निम्न-आय आवास कर क्रेडिट (LIHTC) एक संघीय कार्यक्रम है जिसे HUD द्वारा संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका में किफायती आवास निर्माण के लिए सबसे महत्वपूर्ण संसाधन बताया गया है। हालांकि, LIHTC के तहत निर्मित ब्रोंक्स की एक परियोजना में हजारों किरायेदारों को बेदखली का सामना करना पड़ रहा है क्योंकि भवन प्रबंधन कंपनी किरायेदारों को आवश्यक पुन: प्रमाणन दस्तावेजों को संसाधित करने का विश्वसनीय तरीका प्रदान करने में विफल रही है। इसके बजाय, प्रबंधन ने किरायेदारों द्वारा कथित तौर पर नियमों का पालन न करने के आधार पर ब्रोंक्स हाउसिंग कोर्ट में सैकड़ों निराधार मामले दर्ज किए हैं। 

किरायेदारों को अक्सर आवश्यकताओं के बारे में पहले से सूचित नहीं किया जाता है। जब किरायेदार सीधे प्रबंधन कार्यालय जाने का प्रयास करते हैं, तो उन्हें अक्सर यह कहकर लौटा दिया जाता है कि उनसे मिलने के लिए कोई कर्मचारी उपलब्ध नहीं है। जो लोग पुन: प्रमाणीकरण दस्तावेज़ जमा करते हैं, उन्हें पता चलता है कि प्रबंधन ने या तो उन पर कार्रवाई नहीं की है या उन्हें खो दिया है। इस परिसर में 1,600 से अधिक अपार्टमेंट हैं, और मकान मालिक की कार्यप्रणाली से प्रत्येक अपार्टमेंट प्रभावित हो सकता है। किरायेदारों के लिए अपनी आय को पुन: प्रमाणित करने के लिए एक व्यापक और कारगर प्रणाली के अभाव में, किरायेदारों को संभावित कानूनी निर्णयों, बेदखली, तनाव, अदालती कार्यवाही के कारण काम से अनुपस्थिति और किरायेदार के किराए के हिस्से की गलत गणना का सामना करना पड़ सकता है।

हाउसिंग जस्टिस यूनिट न्यूयॉर्क राज्य के सुप्रीम कोर्ट में शिकायत दर्ज करने के लिए निःशुल्क सह-वकील की तलाश कर रही है, जिसमें हाउसिंग कोर्ट में लंबित सभी पुन:प्रमाणीकरण मामलों पर रोक लगाने और मकान मालिक को तब तक नए पुन:प्रमाणीकरण मामले दर्ज करने से रोकने के लिए निषेधाज्ञा जारी करने की मांग की गई है, जब तक कि वे किरायेदारों के लिए एक कार्यात्मक पुन:प्रमाणीकरण प्रक्रिया स्थापित नहीं कर लेते।

The Legal Aid Society’s Employment Law Unit seeks co-counsel to litigate an affirmative action in the SDNY on behalf of a client who was forced to work against her will for her immigration advocates.  

Our client, an undocumented immigrant, is originally from Morocco and came to the United States in September 2021 on an F-1 student visa. Shortly after arriving, she met her husband, who ended up sexually and physically abusing her. After she left the marriage in mid-2024, our client sought immigration help from a law firm. The law firm, who is a defendant in this matter, took advantage of our client by filing false immigration documents, charging her false immigration fees, and forcing her to perform labor in the office and babysit to pay off supposed attorneys’ fees, which is both abuse of process and debt bondage under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA). Our client worked for defendants from October 2024 to July 30, 2025, for almost 700 hours with no payment. After she left, our client filed a complaint with the Attorney Grievance Committee, which is currently pending.

This civil rights case challenged the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) condition of post-release supervision that prohibited our client from being present at his daughter’s birth and any in-person contact with her for about two years thereafter. The state’s ban on contact deprived our client of the opportunity to care for and bond with his daughter in the critical early years of her life. The complaint sought injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from enforcing this ban, declaratory relief declaring the ban violates his substantive and procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and appropriate monetary relief. The case is docket as Averhart v. Annucci et al, 7:2021cv00383 (SDNY) 

Our client was convicted of a sex offense in 2004. In 2017, he was released to his family home in Jamaica, Queens, where his mother, sister and brother-in-law reside. He had a dedicated and loving family. Although our client was registered through the Sex Assault Reform Act (SARA), which prohibited him from residing within 1,000 feet of a school, the family’s Jamaica address had long been deemed to be SARA-compliant by DOCCS. After his release, our client met someone, and his partner gave birth to a baby girl in 2019. Later that year, he was violated on a technical parole violation and sentenced to one year upstate.  He was to be released in Sept. 2020.  However, DOCCS refused to release him, and kept him incarcerated for about 9 months after his release date.  DOCCS asserted that our client, as a sex offender, could not be near a minor without parole authorization (which it was unwilling to give), and as a result, could not be released to his family home because “a minor” now lived there — i.e., his baby daughter.   When DOCCS wouldn’t budge despite clear judicial precedent that they were violating our client’s fundamental constitutional right to be a parent to his daughter and associate with family, The Legal Aid Society filed the §1983 suit, seeking injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from enforcing this ban, declaratory relief declaring the ban violates his substantive and procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and appropriate monetary relief. Meanwhile, we filed the writ in state court, which was also decided in our favor.

We won a preliminary injunction in June 2021, as well as the motion to dismiss decision in October 2025. The case had been stayed for over three years because our client died unexpectedly in November 2021. His sister, who had already been granted custody of his daughter, was named administrator of his estate in August 2025 and substituted as plaintiff. We anticipate that the dates in the current scheduling order will be pushed back at the upcoming court conference with the Magistrate on June 8 due to the defendants failure to produce the requested documents in discovery.

As a result of the delays caused by our client’s death, prior pro bono co-counsel is no longer able to remain on the matter.  We are seeking pro bono co-counsel to partner with our Special Litigation Unit to help ensure our client’s daughter and family receive the damages he was entitled to due to DOCCS illegal actions.

हमारी क्लाइंट न्यूयॉर्क स्थित एक क्लिनिक है जो सांस्कृतिक रूप से संवेदनशील, आघात-आधारित मनोचिकित्सा और पेशेवर कोचिंग प्रदान करती है। एक सुरक्षित टेलीहेल्थ प्लेटफॉर्म के माध्यम से, यह संस्था LGBTQ+ और BIPOC व्यक्तियों को सहायता प्रदान करने में विशेषज्ञता के साथ विविध ग्राहकों को सेवाएं देती है। 

आवेदक मानसिक स्वास्थ्य और व्यावसायिक विकास के क्षेत्रों में अपनी ब्रांड पहचान की रक्षा के लिए संघीय ट्रेडमार्क पंजीकरण में निःशुल्क सहायता चाहता है।

The Legal Aid Society’s Community Development Project (CDP) seeks a consultation with an attorney experienced in nonprofit tax law regarding several legal and compliance questions arising from a client’s unique relationship with another organization. For the purposes of this referral, Legal Aid would be the client.  

CDP is working with a nonprofit that intends to develop affordable housing. Our nonprofit client works closely with another nonprofit organization that provides supportive services to residents. The two organizations have board members that sit on each board and may be considered related organizations for federal tax purposes under the Internal Revenue Code.

CDP is seeking guidance on best practices for how to address this relationship through the client’s conflict of interest policy and governance procedures. Our team would also appreciate insight into any federal tax reporting implications, including disclosures that may be required on IRS Form 990, particularly Schedule R (Related Organizations and Unrelated Partnerships).