This lawsuit challenged a policy of holding all people accused of parole violations in jail while waiting for a hearing to determine their guilt or innocence. The lawsuit demanded the opportunity for the release of over a thousand people jailed in New York City jails for alleged parole violations, often for something as small as failing to register a new address, reporting a change in employment, or for missing a meeting with their parole officer. In 2022, while the case was on appeal in the Second Circuit, the case was mooted by New York’s enactment of the Less is More Act, which ended the practices challenged in the lawsuit. (Corey Stoughton, Phil Desgranges)
Brief and Special Appendix

This lawsuit challenged the NYPD’s use of excessive force–specifically the continued use of chokeholds and misuse of tasers–on behalf of Tomas Medina, who was brutally assaulted by an officer arising from a noise complaint in Washington Heights in the summer of 2018. Despite the NYPD’s formal policy banning chokeholds, NYPD police officers still regularly misuse this dangerous maneuver. Between January 2015 and June 2018, the City has settled at least 30 lawsuits involving the use of chokeholds by the NYPD. During that same time period, the New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board (“CCRB”) received at least 582 allegations of NYPD officers using chokeholds against civilians. Equally disturbing, NYPD officers wrongly deploy Tasers in situations where civilians have shown no active aggression. The NYPD also overuses Tasers once they are deployed, with multiple or prolonged shocks resulting in needless pain and injury to civilians. This case was brought with co-counsel Covington & Burling LLP. In July 2021, after the court upheld our client’s claim on a motion to dismiss, the City settled the case, agreeing to pay substantial damages. (Corey Stoughton, Molly Griffard, Alex Lesman)
Complaint, Order, Settlement

This lawsuit challenges the NYPD’s unconstitutional practice of “digital stop-and-frisk” where NYPD officers illegally detain people, demand identification, and run warrant checks and records searches in their extensive databases without individualized suspicion. By using surveillance technology, the NYPD has supplemented traditional—and discredited—police practices such as stop and frisk with new digital searches that rely on surveillance systems to provide a detailed snapshot of people’s lives, from daily movements to financial footprints. We argued that prolonging such stops beyond the point where the arguable reasonable suspicion dissipated was unconstitutional, and the NYPD ultimately agreed, settling the case with changes to policies, practices and training that will endeavor to make it clear to offices that stops must end once there no longer exists reasonable suspicion, and may not continue to hold someone for the purpose of conducting a warrant check. This case was brought with co-counsel Stroock, Stroock & Lavan LLP and Handley, Farah & Anderson PLLC. (Molly Griffard, Anthony Posada)
Amended Complaint, Settlement

This lawsuit challenged the Port Authority Police Department’s discriminatory practice of using plainclothes police officers in men’s bathrooms to target men they perceive to be attracted to other men for false accusations of public lewdness. In 2022, following plaintiffs’ victory on summary judgment, the Port Authority settled this case for substantial damages and policy reforms. This case was brought with co-counsel Winston & Strawn LLP. (Marlen Bodden, Molly Griffard)
Complaint, Order

The ligation challenges the state prison system’s practice of holding sex offenders beyond the expiration dates of their prison sentences and months into their periods of “post-release supervision” solely because they cannot find a place to live that’s more than 1000 feet from “school grounds,” something that’s nearly impossible in densely populated New York City. Following a partial grant of summary judgment to the State of New York, this case is awaiting a decision on an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. This case was brought with co-counsel at Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, and Prisoners’ Legal Services of New York. (Robert Newman)
Brief 

This case challenged the NYPD’s shackling of a woman more than 40 weeks pregnant, forcing her to labor and then care for her newborn son in handcuffs. Between 2009 and 2015, New York State banned the use of restraints on pregnant people absent the most extraordinary of circumstances, yet NYPD officers frequently violate this ban, subjecting pregnant people to dehumanizing and painful labor. This case was filed with co-counsel at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP. In spring 2021, the case settled, with the City agreeing to pay our client substantial damages. (Anne Oredeko, Anthony Posada)

The Legal Aid Society participated as an amicus curiae in opposition to a lawsuit brought by several law enforcement unions that seeks to deny New Yorkers access to critical police and correction officer disciplinary records. This lawsuit was a backdoor effort to stymie the repeal of Police Secrecy Law 50-a, passed by an overwhelming majority in the New York State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo in June 2020. Following the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction, the unions abandoned their litigation and withdrew the case. (Corey Stoughton, Molly Griffard)
Amicus brief opposing a preliminary injunction. 

This case was a federal class action brought along with Paul, Weiss, Wharton, Rifkind and Garrison and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, to end a longstanding practice of unconstitutional stops, searches and false arrests of NYC public housing residents and their guests. The action was settled in 2013 by placing the policing of NYCHA Housing under the supervision of a Federal Monitor. The ongoing monitoring process has produced substantial revisions to NYPD training and regulations, including a requirement that all walk through patrols of NYCHA hallways be recorded on body cameras. (Corey Stoughton, Steve Wasserman, Molly Griffard, Jennvine Wong)
Decision

This case challenges the NYPD’s practice of arresting people for lower-level offenses that, under state law, are non-arrestable offenses subject only to the issuance of an appearance ticket. The case was filed in 2021 with co-counsel at Debevoise & Plimpton LLC. (Corey Stoughton, Marlen Bodden)
Complaint

This lawsuit against the Mayor of New York, the Police Commissioner, the City of New York, and several individual police officers challenges the indiscriminate brutalizing and unlawful arrest of peaceful protesters during the protests following the police killing of George Floyd. The suit addresses retaliation against New Yorkers for showing their support of Black lives and demanding an end to police violence. The suit claims the Mayor and City instituted a de facto policy allowing individual officers to violently target protesters by repeatedly approving forceful deployments and refusing discipline or repercussions for blatant officer misconduct. (Corey Stoughton, Jennvine Wong, Rigodis Appling)
Complaint

This lawsuit challenges the City of New York’s maintenance of a rogue DNA database, outside the confines of New York State’s regulated DNA database, where the DNA of people not convicted of any crime, including young people’s DNA, is stored. The lawsuit challenges the process of collecting and storing this DNA as a violation of the Fourth Amendment, as well as of state laws limiting and regulating the collection and maintenance of DNA records.

Challenge to New York State Department of Health’s policy refusing to provide essential dental care to Medicaid recipients with co-counsel Wilkie Farr and Gallagher LLP. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and the Department of Health’s made a motion to dismiss. The Department of Health’s Motion to Dismiss was almost entirely denied. The portion of the MTD that was granted was granted with leave to amend. We’ve filed an amended complaint. Discovery is ongoing. (Belkys Garcia, Rebecca Novick, Judith Goldiner)
Complaint, Amended Complaint

A challenge to the New York State Department of Health and a managed health care company, Healthfirst, was brought on behalf of Medicaid recipients who were denied a request for an increase in homecare services they needed in order to live in their homes and communities with with co-counsel Winston & Strawn The case was settled and monitoring of the defendants’ compliance with the settlement is ongoing. (Belkys Garcia, Rebecca Novick, Judith Goldiner)
Complaint

Newark sued New York City regarding homeless families being placed in Newark. We sought to intervene on behalf of a client who wants to move to Newark and a client who was placed in Newark in bad conditions. Our initial motion to intervene was denied, with leave to refile with a pleading. We refiled our motion to intervene with co-counsel Lowenstein Sandler LLP. (Josh Goldfein)

Case filed with co-counsel Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP against scatter site landlord on behalf of homeless residents and rent-regulated tenant against landlord and “social service provider” for violating the residents and tenants’ rights under rent regulation and failing to maintain decent conditions. Landlord’s motion to dismiss granted. Case is on appeal. (Sunny Noh, Judith Goldiner, Kat Meyers, Caryn Schreiber, Meghan Walsh, Shemori Corinthian, Perry McCall)

Class action case brought against the Department of Social Services for discriminating against homeless people with disabilities with co-counsel White & Case LLP. The case settled and monitoring of compliance with the settlement is ongoing. (Joshua Goldfein, Beth Hofmeister, Kathryn Kliff, Judith Goldiner)
Stipulation of Settlement 

In December 2013, The Legal Aid Society, along with pro bono co-counsel Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, LLC, filed C.W. v. The City of New York, a federal class-action lawsuit on behalf of runaway and homeless youth (RHY) ages 16 through 20 in New York City. The lawsuit sought to create a right to youth shelter, increase the number of beds and services available to RHY, ensure homeless youth with disabilities are afforded reasonable accommodations in accessing youth shelter and services, and establish due process protections for class members facing involuntary discharge from shelter. After years of litigation and extensive discovery, the parties settled and a federal judge approved the stipulation of settlement, the terms of which became effective in early 2021. Among other things, the settlement provides shelter to all 16 and 17 year olds who seek it; ensures that the City will maintain an adequate number of youth shelter beds; increases access to mental health services for RHY; and establishes due process procedures for RHY facing involuntary discharge from shelter. In addition to the terms of settlement, the C.W. team’s advocacy contributed to a 500 plus increase in the number of beds available to the class — nearly tripling the total number of beds – as well as the passage by the New York City Council of a slate of bills increasing both the amount of time RHY can reside in shelter as well as the age range of eligibility for shelter and services following amendments made to the NYS Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. C.W. was a collaboration between the Juvenile Rights Special Litigation and Law Reform Unit, the Homeless Rights Project, the LGBTQ+ Law and Policy Unit, and the Civil Law Reform Unit.(Beth Hofmeister, Judith Goldiner, Theresa Moser, Lisa Freeman)
Amended Complaint, Approved Settlement

Class action seeking relief for homeless families (with children and adult couples) who are denied shelter because of purported availability of other housing in housing with eligibility restrictions, including public housing, which is not available to them. (Joshua Goldfein, Beth Hofmeister, Judith Goldiner)

Case brought to ensure the right to shelter for homeless families. Case settled and is currently being monitored for compliance. (Judith Goldiner, Beth Hofmeister, Joshua Goldfein, Kathryn Kliff)
Judgment

Case brought to ensure the right to shelter for homeless men and women. Case settled with a consent order ensuring the right to shelter for homeless single adults. The settlement provides for monitoring by the Coalition for the Homeless. Monitoring continues. (Joshua Goldfein, Beth Hofmeister, Judith Goldiner)
Judgment

Landlords sued City and State alleging that rent stabilization is a taking and violates their due process. Tenant and homeless groups, with co-counsel Selendy & Gay PLLC, LSNYC, have intervened, and the motion to dismiss has been granted. (Ellen Davidson)

Related matters:

• 74 Pinehurst et al. v. City et al., CV 06447 (EDNY)
  Group of landlords sued saying rent stabilization is an as-applied taking. We intervened, and the motion to dismiss was granted almost entirely in full.
• Building & Realty Institute of Westchester and Putnam Counties et al v. State of New York and HCR, CV 11285 (SDNY)
  Group of landlords in Westchester sued saying rent stab is an as-applied taking. Our motion to intervene was granted. A motion to dismiss has been filed.
• G-Max Management et al v. State of New York et al, 20-cv-634 (SDNY)
  New group of landlords sued saying new rent stab law is a taking and violates fair housing law. Our motion to intervene was granted. A motion to dismiss has been filed.
• 335-7 et al v. State of New York et al., CV 01053 (SDNY)
  New group of landlords sued saying new rent stab law is a taking. Our motion to intervene was granted. A motion to dismiss has been filed.

Class action lawsuit brought with co-counsel Wilkie, Farr and Gallagher LLP against the New York City Housing Authority for failing to provide rent abatements due to NYCHA’s failure to provide heat and hot water in the winter of 2018. The trial court granted NYCHA’s motion to dismiss. On appeal, the First Department unanimously vacated the trial court’s judgment, reinstated the cause of action for breach of the warranty of habitability, and granted plaintiffs’ motion for certification of a “damages class.” The First Department noted that “NYCHA conceded that 80% of its housing units experienced heat and/or hot water outages during the relevant period, which demonstrates that the problems that affected each class member were system-wide,” and that “class action treatment is the most efficient method for adjudicating the claims of class members who lack the resources to bring individual actions for the small recovery they might obtain.” (Lucy Newman)
Decision

Class action filed, with co-counsel Milbank LLP, against landlord who failed to treat tenants as rent-stabilized while in receipt of J-51 tax benefits. The landlord’s motion to dismiss was denied. (Ellen Davidson, Amee Master)

Complaint filed against Parkash, a large landlord in Bronx, for refusing to accept our client’s Section 8 voucher. Currently in discovery. (Robert Desir)

Landlords brought a case against regulations promulgated by the New York State Department of Housing and Community Development. Motion to intervene on behalf of tenant organizations, filed with Patterson Belnap Webb & Tyler LLP and LSNYC, was granted. Decision to dismiss the landlords’ case was granted. Decision is currently on appeal to the Second Department. (Ellen Davidson)

Class action brought with co-counsel Skadden Arps against the New York City Housing Authority for failing to give due process and to accommodate tenants with mental disabilities in NYCHA’s termination of tenancy proceedings. Judge issued decision granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgement. Case settled requiring guardians ad litem to be appointed in appropriate cases at termination of tenancy proceedings and NYCHA to provide notice to housing court where the tenant lack competence. Counsel are monitoring compliance with settlement. (Lucy Newman, Judith Goldiner)

Complaint filed against ICE for making civil arrests against immigrants on their way to and from the NYS courts.  Filed with Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton as related to NY State and Brooklyn District Attorney v. ICE.  The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The case is ongoing. (Susan Cameron, Susan Welber)
Complaint

Along with co-counsel Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP and the Center for Constitutional Rights, we filed a complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction challenging the U. S. Dep’t of Homeland Security’s Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility final rule. While the district court granted the Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction, the injunction is currently stayed by the Supreme Court and is pending before the Second Circuit. Plaintiffs subsequently moved for a preliminary injunction for the duration of the Covid-19 pandemic emergency, which was granted, but stayed by the Second Circuit. That preliminary injunction is pending before the Second Circuit. The SDNY denied the Defendants’ MTD, and discovery is ongoing. (Susan Welber, Susan Cameron, Kathleen Kelleher)
Complaint, Motion for Preliminary Injection

Along with co-counsel Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the National Immigration Law Center, we filed a complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction challenging the Presidential Proclamation No. 9945 entitled “Presidential Proclamation on the Suspension of Entry of Immigrants Who Will Financially Burden the United States Healthcare System,” the U.S. Department of State’s interim final rule, Visas: Ineligibility Based on Pubic Charge Grounds, and the 2018 revisions to the Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual. The SDNY granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and denied the Defendants’ MTD. The litigation is ongoing. (Susan Welber, Susan Cameron)

Complaint filed with Bronx Defenders, Brooklyn Defenders, Wilmer Hale LLP, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP against ICE’s use of video conferencing which is interfering with attorney-client privilege.  Motion to dismiss by ICE granted.  After a motion under CLPR 59(e) to reinstate plaintiffs’ bond hearing and count six pending, the court declined to reconsider some of the claims and is staying a decision in others. (Jennifer Williams, Julia Dona)
Opinion and Order

A joint project of the Civil Law Reform Unit, the Immigration Law Unit, and the Juvenile Rights Special Litigation and Law Reform Unit, this federal class action lawsuit, brought with co-counsel Latham & Watkins LLP, successfully challenged the US Citizenship & Immigration Services’ (USCIS) change of policy that resulted in denials of Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) petitions submitted by 18-21 year-olds in New York State. SIJS status provides a path to citizenship for some undocumented young people. As a result, thousands of SIJS petitions are being re-adjudicated. Monitoring of the judgment is ongoing. (Beth Krause, Julie Dona, Amy Pont, Christina Romero, Liz Rieser-Murphy, Theresa Moser, Lisa Freeman)
Amended Complaint, Opinion and Order, Amended Judgment

With the assistance of pro bono counsel Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, The Legal Aid Society filed an amicus before the Second Circuit, joined by Lawyers For Children and the Children’s Law Center, on behalf of appellants in April. This amicus calls for the Second Circuit to reject the District Court’s application of the law in its decision denying class certification.  As the class at issue is all children in foster care in New York City, the Second Circuit’s determination will likely have a broad impact on our ability to bring class action litigation on behalf of our clients. The appeal is fully briefed. (Lisa Freeman, Kate Wood)

Along with Lawyers For Children and the Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, The Legal Aid Society brought a challenge as organizational plaintiffs pursuant to CPLR Article 78 to regulations adopted by the NYS Office of Children and Family Services establishing a Host Homes Program. Proskauer Rose LLP is serving as pro bono counsel on this lawsuit, filed on April 5, 2022.  These regulations effectively create a shadow foster care system without any of the procedural protections that children and their parents are due under state law.  Under this program, a child could be voluntarily placed by their parents into a “Host Home,” where they could languish for years.  They would not be entitled to speak with a lawyer, nor would the family be given any needed supports to facilitate reunification.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was fully briefed and argued.  We await a decision by the Court. (Lisa Freeman, Kimberly Schertz)

Along with Dechert LLP, JRP SLLRU brought this federal class action lawsuit challenging the State and City’s denial of kin foster and adoptive homes to children under its custody and supervision. Our clients are routinely denied safe, loving and familiar kin foster and adoptive homes because of the kin caregiver’s criminal history or records on the state registry of maltreatment. This history can be decades old and have no bearing on the relative’s current ability to care for the child. These denials have grim consequences: children who could have been placed with family are thrust into stranger foster care or institutional group care, or are deprived of necessary services and support. This practice only serves to magnify the trauma of parental removal children experience in foster care and leaves children unnecessarily vulnerable. The complaint was filed November 2021. State and City Defendants have filed motions to dismiss which are now fully briefed and we await the Court’s decision. (Kate Wood, Lisa Freeman, Kimberly Schertz)
Complaint

The Legal Aid Society drafted and filed an amicus brief that MFJ, NYLPI, Lawyers For Children, Children’s Law Center and Brooklyn Defender Services joined in this appeal to the Second Circuit. The District Court dismissed this challenge to the failure of NYC DOE to establish system-wide practices to provide compensatory educational services to kids in NYC for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The appeal is fully briefed. (Lisa Freeman, Melinda Andra, Anna Blondell)

In December 2013, The Legal Aid Society, along with pro bono co-counsel Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, LLC, filed C.W. v. The City of New York, a federal class-action lawsuit on behalf of runaway and homeless youth (RHY) ages 16 through 20 in New York City. The lawsuit sought to create a right to youth shelter, increase the number of beds and services available to RHY, ensure homeless youth with disabilities are afforded reasonable accommodations in accessing youth shelter and services, and establish due process protections for class members facing involuntary discharge from shelter. After years of litigation and extensive discovery, the parties settled and a federal judge approved the stipulation of settlement, the terms of which became effective in early 2021. Among other things, the settlement provides shelter to all 16 and 17 year olds who seek it; ensures that the City will maintain an adequate number of youth shelter beds; increases access to mental health services for RHY; and establishes due process procedures for RHY facing involuntary discharge from shelter. In addition to the terms of settlement, the C.W. team’s advocacy contributed to a 500 plus increase in the number of beds available to the class — nearly tripling the total number of beds – as well as the passage by the New York City Council of a slate of bills increasing both the amount of time RHY can reside in shelter as well as the age range of eligibility for shelter and services following amendments made to the NYS Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. C.W. was a collaboration between the Juvenile Rights Special Litigation and Law Reform Unit, the Homeless Rights Project, the LGBTQ+ Law and Policy Unit, and the Civil Law Reform Unit.(Beth Hofmeister, Judith Goldiner, Theresa Moser, Lisa Freeman)
Amended Complaint, Approved Settlement

A joint project of the Juvenile Rights Special Litigation and Law Reform Unit, Civil Law Reform Unit, and the Immigration Law Unit, this federal class action lawsuit, brought with co-counsel Latham & Watkins LLP, successfully challenged the US Citizenship & Immigration Services’ (USCIS) change of policy that resulted in denials of Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) petitions submitted by 18-21 year-olds in New York State. SIJS status provides a path to citizenship for some undocumented young people. As a result, thousands of SIJS petitions are being re-adjudicated. Formal monitoring has now ended. (Beth Krause, Julie Dona, Amy Pont, Christina Romero, Liz Rieser-Murphy, Theresa Moser, Lisa Freeman)
Amended Complaint, Opinion and Order, Amended Judgment

Along with Arnold & Porter LLP, we represent Intervenor Y.C.T. in this Hague Convention case filed by Y.C.T.’s father seeking her return to Guatemala. Plaintiff and intervenors’ motions to dismiss were granted, and the case was dismissed with prejudice by the District Court. Teller then filed an appeal, which was also dismissed. (Theresa Moser, Lisa Freeman)
Complaint, Judgment

Along with Davis, Polk and Wardwell LLP, and Lawyers For Children, JRP SLLRU brought and settled a state court class action lawsuit challenging the failure of the NYC Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) to ensure that youth aging out of foster care had stable housing and were not being discharged to homelessness. As a result of the settlement, ACS developed new policies extending the placement in foster care of some youth past the age of 21, increased training to its contract foster care agencies, developed new tracking practices, and took over supervision of youth discharged to independent living prior to their 21st birthday. Formal monitoring of compliance with the settlement ended in 2017. (Karen Gutheil, Beth Hofmeister, Lena McMahon, Courtney Camp, Jayne Cooper, Lisa Freeman)
Approved Settlement Stipulation, Approved Order and Final Judgment

Along with Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP, SLLRU brought this federal class-action lawsuit challenging the failure of NYC Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) to provide children in its custody in acute care psychiatric hospitals with adequate discharge planning and prompt discharge to the least restrictive setting. The parties reached a settlement requiring the development of new policies and the creation of the ACS Mental Health Coordination Unit (MHCU) responsible for tracking these children and providing technical assistance to foster care agencies. Monitoring of compliance concluded in 2016. For more information, contact Lisa Freeman.
Complaint, Stipulation and Order of Settlement

Along with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, LLP, JRP SLLRU brought and settled a federal class-action lawsuit on behalf of 14 named plaintiffs and the class of all youth adjudicated as juvenile delinquents and placed in certain facilities run by the Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS). The settlement provided damages to the named plaintiffs and required OCFS to implement policies to reduce the use of force and physical restraints against residents, including an end to the use of prone (face down on the floor restraints) and a requirement that restraints be used only as a last resort. The settlement also provided for comprehensive mental health services and the establishment of a quality assurance system to ensure that OCFS policies and procedures are in fact being followed. Monitoring of compliance with the settlement ended in 2018. (Christine Bella, Lisa Freeman, Theresa Moser)
Amended Complaint, Stipulation of Settlement

Along with Dewey Ballantine LLP and Advocates For Children, JRP SLLRU and CDP brought this federal class action lawsuit challenging educational practices of the NYC Department of Education (DOE) and the NYS Education Department for youth in or exiting court-ordered settings. The parties settled the claims, requiring that NYC DOE, among other things, the timely and appropriately re-enroll youth in school upon their return, including the timely development of an Individual Education Plan (IEP), and a review the transcripts of returning high school students to determine what credit will be awarded. Monitoring of the claims against NYC DOE terminated in 2016. For more information, contact Lisa Freeman.
Amended Complaint, Report and Recommendation, Amended Order

One of the most pressing problems undermining successful reentry after incarceration for people with serious mental health needs is the lack of housing and community-based mental health services and supports.  PRP and co-counsel Disability Rights New York and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP brought this case on behalf of several homeless people with serious mental illness who are being held in New York state prison past their release dates because they require community-based mental health housing upon release, but none is available.  The suit seeks an injunction requiring New York State to provide these individuals with the supportive services they need.  (Robert Quackenbush, Stefen Short, Veronica Vela)
Complaint, Amended Complaint

This is a putative class action on behalf of all women incarcerated in the New York State prison system, filed together with Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.  It challenges sexual abuse by correction officers and the failure of prison authorities to investigate allegations of sexual abuse thoroughly and to discipline staff who have sexually abused incarcerated people.  The case seeks reform of the oversight and investigation of sexual abuse in prisons statewide.  We have also represented individuals in separate actions against their abusers for the injuries caused by the sexual assault.  (Dori Lewis, Veronica Vela)
Complaint

Jairo Polanco Muñoz, a 24-year-old homeless man with a long history of serious psychiatric illness, was jailed in New York City because he could not pay the $750 bail on charges for stealing a phone in a donut shop.    Within three days, he died by suicide, after medical and correctional authorities ignored their own suicide prevention protocols and knowledge of his serious risks and prior suicidal behavior in City jails.  Together with O’Melveny & Myers LLP and Myers and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, PRP represents his surviving mother in a lawsuit against the City and the Health and Hospitals Corporation and in estate proceedings.  (Robert Quackenbush, Stefen Short, Veronica Vela)
Complaint

This suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act sought to redress the New York State prisons’ failure to accommodate the disabilities of legally blind and severely visually impaired people in their custody. DOCCS made substantial improvements pursuant to a settlement agreement.  (Veronica Vela)

This class action challenging systemic brutality by staff against people incarcerated in New York City jails resulted in a landmark consent decree mandating significant reforms in the use of force practices in the City jails.  (Mary Lynne Werlwas, Kayla Simpson, with Emery Celli Brinckerhoff and Abady)
Complaint, Consent Decree, Monitor Report

PRP challenged the inadequate mental health care in the state prison system. Incarcerated people were being kept in 23-hour solitary confinement for behavior caused or aggravated by their mental illness, and a “revolving door” syndrome in which people who decompensated in isolated confinement were psychiatrically committed but then returned to solitary. Together with Disability Advocates, Inc. and Davis, Polk & Wardwell LLP, we crafted a settlement that expanded treatment programs and mitigated the use and severity of isolated confinement for people with mental illness. Many of the protections of the settlement agreement have been incorporated into state statutes. For more information, contact Stefen Short.
Complaint, Settlement

This class action challenged the failure to accommodate people with hearing disabilities who are incarcerated in New York state prisons.  The court entered a consent judgment spelling out measures to provide proper accommodations for class members.   PRP continues to enforce compliance with the judgment and ensure that people with hearing disabilities receive the services and accommodations they need in state prison.  (Stefen Short, Veronica Vela)

When PRP brought this lawsuit to secure high school education for youth incarcerated in New York City’s adult jails, only about 40% of the eligible youth attended school in jail.  After the federal court found that New York City was violating these children’s constitutional and statutory rights, it entered successive injunctions to force the City to provide these high schoolers with their education.  As a result of the litigation, school attendance increased to about 90%.  With Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, we continue to enforce these decrees so that no child is deprived of a high school education due to incarceration in New York City. (Dori Lewis, Stefen Short, Mary Lynne Werlwas)
Complaint, Opinion 2000, Opinion 2002

The Prisoners’ Rights Project is regularly involved in litigation and non-litigation advocacy to ensure that mothers who give birth to children while incarcerated are not separated from their infants for at least the first year, if that is in the best interest of the child.  After PRP brought a class action in Earth v. Koch, Index No. 44549/83 (N.Y. Supreme Court), challenging New York City’s separation of newborn children from their mothers in violation of state correction law, the Department of Correction established a nursery facility on Rikers Island.  The State prison system also has a nursery program. We assist women in both City custody and in State prison in securing access to their nursery programs so they may parent their newborn children as the law provides.  (Dori Lewis)

This action challenged excessive force and violence against incarcerated people in the Correctional Institution for Men (now the Eric M. Taylor Center), the City’s jail for people serving misdemeanor sentences on Rikers Island.  After a lengthy trial, the court found that the pervasive violence violated the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment.  The lower court entered an injunction, affirmed on appeal.  In 2016, the parties agreed that the provisions of the Fisher judgment concerning use of force would be supplanted by the more stringent use of force relief in the Nunez litigation (see above).  Other provisions remain in effect.  (Veronica Vela, Dale Wilker)

These consolidated class actions challenge a broad range of inhumane conditions and practices in the entire New York City jail system, including overcrowding, fire risks, sanitation deficiencies and extreme temperatures.   They were resolved by comprehensive consent decrees, most of which became the basis for Department of Correction policy ever since.  Many of the decrees were terminated by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, which was upheld against PRP’s constitutional challenges.  An independent monitor, the Office of Compliance Consultants, was created, and PRP continues to enforce orders relating to sanitation, temperatures, lighting and fire safety in the jails.  (Robert Quackenbush, Veronica Vela, Mary Lynne Werlwas, Dale Wilker)

In this path-breaking complaint, PRP represents a transgender woman who was housed in male jails on Rikers Island following her shoplifting arrest, and sought placement instead in a women’s facility.   The complaint filed with the NYC Human Rights Commission alleges discrimination in her housing at Rikers Island in violation of the housing, public accommodation and disability protections in the NYC Human Rights Law. (Dori Lewis, Robert Quackenbush)

State court class-action was brought with co-counsel Kramer Levin on behalf of recipients of public assistance and food stamps who have been sanctioned based on inadequate notices alleging a failure to comply with employment-related requirements. Case settled and monitoring is ongoing. (Camille Zetner, Les Helfman)

Class action case was brought with co-counsel Milbank LLP concerning the rights of public assistance recipients with disabilities to access and maintain their benefits. Case settled and settlement was extended by 36 months by order dated July 9, 2019. Monitoring is ongoing. (Kathleen Kelleher, SusanWelber)
Amended Complaint, Settlement