Doe v. Village of Mamaroneck
| Decision Date | 20 November 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 06 CIV. 3243(CM)(MDF).,06 CIV. 3243(CM)(MDF). |
| Citation | 462 F.Supp.2d 520 |
| Parties | John DOE No. 1, John Does Nos. 3 and 4, John Doe Nos. 6 Through 8 and National Day Laborer Organizing Network, Plaintiffs, v. VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK, Phillip Trifiletti, as Mayor of the Village of Mamaroneck, Edward Flynn, as Chief of Police of the Village of Mamaroneck, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Lino John Sciarretta, Thacher Profitt and Wood LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants.
The court, for its findings of fact, conclusions of law and verdict:1
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff John Doe No. 1 is a 27 year-old male of Guatemalan descent, who has resided in the Village of Mamaroneck recurrently for four and a half years. (Doe No. 1 ¶ 1.)
2. Plaintiff John Doe No. 3 is a 24 year-old male of Guatemalan descent, who has resided in the Village of Mamaroneck since February 2006. (Doe No. 3 ¶ 1.)
3. Plaintiff John Doe No. 4 is a 34 year-old male of Guatemalan descent, who has resided in the Village of Mamaroneck for five and a half years. (Doe No. 4 ¶ 1.)
4. Plaintiff John Doe No. 6 is a 36 year-old male of Mexican descent, who has resided recurrently in the Village of Mamaroneck for eight years. (Doe No. 6 ¶ 2.)
5. Plaintiff John Doe No. 7 is a 40 year-old male of Guatemalan descent, who has resided in the Village of Mamaroneck for fourteen years. (Doe No. 7 ¶ 2.)
6. Plaintiff John Doe No. 8 is a 42 year-old male of Salvadorian descent, who has resided in the Village of Mamaroneck for thirteen years. (Doe No. 8 ¶ 3.)
7. Plaintiff National Day Laborer Organizing Network ("NDLON") is an unincorporated not-for-profit organization that provides advocacy on behalf of, and assistance to, day laborers across the United States, including those in Mamaroneck. (Newman ¶ 4; T. 197:4-8 (Newman)).
8. The aims of NDLON include working for the repeal or invalidation of laws that restrict the right of day laborers to solicit employment. (PX 102.)
9. NDLON's resources are expended on its mission of assisting day laborers. (TT p. 196.)
10. NDLON has been a plaintiff in at least two other federal litigations in which its resources have been expended in furtherance of litigation (TT pp. 97-98.)
11. At the time that this lawsuit was commenced, NDLON had 5 employees, including Mr. Chris Newman ("Mr.Newman"), whose position is Legal Programs Coordinator. (TT p. 194.)
12. The resources utilized by NDLON in this case were time and expenses for both Mr. Newman and Mr. Fernando Pacheco (NDLON's East Coast Coordinator) to travel to the Village to meet with day laborers to discuss day laborer issues in the Village, including this lawsuit. (TT p. 200.)
13. NDLON came to the Village in connection with the de-designation of the Parking Lot Site. (TT pp. 204-205.)
14. Mr. Newman met with the day laborers three or four times after the Parking Lot Site was de-designated. (TT p. 200.)
15. NDLON is being legally represented without charge. (TT p. 203.)
16. NDLON has no individual members. (TT p. 194.) NDLON's membership is comprised solely of organizations. (TT p. 194.)
17. The record does not show who, if any, the organizational members of NDLON are.
18. The individual day laborer plaintiffs, John Does 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8, are not members of NDLON. (TT p. 195.)
19. NDLON has not devoted resources to address the day laborer situation in Mamaroneck above and beyond what it would have in the ordinary course of business.
20. The claims of John Does 2 and 5 have been withdrawn.
21. Defendant Village of Mamaroneck (the "Village") is a New York municipal corporation, located within Westchester County, New York.
22. The Village is governed by a five-member Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees consists of the Mayor of the Village, Defendant Philip Trifiletti, Joseph Angilletta, William Paonessa, Tony Vozza and Thomas Murphy.
23. By Village ordinance, each of the members of the Board of Trustees is also a Police Commissioner.
24. Defendant Philip Trifiletti is the Mayor of the Village of Mamaroneck and a member of the Board of Trustees. He is the Village Official charged with overall responsibility for implementing and administering the policies of the Village of Mamaroneck.
25. The Mayor gives directions to the Village Chief of Police regarding, among other things, concentrations of police activity. (DX 40.)
26. Defendant Edward Flynn is the Chief of the Village of Mamaroneck Police Department. He is responsible for implementing and administering the policies of the Village Police Department.
27. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants were acting under color of law.
28. For half a century or more, immigrants — who typically numbered from 20 to 30 (T. 687:24-688:7, 721:2-20 (Trifiletti); PX94a) — have gathered on a daily basis in the Columbus Park area of the Village for the purpose of soliciting employment. (T. 687:12-15 (Trifiletti), 631:6-14 (Angilletta)).2
29. Columbus Park, a public park adjacent to the Mamaroneck train station, is located in an area of the Village of Mamaroneck known as Washingtonville. Washingtonville contains businesses and residences and is a dense and active neighborhood. It is also a very diverse neighborhood, with a large Latino population, as well as Chinese, Italian, Irish, African American and Caucasian residents (Tr. 40-41, 583, 663, 750, 752, 807; DX 111, 115, 121.)
30. Before the early 1990s, those seeking employment were predominantly white. (T. 631:15-20 (Angilletta), 687:20-23 (Trifiletti)).
31. Today, those seeking employment (hereinafter the "day laborers") are almost exclusively Latino. (T. 16:1-3 (Viera) 95:19-96:1 (Rolon), 178:16-18 (Candamil), 329:6-9 (Lopez), 432:22-433:3 (Flynn), 687:16-19 (Trifiletti); Doe No. 1 ¶¶ 9-10, Doe No. 6 ¶¶ 17, Rolon ¶ 5.)
32. Village officials do not know whether or not the day laborers are immigrants and do not know their immigration status. ('7. 433:4-11 (Flynn)).
33. Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, Latino day laborers gathered in the Village's historic immigrant-assembly area, which was located on Van Ranst Place (which borders Columbus Park). There, they obtained work from contractors and other employers on a regular basis. (T. 15:18-24 (Viera), 692:11-17 (Trifiletti); 782:14-15 (Gitlitz); see PX15.)
34. In the two years immediately preceding August 2004, the number of day laborers seeking work within the Village ranged, on average, from 60 to 80. (T. 15:21-24 (Viera), 784:18-21 (Gitlitz), 434:2-9 (Flynn)).
35. Despite their increased numbers compared to their non-Latino predecessors, the actions of Latino day laborers prior to 2004 were monitored by no more than a routine police presence. (T. 20:1-4 (Viera), 436:7-12 (Flynn), 785:23-786:8 (Gitlitz)).
36. During this time, an average of approximately 12 to 15 contractors per day would stop to pick up workers as they gathered on Van Ranst Place. (T. 20:5-15, 785:11-13 (Gitlitz)). This occurred between the hours of 7 A.M. and 11 A.M.
37. By way of background, plaintiffs allege that Village officials began a "campaign of harassment and intimidation" against the day laborer's in response to pressure from Park View Condominiums, the developer of a luxury condominium across the street from the day laborer site. (Second Amended Cplt. ¶ 34.) The parties have stipulated that in January 2006 construction did begin on a new luxury condominium building across the street. (Id. ¶ 31; Second Amended Answer ¶ 31.) Further, plaintiffs allege and defendants concede that John Lese, an agent for the developer, wrote several letters to Village trustees and/or its attorneys prior to the commencement of the construction. (Second Amended Cplt. ¶ 32; Second Amended Answer ¶ 32.) However, since plaintiffs have not submitted the letters into evidence, and there is no other evidence of either their content or the dates on which they were sent in the record, this court cannot conclude, as plaintiffs allege, that Village officials were under pressure from the developer in or about August 2004, when the activity that forms the basis of this lawsuit began.
38. Village officials unilaterally determined, in August 2004, that the day laborers would no longer be permitted to gather on Van Ranst Place. Instead, the workers were directed to gather in a commuter parking lot at the northwest corner of Columbus Park, where Van Ranst intersects with Jefferson Avenue (hereinafter, the "Site"). (T. 23:10-13, 25:16-19 (Viera.); 442:11-15 (Flynn); Doe No. 7 ¶ 4; DX80.) A sign was posted at the Site, which read "Pick-Up Location Day Laborers," and first one, and then a second, entrance/driveway were added to the parking lot (with the approval of the Village Traffic Commission, the Mayor and the Board) to accommodate this use of the Site. (Tr. 576-77, PX 95.)
39. In late August and early September 2004, the Mayor began making public statements (a) decrying the number of day laborers in Mamaroneck, suggesting that their numbers had grown to 200 to 225, and (b) claiming that the great majority of these workers were not residents of the Village. (T. 690:20-25 (Trifiletti); DX67; PX94a.)
40. The mayor had no factual basis for making either of these assertions.
41. Police Chief Flynn estimated that the number of day laborers gathering at this time on Van Ranst Place — the predominant gathering place for day laborers prior to the establishment of the Site (e.g., T. 782:12-15 (Gitlitz)) — was less than half the number suggested by the Mayor. (T. 434:2-9, 436:7-12 (Flynn)).
42. The Mayor conceded that no study confirming the residency of the day laborers was done until May of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New Hope Family Servs., Inc. v. Poole
...in its enforcement of some neutral law or policy will rarely if ever fail to achieve its purpose." Doe v. Vill. of Mamaroneck , 462 F. Supp. 2d 520, 546 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).Again, for all the reasons set forth above, nothing in the complaint plausibly alleges that OCFS was motivated by a discri......
-
Vito Savino & Savino, Inc. v. Town of Se. & Charles Tessmer
...564, 120 S.Ct. 1073, 145 L.Ed.2d 1060 (2000); accord Neilson v. D'Angelis, 409 F.3d 100, 104 (2d Cir.2005); Doe v. Village of Mamaroneck, 462 F.Supp.2d 520, 543 (S.D.N.Y.2006). As previously noted, Plaintiffs' amended complaint stated a claim under the Equal Protection Clause on two alterna......
-
Christian v. Town of Riga
...violation.'" See Goldfarb v. Town of West Hartford, 474 F.Supp.2d 356, 368 (D.Conn.2007) (quoting John Doe No. 1 v. Vill. of Mamaroneck, 462 F.Supp.2d 520, 555 (S.D.N.Y.2006)). The only reference in the Amended Complaint to how another person was treated is the claim that "[o]n or about 10 ......
-
Cent. Ala. Fair Hous. Ctr. v. Magee
...Fair Hous. Action Ctr. v. St. Bernard Parish, 648 F.Supp.2d 805, 811–12 (E.D.La.2009) (Berrigan, J.); Doe v. Village of Mamaroneck, 462 F.Supp.2d 520, 530 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (McMahon, J.). Further, Arlington Heights recognized that, in “some extraordinary instances the members might be called t......