action. The city did not refute petitioners’ claims the Crown Heights community was inundated with other city facilities providing shelters or services for the homeless population. Also, as there was no new immediate exigency caused by the delay since the homeless crisis existed for many years, the city cannot show irreparable harm. The court found petitioners had a “stronger case” in the balancing of equities, and found no basis to upset the status quo created by the prior stay, leaving the stay in effect pending further submissions for review.

Justice Katherine A. Levine

 

Read Full-Text Decision

Petitioners sought to enjoin respondents, including Department of Homeless Services (DHS), from opening a homeless shelter at Bergen St. claiming the neighborhood was already overburdened and saturated with shelters, and DHS failed to conduct a Fair Share review under Fair Share Criteria (FSC) within NYC Charter §203. The court previously issued a temporary restraining order staying the city from opening the shelter. Before oral arguments, the city submitted a lengthy answer containing a fair share analysis of the shelter. The court found petitioners demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits that the city did not comply with FSC, making a prima facie showing the city may have disregarded the FSC so as to give rise to a cause of action. The city did not refute petitioners’ claims the Crown Heights community was inundated with other city facilities providing shelters or services for the homeless population. Also, as there was no new immediate exigency caused by the delay since the homeless crisis existed for many years, the city cannot show irreparable harm. The court found petitioners had a “stronger case” in the balancing of equities, and found no basis to upset the status quo created by the prior stay, leaving the stay in effect pending further submissions for review.