McCain v. Dinkins

• Decision Date: 10 May 1994
• Parties: , 639 N.E.2d 1132 Yvonne McCAIN et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. David N. DINKINS, as Mayor of the City of New York, et al., Appellants-Respondents, et al., Defendant. In the Matter of Maria LAMBOY et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. Barbara J. SABOL, as Administrator of the Human Resources Administration of the City of New York and as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services, et al., Appellants-Respondents, et al., Defendant. Karen SLADE et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. David N. DINKINS, as Mayor of the City of New York, et al., Appellants-Respondents, et al., Defendant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 335

616 N.Y.S.2d 335

84 N.Y.2d 216, 639 N.E.2d 1132

Yvonne McCAIN et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. David N. DINKINS, as Mayor of the City of New York, et al.,

Appellants-Respondents, et al., Defendant.

In the Matter of Maria LAMBOY et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. Barbara J. SABOL, as Administrator of the Human Resources

Administration of the City of New York and as Commissioner

of the New York City Department of Social Services, et al.,

Appellants-Respondents, et al., Defendant.

Karen SLADE et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. David N. DINKINS, as Mayor of the City of New York, et al.,

Appellants-Respondents, et al., Defendant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 10, 1994.

Paul A. Crotty, Corp. Counsel of New York City (Elizabeth Dvorkin, Leonard Koerner and George Gutwirth, of counsel), for appellants-respondents in the three above-entitled actions and proceeding.

Steven Banks, Kalman Finkel, Helaine Barnett, Jane Sujen Bock, Andrew W. Ko, Nancy Rosenbloom, Jane E. Booth, Scott A. Rosenberg and Richard Blum, New York City, for respondents-appellants in the three above-entitled actions and proceeding.

OPINION OF THE COURT

BELLACOSA, Judge.

As if the seeming insolubility of society's efforts to house the homeless were not a daunting enough problem, a collateral consequence takes center judicial stage arising out of a series of long-standing lawsuits culminating in contempt adjudications against the City of New York and four City officials.

The City and the four appointed City officers are held in contempt of judicial orders for disobeying mandates in the underlying cases, 192 A.D.2d 217, 601 N.Y.S.2d 271. Appellants include the City of New York; the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA); former First Deputy Mayor Norman Steisel; former Human Resources Administration Commissioner Barbara J. Sabol; former HRA Executive Deputy Commissioner Jeffrey Carples, who is currently Acting Commissioner of the New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS); and former HRA Deputy Commissioner Kenneth Murphy, who is currently Deputy Commissioner of DHS.

By leave of the Appellate Division on the municipality's and the officials' main appeal, this Court affirms the portion of the Appellate Division order upholding Supreme Court's findings of civil contempt, including the monetary fines payable by the City. The cross appeal by Legal Aid on behalf of the aggrieved homeless persons should also result in an affirmance. We find justified the modification by the Appellate Division striking, as unwarranted here, the sanction that would have incarcerated the four City officials in Emergency Assistance Units (EAUs). However, while the actions of the City's four agents warrant affirmance of their adjudication of contempt, the Appellate Division's remittal for imposing a new sanction as to them serves no remedial purpose in this case where those agents no longer hold office or pertinent offices. Therefore, to that extent only, we modify to strike the remittal. With this denouement of the collateral contempt features of the underlying lawsuits virtually ended, the parties and newly responsible public officials should return their full attention and humane efforts to solving or ameliorating the core, substantive problem itself.

I.

The Appellate Division order acted on two orders of Supreme Court: (1) dated November 13, 1992, which adjudged New York City in civil contempt of judicial orders in specified cases; and (2) dated December 8, 1992 (a) directing New York City to pay fines to homeless families who stayed overnight in City EAU offices before being appropriately sheltered; (b) finding four City officials in contempt; and (c) directing the officials to stay overnight in EAUs.

The contempt adjudications stem from a trilogy of court orders in consolidated matters. The litigations, started in the early 1980's, were brought on behalf of homeless persons in order to induce the City to comply with the New York State Department of Social Services Administrative Directive, 83 ADM-47 of September 1983 (Directive), which states:

"Local districts must have procedures in place to ensure that homeless persons or persons in imminent danger of becoming homeless can apply for emergency housing whenever such emergency housing is needed * * *

"Emergency housing must * * * be provided immediately if a homeless person is determined eligible * * *

"When the individual is determined to be in immediate need and is not determined to be ineligible, an emergency placement shall be made and other needs met." (83 ADM-47[IV][A][1][a], [b]; [2][b]

The Directive established baseline standards of shelter, sanitation and safety by prohibiting the City of New York from holding families with children overnight in welfare offices while awaiting appropriate accommodations. The Directive was incorporated into court decrees after findings of violations by the City of the Directive (McCain v. Koch, 117 A.D.2d 198, 502 N.Y.S.2d 720, revd. in part 70 N.Y.2d 109, 517 N.Y.S.2d 918, 511 N.E.2d 62 [1987], on remand 136 A.D.2d 473, 523 N.Y.S.2d 112; Matter of Lamboy v. Gross, 126 A.D.2d 265, 513 N.Y.S.2d 393, affg. 129 Misc.2d 564, 493 N.Y.S.2d 709; Slade v. Koch, 135 Misc.2d 283, 514 N.Y.S.2d 847, mod. 136 Misc.2d 119, 517 N.Y.S.2d 389).

Broadly summarized, the McCain order directs the municipality to "[p]rovide lawful emergency housing to all eligible homeless families with children, such emergency housing not to include overnight accommodations at Emergency Assistance Units or Income Maintenance Centers"; the Lamboy order prohibited the same City practice of holding families overnight in welfare offices because it violates the 1983 Administrative Directive, which requires that emergency housing "be provided immediately" to eligible homeless families; and the Slade order relates to baseline standards for sheltering pregnant women and infants. The three court orders establish compliance goals.

The voluminous record before us documents that the City and the four cited officials repeatedly failed to measure up to the essential compliance goals of these court orders, with "promises by City defendants to take specific actions to remedy [these] violations hav[ing] repeatedly been broken" (Sup.Ct., N.Y. County, Nov. 20, 1992, Freedman, J., index No. 41023/83). These officials tolerated homeless families with children being held overnight in welfare offices. Appellants do not deny that they failed to provide sufficient permanent housing and to fund all the homeless prevention initiatives they committed themselves to before Supreme Court in the November 1990 plan. Instead, they tender legally inexcusable reasons.

Homeless persons begin their quest for emergency shelter by entering an EAU. In theory, they enter an EAU office, fill out forms and, if determined eligible, are immediately placed in emergency housing (see, 83 ADM-47; Matter of Lamboy v. Gross, 126 A.D.2d, at 267, 513 N.Y.S.2d 393, supra). In practice, the municipality, which is unable to predict or prepare the EAUs for fluctuating demands, has left families with children in the EAUs overnight and in documented instances for several days. EAUs are offices with desks, chairs and tables, and are not designed or suitable to serve as any kind of dwelling space. The consequences of the City's practices include families sleeping on the chairs and on the floor, washing in the sinks of public restrooms, and suffering self-evidently unsanitary and unsafe traumas.

Appellants also do not dispute that homeless citizens were left to spend nights and days in the EAUs. They plead for the Court's understanding of the seemingly insurmountable shortage of housing to meet the problem, the crisis and the emergencies. They note that the supply and the uncontrollable influx of families and the unmatched demand are the dominating societal forces driving the homeless problem and evading plenary solution. They argue that they acted in good faith and to the best of a municipal ability to fulfill the court orders. In support of this claim, appellants recite increased demand and a series of failed strategies. In effect, they throw up their hands and say they did all they humanly or officially could do.

In the early 1980's, HRA found hotel rooms for approximately 800 homeless families. Most stayed just one or two months before moving into permanent housing. By 1983, when the McCain action began, there were 2,500 homeless families in hotels and shelters in New York City (see, HRA, Progress Report on the Five Year Plan for Housing and Assisting Homeless Families [Feb.1989]. The number of families seeking emergency housing continued to rise as the 1980's "progressed" and families began staying in shelter systems for longer periods. Five years after McCain was instituted, the number of families in emergency housing had burst to over 5,000. The increasing demand was met by the City drafting more and more hotels into its "system". The use of hotels educed sharp criticism, especially for its effects on young mothers, single-parent families, and the children growing up in such settings and conditions.

In the late 1980's, the City acquiesced in fundamental changes in the family shelter system. The City Council enacted Local Law No. 19 in 1988 to require the City to eliminate the use of welfare hotels by April 1993. In the spring and summer of 1990, the City put almost every low-cost apartment into the program for homeless families and dropped the requirements that families in emergency housing wait first in hotel units before being assigned to apartments. This accelerated placement of homeless families into permanent housing produced dramatic results. By August 1990, the 3,600 families in over 60 hotels in 1987 dropped to only 147 families in three hotels in the entire emergency housing system.

As the elimination of the use of hotels came within grasp, demands for emergency housing surged. Hundreds more...