mun. resp. exh d - (# legal 3126902)
TRANSCRIPT
8/3/2019 Mun. Resp. Exh D - (# Legal 3126902)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mun-resp-exh-d-legal-3126902 1/26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY - CIVIL TERM - PART 11----------------------------------------------XIn the matter of the Application of CHELSEABUSINESS & PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, LLC,d/b/a CHELSEA FLATIRON COALITION,
Petitioner,
For an Order pursuant to Article 78 of the CivilPractice Law and Rules
-against-
THE CITY OF NEW YORK; SETH DIAMOND,Commissioner for the Department of HomelessServices of the City of New York ("DHS");GEORGE NASHAK, Deputy Commissioner for AdultServices for DHS; ROBERT D. LIMANDRI,Commissioner for the Department of Buildingsof the City of New York ("DOB"); FATMA P.COLGATE, R.A., Assistant Commissioner for DOB;JAMES P. COLGATE, R.A., Assistant Commissionerto Technical Affairs and Code Development for DOB;VITO MUSTACIUOLO, Deputy Commissioner for theDepartment of Housing, Preservation & Development
of the City of New York, BOWERY RESIDENTS' COMMITTEE,INC.; 127 WEST 25TH LLC; and DANIEL SHAVOLIAN,
Respondents.
----------------------------------------------XIndex No. 113194/10 60 Centre StreetTELEPHONIC MOTION New York, New York
August 1, 2011
B E F O R E: HONORABLE JOAN A. MADDEN, Justice
A P P E A R A N C E S:
BRACEWELL & GIULIANI, LLPAttorneys for the Petitioner1251 Avenue of the AmericasNew York, New York 10020-1104212-508-6104BY: DANIEL S. CONNOLLY, ESQ.
RACHEL B. GOLDMAN, ESQ.
8/3/2019 Mun. Resp. Exh D - (# Legal 3126902)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mun-resp-exh-d-legal-3126902 2/26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
A P P E A R A N C E S: (Continued)
NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSELAttorneys for the Municipal Respondents100 Church StreetNew York, New York212-788-1145BY: CHRISTOPHER KING, ESQ.
SHERYL NEUFELD, ESQ.HALEY STEIN, ESQ.
GIBSON DUNNAttorneys for Respondent Bowery Residents Committee200 Park Avenue
New York, New York212-351-4000BY: RANDY M. MASTRO, ESQ.
GEORGIA WINSTON, ESQ.
NEW YORK CITY COUNCILBY: JEFFREY METZLER, ESQ.
LAUREN AXELROD, ESQ.
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS SERVICESBY: MICHELE OVESEY, ESQ.
CLAUDE CASTRO & ASSOCIATES, PLLCAttorneys for Respondents 127 West 25th, LLC and DanielShavolian355 Lexington AvenueNew York, New York 10017BY: PAUL MARTIN, ESQ.
MICHAEL J. DAUGENTI, CSR, RPR, RMR, CRROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
8/3/2019 Mun. Resp. Exh D - (# Legal 3126902)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mun-resp-exh-d-legal-3126902 3/26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
Proceedings
THE COURT: I have a court reporter here. I'd
like you to identify who is on the line. I'm going to
put you on speaker phone.
MR. CONNOLLY: Daniel Connolly for Bracewell &
Giuliani on behalf of Petitioner Chelsea Business and
Property Owners and I'm joined by Rachel Goldman of
Bracewell and Giuliani as well.
MR. METZLER: Jeffrey Metzler, New York City
Council. I'm the associate counsel on behalf of the
applicant, the New York City Council, along with Lauren
Axelrod.
THE COURT: Is there anyone else there?
MR. MASTRO: Randy Mastro and Georgia Winston
for respondent BRC.
MR. KING: Chris King, your Honor, from the New
York City Corporation Counsel's Office for municipal
respondents, and also from the Corporation counsel's
Office is Haley Stein and Sheryl Neufeld. We also have
sitting in the general counsel of the Homeless Services,
Michelle Ovesey.
MR. MARTIN: Also my name is Paul Martin from
Claude Castro & Associates, for 127 West 25th, LLC, and
Daniel Shavolian.
MR. CONNOLLY: I think that's everyone, your
Honor.
8/3/2019 Mun. Resp. Exh D - (# Legal 3126902)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mun-resp-exh-d-legal-3126902 4/26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4
Proceedings
THE COURT: You all received the courtesy copy
of the motion made by Mr. Metzler on behalf of the City
Counsel?
MR. CONNOLLY: Yes, your Honor.
MR. MASTRO: Yes, your Honor.
MR. KING: Yes, your Honor.
MR. MARTIN: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Will the municipal defendants -- Mr.
King, what is the position of the municipal defendants?
MR. KING: Your Honor, we, in a nutshell, would
not object to the Council intervening on the issue of
preemption, which was raised in the City's answer. We
would, however, object to the Council intervening on the
issue of the City's interpretation or enforcement of the
ad code provision, which Mr. Metzler alludes to in his
affirmation, as being untimely. I think we agree with
BRC and Mr. Mastro, those issues are not timely before
the court because the Council has been aware of them for
at least eight, nine months, probably longer. And it's
too late at this time to raise those issues.
THE COURT: Mr. Metzler?
MR. METZLER: Yes, your Honor, while it is true
that we were aware of the preliminary injunction motion
and the arguments that were made in response to that, I
think we do have a very strong interest in insuring that
8/3/2019 Mun. Resp. Exh D - (# Legal 3126902)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mun-resp-exh-d-legal-3126902 5/26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5
Proceedings
the code is being properly enforced as well. I mean, to
be perfectly frank, an enforcement issue doesn't present
as strong of an interest for the Council because it only
is an individual case and when we were -- when we became
aware of the argument that were being made in the
preliminary injunction motion, we had to sort of weigh
that -- weigh the strength of that interest against the
downside of intervening and didn't think it was worth it.
At this point, though, given that the municipal
respondents have made the argument about preemption, we
feel that we have to intervene in order to -- for some
party to be defending the local law.
We do feel that we should have the opportunity
to also represent our interests with regard to the
application.
THE COURT: What specifically are you referring
to, Mr. Mezler?
MR. MEZLER: Well, specifically the argument --
THE COURT: Other than the preemption argument.
MR. MEZLER: The notion that the 200-bed limit
in the local law, that the local law could be interpreted
such that you could stack, you know, ten hundred bed
shelters or ten two hundred bed shelters on top of each
other and still comply with the local law. We believe
that is an incorrect interpretation, clearly an incorrect
8/3/2019 Mun. Resp. Exh D - (# Legal 3126902)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mun-resp-exh-d-legal-3126902 6/26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
6
Proceedings
interpretation of the local law. And we also believe
with regard to the Camp LaGuardia exemption, that that
exemption was the intention of that -- including that
exemption was that when those large -- the Council
recognized that there were these large shelters and
recognized the need in the event that these large
shelters would be closed, that there would be a need to
house those individuals some place and so it included an
exemption in the local law.
But that's not the way in which the exemption is
being applied in this case where Camp LaGuardia closed I
think two or three years ago. And so we also believe
that that's an incorrect interpretation of the exemption
under the local law.
MR. KING: Mr. Metzler hasn't made any mention
of the Camp LaGuardia exemption in his application.
MR. MEZLER: Your Honor, we do talk about the
application of the local laws of this case.
MR. KING: Mr. Metzler, I think your application
is limited to -- the argument is as to whether or not
multiple contracts can be -- can be construed as separate
shelters. You don't make any mention whatsoever of the
Camp LaGuardia.
THE COURT: Could you just point to me the
section in the motion where he refers, Mr. Metzler refers
8/3/2019 Mun. Resp. Exh D - (# Legal 3126902)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mun-resp-exh-d-legal-3126902 7/26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
7
Proceedings
to that issue?
MR. METZLER: I don't know that we made
reference to each of these individual arguments. I
specifically identified the Camp LaGuardia exemption as
an argument.
THE COURT: As to the other issues, stacking and
the different programs.
MR. KING: If I made refer the court to Mr.
Metzler's affirmation on Paragraph 15 about the profound
interest in insuring local laws governing the size of
homeless shelters are faithfully executed. That
basically says a ruling by this court on the preemption
issue, and I quote: Whether DHS can invade the two
hundred limit merely by signing multiple contracts for
the operation of a shelter for adults.
There's no mention whatsoever of the Camp
LaGuardia exception in his papers.
MR. METZLER: Your Honor, if I can be heard on
the notion that I would have to articulate on the merits
of each of the arguments that we were going to make in
the papers. I think the first part that Mr. King read is
correct and that's what the affirmation talks about, that
we will have found in insuring that the local law is
limiting the size of shelters to two hundred beds are
properly applied, at least that would quite obviously
8/3/2019 Mun. Resp. Exh D - (# Legal 3126902)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mun-resp-exh-d-legal-3126902 8/26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
8
Proceedings
include any of the arguments including the Camp LaGuardia
exemption. That's not being properly applied here.
MR. KING: Again, your Honor, we submit that
counsel has had notice for almost a year of those
arguments and has chosen not to intervene over that time
frame. And under those circumstances their lateness
shouldn't be construed by the court.
THE COURT: Mr. King, counsel cites in his
papers that, in an Article 78 intervention can be as late
as a postjudgment motion for intervention. So I'm not
prepared at this point to rule on that particular issue.
But if you can agree that -- stipulate as to the
intervention of the City Council and reserve your rights
to oppose the issues that will be considered in
connection with that intervention, I think that would get
this particular motion moving and before me as soon as
possible.
MR. MASTRO: Your Honor, Mr. Mastro for
respondents BRC. If I understand what your Honor is
proposing that the parties stipulate the City Council can
intervene, reserve all rights to object to any issues
that City Council proposes to raise.
THE COURT: With the exception of the preemption
issue.
MR. MASTRO: With the exception of the
8/3/2019 Mun. Resp. Exh D - (# Legal 3126902)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mun-resp-exh-d-legal-3126902 9/26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
9
Proceedings
preemption issue. The only thing that I would say about
that, your Honor, if your Honor is going to allow them to
do that, we are being severely prejudiced right now
because Speaker Quinn has been leaning all over us, and
the officials, to get the last approvals for certain
programs. We have all approvals necessary besides one,
an agency that she wrote to at least twice, and said she
would await the final ruling in this case.
So, if they're going to be allowed to do this,
Mr. --
THE COURT: Excuse me, I have another phone
call.
(There is a pause in the proceedings.)
THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Mastro.
MR. MASTRO: Your Honor, just a suggestion. We
functionally, effectively have not been able to move in
every program now because of what the speaker has done.
And we would say, your Honor, that your Honor is going to
propose to us that we agree to that approach, we are
reserving our rights to object to the various issues they
are raised besides preemption. They should get their
papers in this week and we should have a date early next
week by which we put in our response and whatever
objections that we have to it. It's fully before you as
soon as possible.
8/3/2019 Mun. Resp. Exh D - (# Legal 3126902)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mun-resp-exh-d-legal-3126902 10/26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
10
Proceedings
I know your Honor promised all of us that with
all the burdens on your Honor, your Honor is going to
issue a decision very promptly, as quickly as you could.
I don't want to delay this one day because we don't think
the City Council has anything to add to that that hasn't
been raised by CFCRA.
Now, your Honor, they want you to think that we
don't have lengthy motion practice, that they're allowed
to intervene for the limited purpose of putting in the
preemption and then they can put anything else they want
to put in and we can object to it and put in our response
very quickly, and I would have to convince my client,
even though I think they're untimely, unnecessary, and
have no right to be here, but I shouldn't be prejudiced
by your Honor delaying one minute when they're just going
to parrot what CFC said before.
So I'm suggesting, you Honor, that if he wants
to put something in, he'll put it in this week and you
give him some dates later this week and he puts in
whatever he has to say, because he's saying things on
this call that he never said before. And it's not fair
to us, it's not right to us, and it's not right to the
City Council speaker who used her office to try and get
the state not to give us the approval not in the normal
course. We have every other approval and ready to move
8/3/2019 Mun. Resp. Exh D - (# Legal 3126902)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mun-resp-exh-d-legal-3126902 11/26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
11
Proceedings
in. It would take millions to move in. When we were the
denied the injunction, the speaker wasn't happy with
that, she gets her parties to seek to intervene beyond
the eleventh hour.
If he wants to put something in on behalf of the
speaker and the City Council, let him do it this week.
MR. METZLER: Your Honor, if I could be heard on
that.
MR. MASTRO: Put your papers in.
THE COURT: Who's speaking?
MR. METZLER: This is Jeffrey Metzler. I know
Mr. Mastro is fond of drama. He knows I'm away on
vacation this week.
MR. MASTRO: That's not an excuse.
MR. METZLER: Okay, okay, he's prejudiced, Mr.
Mastro. And also the idea that BRC is the one that's
prejudiced and behind the eight ball here when the
Council receives notice of the argument -- by the way,
not from any of the parties -- that the local law was
being challenged in this case and the preemption argument
is being made, less than two weeks ago. The suggestion
that we sat on our laurels when we moved as absolutely
quickly as could have been possible, the earliest
possible stated meeting was on Thursday, we served the
papers Thursday night by overnight mail. The idea that
8/3/2019 Mun. Resp. Exh D - (# Legal 3126902)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mun-resp-exh-d-legal-3126902 12/26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
12
Proceedings
we, the Council, have been sitting around and now all of
a sudden we have to try and rush about when we could have
received notice of this preemption argument at any point,
as soon as it was decided it was going to be made. You
know, it's crazy. And I think Mr. Mastro, he does know
I'm away on vacation; I told all of the parties that.
And the idea we would now have to rush around and somehow
submit papers at the end of this week when we just
received notice two weeks ago of the argument. To say we
even received notice isn't accurate. We found out about
it by third parties --
THE COURT: That's only as to the preemption
issue?
MR. MASTRO: Correct, your Honor.
MR. METZLER: Yes, that is correct. And as I
said we were aware of the other issue but after we had
done some preliminary looking into them and determined,
though, is the same old -- there is a single issue. It's
not appropriate for, on a single issue and a single
matter of application, and it wasn't worth the efforts of
the Council, the city wide interest, to intervene.
That being said if we're going to be intervening
in this case, we do have concerns about the way the law
is being applied in this individual case. Admittedly, it
doesn't have the same city-wide implications because it
8/3/2019 Mun. Resp. Exh D - (# Legal 3126902)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mun-resp-exh-d-legal-3126902 13/26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
13
Proceedings
could be applied that way in this case and then applied
differently in another case.
When we became aware of the issue a few months
ago, that was the determination that we made before
intervening at this point. I think it's clear we have an
interest in the issue and should be entitled to be heard
on it.
MR. MASTRO: Your Honor, your Honor, if I may.
He just said he's known about it all along, the guys know
about it all along. It wasn't important enough for them
to intervene. Now he wants to intervene on preemption,
but he's not prepared to put his papers in quickly.
As your Honor correctly pointed out that we have
a situation, a petition, that's been buried for a long
time that they known about for a long time, it is now
fully submitted, having been briefed on all of these
issues by another party.
Your Honor pointed out, they can intervene even
post documents. If they don't like how your Honor rules
on preemption or any other issue, they can seek to
intervene then. But I would think that your Honor
shouldn't delay for one minute going forward with
resolving the case and denying their motion without
prejudice to them renewing after they see how you rule.
Because in our case they can do that post-judgment.
8/3/2019 Mun. Resp. Exh D - (# Legal 3126902)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mun-resp-exh-d-legal-3126902 14/26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
14
Proceedings
He's only really here about our preemption issue
and he's not prepared to brief it right away. And CFC,
while I think they're wrong, I read their briefing on the
issue, I don't think that Council has more to say on it
than CFC has to say.
So, I think, your Honor, the correct approach
for today is no, I'm not going to slow down the train,
like the speaker tries to get the train to slow down so
the BRC can't move in. I'm going to deny it without
prejudice and see how I rule. And if you want to try and
intervene at that point on preemption, then you can take
it up, maybe they won't even need to intervene on
preemption after your Honor rules. Who knows how your
Honor is going to rule?
But for them to come here and say slow down
everything for weeks because I'm on vacation and the
speaker just decided the preliminary injunction was lost,
that's definitely how the train slows down and at the
same time prevents my clients from moving in. That's
outrageous, your Honor.
MR. METZLER: The outrageous part is you're the
ones who noticed --
THE COURT: Please, counsel, I've heard enough,.
Mr. Metzler, I am going to adhere to my
suggestion that you be permitted to put in papers on the
8/3/2019 Mun. Resp. Exh D - (# Legal 3126902)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mun-resp-exh-d-legal-3126902 15/26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
15
Proceedings
preemption, and as to the other two issues you raised and
the parties will be entitled to object as to -- well, do
I have a stipulation by all parties that he can -- that
the City Council can intervene as to the preemption
issue?
MR. CONNOLLY: This is Dan Connolly. CFC so
stipulates.
MR. KING: We will stipulate to preemption only,
your Honor. Municipal respondents, I think we agree with
Mr. Mastro's suggested approach here. I do agree with
Mr. Mastro as well. Mr. Mastro couldn't have said it
himself better why they shouldn't be allowed to rule on
issues that they didn't feel were important enough to
intervene on originally.
MR. MASTRO: Your Honor, because your Honor is
asking us to do this, I would recommend to my clients
stipulating to intervene only on preemption, if they get
their papers in this week so we're not delayed and
prejudiced.
THE COURT: So, I'm going to permit them, also
over objection, to address the others two issues that
have been raised, interpretation of the administrative
code regarding multiple contracts and the issue regarding
the Camp LaGuardia exception.
I know in making this determination that the
8/3/2019 Mun. Resp. Exh D - (# Legal 3126902)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mun-resp-exh-d-legal-3126902 16/26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
16
Proceedings
City Council was not given any notice that the preemption
argument would be made. I think it's appropriate that
they be permitted to submit papers in connection with
that argument as well as the other two issues,
notwithstanding your objection, but I will review your
objections in the submission and make a determination as
to whether I will address the City Council's papers in
connection with the 200-bed limit and the Camp LaGuardia
exception. All right.
Mr. Metzler, however, you need to move forward
quickly. You need to have your papers in by August
the 10th. Can opposition be submitted by the 17th of
August?
MR. METZLER: Your Honor, the short answer is
yes, and we'll try to submit sooner than that, but we
want your Honor to rule.
THE COURT: I understand that. We're working on
it, we will continue to work on it. Obviously with
additional papers it may take a little bit longer, but
I'm trying to do this as promptly as I can, considering
my other judicial responsibilities, I an still engaged in
this, I think it's a seven week complex asbestos
litigation trial at this point. Hopefully that trial
will be concluded next week. But it is being worked on,
and I'm trying to do it as quickly as possible.
8/3/2019 Mun. Resp. Exh D - (# Legal 3126902)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mun-resp-exh-d-legal-3126902 17/26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
17
Proceedings
MR. MASTRO: Your Honor, you've been great.
It's an additional burden being brought upon you. We
think it's unfair. We'll respond as quickly as we can if
we get these papers on the 10th.
THE COURT: In terms of the procedural issues,
this stipulation on the record will be the basis of the
intervention, can we deem it an order to show cause, does
anybody object?
MR. CONNOLLY: No objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Counsel?
MR. METZLER: I'm sorry, your Honor, I lost
track of what we were --
THE COURT: Just in connection with the
procedural issues, how to get. Let me rephrase that.
The procedural issues regarding the
intervention. If you're stipulating that the City
Council can intervene, then the City Council can submit
papers -- I think this will satisfy -- will submit papers
in connection with the opposition by August the 10th and
the other parties will have until August the 17th to
respond. I can move that up to August 15th.
MR. KING: Your Honor, we would need the 17th.
THE COURT: Who is that, Mr. King?
MR. KING: Yes.
MR. METZLER: Your Honor, I understand that this
8/3/2019 Mun. Resp. Exh D - (# Legal 3126902)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mun-resp-exh-d-legal-3126902 18/26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
18
Proceedings
needs to be done quickly. As I said we're not trying to
delay. I literally get back from vacation, I can't write
the papers where I am. I am getting back from vacation
the day before you're having the papers due. If we could
just have to the end of the week, I think it would,
frankly, make the papers much more valuable to the court.
THE COURT: Isn't there anybody else in your
office who can help with the papers, Mr. Metzler?
MR. MASTRO: Your office --
MR. METZLER: Mr. Mastro, you don't know
anything about our office.
MR. MASTRO: I do know something about your
office.
THE COURT: Mr. Mastro, please.
MR. METZLER: It is not a big office.
MR. MASTRO: You can get it done by the 10th
because you want to intervene, now we're being asked to
sit here. You get it done.
MR. METZLER: Mr. Mastro, please, you don't know
anything about our office.
THE COURT: Mr. Metzler, can you answer my
question?
MR. METZLER: No, it is not a large office, your
Honor. The General Counsel's office, the City Council,
will be working on these papers, six attorneys, only two
8/3/2019 Mun. Resp. Exh D - (# Legal 3126902)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mun-resp-exh-d-legal-3126902 19/26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
19
Proceedings
of whom are litigators.
THE COURT: Are you one of those two?
MR. METZLER: I am one of the two, and then we
have an employment counsel and we have a lot of
legislative counsel, Mr. Mastro is correct on that, but
our legislative counsel, they do not know how to litigate
and cannot write briefs, they write legislation.
THE COURT: Can other litigation counsel work on
this while you're away?
MR. METZLER: She may be able to work on it,
yes, your Honor, but I don't think we'll be able to have
it in by the 10th.
THE COURT: When do you return? August 8th is
Monday. I assume you're returning on August the 8th.
MR. METZLER: I'm returning at about noon on
August the 8th.
MR. CONNOLLY: Perhaps August 12th, that Friday.
THE COURT: August 12th.
MR. METZLER: Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Mastro and the City is August
the 19th sufficient?
MR. MASTRO: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: August the 19th.
MR. METZLER: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Shall I say submission only unless I
8/3/2019 Mun. Resp. Exh D - (# Legal 3126902)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mun-resp-exh-d-legal-3126902 20/26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
20
Proceedings
direct you to come in for oral argument?
MR. CONNOLLY: I have no objection with that,
your Honor. This is Dan Connolly.
MR. METZLER: That's fine by the City, as well.
MR. KING: It's fine by the City Council, your
Honor.
THE COURT: August the 12th for submission by
the city Council and August the 19th I guess they're
opposition, and it will be submitted as of that date.
Mr. Mastro, I received your letter regarding the
schedule for occupancy of the building. Have the other
parties received Mr. Mastro's letter?
MR. CONNOLLY: Actually, I don't believe the
City Council was included on that, your Honor.
MR. METZLER: We have not received anything,
your Honor. We, the city council, did not receive
anything.
THE COURT: Mr. Mastro, would you send them a
copy?
MR. MASTRO: I certainly would, your Honor,
there's been an update since, your Honor, which is,
again, the speaker is going hold off on a particular --
THE COURT: One moment. I'm just opening
another letter that's dated August 1st. Is that your
most recent submission, I assume, Mr. Mastro?
8/3/2019 Mun. Resp. Exh D - (# Legal 3126902)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mun-resp-exh-d-legal-3126902 21/26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
Proceedings
MR. MASTRO: Yes, your Honor, that's what I was
explaining, the prejudice of the speaker itself is going
to --
THE COURT: Mr. Mastro, the court reporter is
having a difficult time understanding, so start from the
beginning of that sentence, please.
MR. MASTRO: The speaker herself was complaining
earlier from the taking all this time to write their
papers, at the same time the speaker has been prevailing
upon the State agency which has the last approval
necessary for us to move the adult shelter and reception
center in the building, all other approvals in Manhattan,
and we still have to have the final decision in this case
and they want all this time to put in their papers.
So right now, your Honor, we have all the detox
in, except this one state agency because the speaker has
been leaning on them about waiting for a final decision
in this case.
THE COURT: I'm sorry, Mr. Mastro, that's in
connection with the 32-bed detox unit?
MR. MASTRO: The detox unit is in.
THE COURT: Yes, what -- is it the two hundred
-- I'm sorry, is it the shelter or reception center?
MR. MASTRO: Both the 200-bed shelter and the
reception shelter has not been able to move in yet.
8/3/2019 Mun. Resp. Exh D - (# Legal 3126902)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mun-resp-exh-d-legal-3126902 22/26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
22
Proceedings
There's one more State agency approval that Speaker Quinn
has intervened at the state level to urge them to hold
off until your Honor moves.
MR. CONNOLLY: Your Honor, I have to say, Mr.
Mastro has in the past lectured me, certainly, and the
court about trying to litigate this case by letter and
his accusations and the insertion of irrelevant -- and
who knows whether or not they're valid -- factual
assertions by letter and by statement is grossly
inappropriate. And I would ask the court, A, for his
failure to serve the City Council of this letter and
because of its general inappropriateness, the court
rejects this letter as the court had rejected efforts --
MR. MASTRO: I served this letter on the City
Council, your Honor.
MR. METZLER: I didn't receive it.
MR. MASTRO: I absolutely did, Mr. Metzler. It
is not an e-mail message.
MR. CONNOLLY: It's not either an e-mail
message. When was this letter delivered?
MR. MASTRO: It was delivered today, your Honor.
MS. OVESEY: Your Honor, this is Michele Ovesey,
General counsel for Homeless Services.
What Mr. Mastro says is correct. It's our
understanding from the State agency in question, as well,
8/3/2019 Mun. Resp. Exh D - (# Legal 3126902)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mun-resp-exh-d-legal-3126902 23/26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
23
Proceedings
that they are waiting for your Honor's ruling.
MR. CONNOLLY: I don't know if Miss Ovesey is
testifying.
MS. OVESEY: I'm not testifying. I'm just
stating a fact.
THE COURT: What department is that?
MS. OVESEY: I'm the general counsel for
Department of Homeless Services. And it's our
understanding from the State agency in question that they
are going to be withholding their approval until there's
a decision from the court.
THE COURT: And what was the state agency in
question?
MS. OVESEY: It's the Office of Temporary
Disability Assistance.
MR. CONNOLLY: I just don't think it's
appropriate for the court to be taking factual evidence
and representations, whether it's from the general
counsel of an agency or counsel for respondent. I just
don't think it's appropriate at this point. You sort of
ruled on this. You directed us all in the past not to do
this, and I don't know the validity of any of these
representations regarding the State agency. I figure
this is, quite frankly, completely irrelevant to this
proceeding as to where we are procedurally in this matter
8/3/2019 Mun. Resp. Exh D - (# Legal 3126902)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mun-resp-exh-d-legal-3126902 24/26
8/3/2019 Mun. Resp. Exh D - (# Legal 3126902)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mun-resp-exh-d-legal-3126902 25/26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
25
Proceedings
City Council will take.
THE COURT: I can't recall. I don't have the
papers before me.
MR. METZLER: We appreciate all your time, your
Honor. Thank you for all the attention you've given to
this case.
THE COURT: And I would request, however, that
factual assertions not be sent to me in letters. The
motion has been submitted. I'm now going to accept
additional papers but it's really not appropriate for
additional arguments or issues related to what's happened
after the submission to be presented to me. As I said, I
understand the urgency of the situation.
MR. MASTRO: I appreciate that, too, your Honor.
We did not want to take all of that time for motion
practice as your Honor has cut through it. I wanted to
put before your Honor very quickly the concerns we had.
And your Honor asked us to pursue a certain course, we
will pursue that course and we appreciate it.
MR. METZLER: Will you consider that letter
withdrawn?
MR. MASTRO: I'm not withdrawing the letter, no.
THE COURT: I'm stating for the record I'm not
going to consider the letters. I asked Mr. Metzler to
inform the court of the scheduling.