Exhibit A

Chelsea Flatiron Coalition

http://www.chelseaflatironcoalition.org/Documents/chelflat022411.htm

February 24, 2011

NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn Advises DHS & BRC Not To Move Forward With Plans For 25th Street Shelter While CFC Lawsuit is Pending.
On February 22, 2011, New York City Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn served the Bowery Residents' Committee, Inc. ("BRC") and Commissioner Seth Diamond of the New York City Department of Homeless Services ("DHS") with a letter regarding their proposal to operate a 328-bed homeless shelter, alcohol and drug detoxification and psychiatric treatment facility on West 25th Street in Chelsea. The Speaker's letter, available here, advised BRC and DHS that the proposed size of the facility is too large for our neighborhood. Speaker Quinn, referencing the lawsuit filed by the Coalition, noted that our claims create "a significant level of uncertainty about the future of this project." Accordingly, the Speaker advised that the "project [should] not move forward until the result of the lawsuit is clear," and that the public is owed the opportunity to review certain of the environmental studies that have yet to be completed. The Coalition agrees with and supports Speaker Quinn's position that "[a]nything less would be an attempt to subvert transparency." First and foremost, the Coalition acknowledges with appreciation the efforts of the Speaker and her staff in reviewing and analyzing the various issues related to BRC's ill-conceived proposal. The Speaker's office has spent countless hours discussing these issues with individual members of the Coalition and its professional advisors. We expect BRC and DHS to be guided by the Speaker's letter. The Coalition is prepared to provide the community with its day in court, ensuring that our voices are heard and that the City subjects this project to the legally required reviews and processes. The Speaker has done her part, and now it is time for the community to do its part. We ask that you make a donation as soon as possible using the guidelines below: We ask that residents contribute at least $750 per bedroom and that commercial property owners contribute at least $1 per square foot. If you have not yet contributed, or if you have contributed less than the suggested amount, we ask that you contribute now. While this is undeniably a lot to ask during such difficult times, the economic and community changing consequences are far more severe if the 25th Street plans for a 328 bed psychiatric treatment, homeless shelter and substance abuse detoxification facility go through. Finally, we direct your attention to BRC Executive Director Lawrence Rosenblatt's Letter to the Editor published in the February 23, 2011 edition of Chelsea Now. Rosenblatt, in an attempt to deflect attention from his efforts to subvert legally required processes, asks CFC to disclose to him the names of the members of the Coalition, and suggests that we are hiding behind our lawyers. We find his request and his accusation irrelevant and insulting. The Coalition is indeed represented by counsel, but we are not hiding behind our lawyers. The Speaker has met with members of the Coalition on a number of occasions, and her staff speaks with CFC members on an almost daily basis. The Coalition chooses to speak through our elected representatives and our professional advisors. Mr. Rosenblatt, in his letter, says "''shame' on the CFC for demanding transparency . . . ." We find nothing shameful about aligning ourselves with and taking positions consistent with those of the New York City Council Speaker.

1 of 2

8/18/2011 12:02 AM

Chelsea Flatiron Coalition

http://www.chelseaflatironcoalition.org/Documents/chelflat022411.htm

Checks and PayPal are accepted (PayPal takes a 3% fee). Please make checks out to "Bracewell & Giuliani LLP" and send to: Chelsea Business & Property Owners' Association, LLC c/o Bracewell & Giuliani LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 49th Floor New York, NY 10020 Attn: Craig Warkol, Esq. Together we can see that the rights of everyone in Chelsea/Flatiron Districts are protected.

2 of 2

8/18/2011 12:02 AM

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

Exhibit D

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 -against9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 A P P E A R A N C E S: 22 23 24 25 26 BRACEWELL & GIULIANI, LLP Attorneys for the Petitioner 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020-1104 212-508-6104 BY: DANIEL S. CONNOLLY, ESQ. RACHEL B. GOLDMAN, ESQ. THE CITY OF NEW YORK; SETH DIAMOND, Commissioner for the Department of Homeless Services of the City of New York ("DHS"); GEORGE NASHAK, Deputy Commissioner for Adult Services for DHS; ROBERT D. LIMANDRI, Commissioner for the Department of Buildings of the City of New York ("DOB"); FATMA P. COLGATE, R.A., Assistant Commissioner for DOB; JAMES P. COLGATE, R.A., Assistant Commissioner to Technical Affairs and Code Development for DOB; VITO MUSTACIUOLO, Deputy Commissioner for the Department of Housing, Preservation & Development of the City of New York, BOWERY RESIDENTS' COMMITTEE, INC.; 127 WEST 25TH LLC; and DANIEL SHAVOLIAN, Respondents. ----------------------------------------------X Index No. 113194/10 60 Centre Street TELEPHONIC MOTION New York, New York August 1, 2011 B E F O R E: HONORABLE JOAN A. MADDEN, Justice SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY - CIVIL TERM - PART 11 ----------------------------------------------X In the matter of the Application of CHELSEA BUSINESS & PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, LLC, d/b/a CHELSEA FLATIRON COALITION, Petitioner, For an Order pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules

2 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 MICHAEL J. DAUGENTI, CSR, RPR, RMR, CRR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER CLAUDE CASTRO & ASSOCIATES, PLLC Attorneys for Respondents 127 West 25th, LLC and Daniel Shavolian 355 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 BY: PAUL MARTIN, ESQ. A P P E A R A N C E S: (Continued)

NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL Attorneys for the Municipal Respondents 100 Church Street New York, New York 212-788-1145 BY: CHRISTOPHER KING, ESQ. SHERYL NEUFELD, ESQ. HALEY STEIN, ESQ. GIBSON DUNN Attorneys for Respondent Bowery Residents Committee 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 212-351-4000 BY: RANDY M. MASTRO, ESQ. GEORGIA WINSTON, ESQ. NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL BY: JEFFREY METZLER, ESQ. LAUREN AXELROD, ESQ. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS SERVICES BY: MICHELE OVESEY, ESQ.

3 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 Honor. Council. THE COURT: Proceedings I have a court reporter here. I'd

like you to identify who is on the line. put you on speaker phone. MR. CONNOLLY:

I'm going to

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

I'm the associate counsel on behalf of the

applicant, the New York City Council, along with Lauren Axelrod. THE COURT: MR. MASTRO: for respondent BRC. MR. KING: Chris King, your Honor, from the New Is there anyone else there? Randy Mastro and Georgia Winston

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

4 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 THE COURT: Proceedings You all received the courtesy copy

of the motion made by Mr. Metzler on behalf of the City Counsel? MR. CONNOLLY: MR. MASTRO: MR. KING: Yes, your Honor.

Yes, your Honor.

Yes, your Honor. Yes, your Honor. Will the municipal defendants -- Mr.

MR. MARTIN: THE COURT:

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. too late at this time to raise those issues. THE COURT: Mr. Metzler? Yes, your Honor, while it is true And it's

MR. METZLER:

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

5 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 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: to, Mr. Mezler? MR. MEZLER: THE COURT: MR. MEZLER: Well, specifically the argument -Other than the preemption argument. The notion that the 200-bed limit What specifically are you referring

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

6 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 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

7 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 to that issue? MR. METZLER: I don't know that we made I Proceedings

reference to each of these individual arguments.

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 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 issue. MR. MASTRO: With the exception of the Proceedings include any of the arguments including the Camp LaGuardia exemption. That's not being properly applied here. Again, your Honor, we submit that

MR. KING:

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: respondents BRC. Your Honor, Mr. Mastro for

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

9 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 call. (There is a pause in the proceedings.) THE COURT: MR. MASTRO: Yes, Mr. Mastro. Your Honor, just a suggestion. We Mr. -THE COURT: Excuse me, I have another phone preemption issue. Proceedings 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,

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. soon as possible. It's fully before you as

10 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 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

11 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 Mastro. that. MR. MASTRO: THE COURT: Put your papers in. Who's speaking? This is Jeffrey Metzler. I know in. Proceedings 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

MR. METZLER:

Mr. Mastro is fond of drama. vacation this week. MR. MASTRO: MR. METZLER:

He knows I'm away on

That's not an excuse. Okay, okay, he's prejudiced, Mr.

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

12 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 issue? MR. MASTRO: MR. METZLER: Correct, your Honor. Yes, that is correct. And as I 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. know, it's crazy. You

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. even received notice isn't accurate. it by third parties -THE COURT: That's only as to the preemption To say we

We found out about

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. 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 It's

doesn't have the same city-wide implications because it

13 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 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. to intervene. It wasn't important enough for them

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.

14 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 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 And if you want to try and

prejudice and see how I rule.

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. 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. outrageous, your Honor. MR. METZLER: ones who noticed -THE COURT: Please, counsel, I've heard enough,. The outrageous part is you're the That's Who knows how your

Mr. Metzler, I am going to adhere to my suggestion that you be permitted to put in papers on the

15 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 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: stipulates. MR. KING: your Honor. We will stipulate to preemption only, This is Dan Connolly. CFC so

Municipal respondents, I think we agree with I do agree with

Mr. Mastro's suggested approach here. 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

16 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 quickly. the 10th. August? MR. METZLER: Your Honor, the short answer is 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 You need to have your papers in by August Can opposition be submitted by the 17th of

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. will be concluded next week. Hopefully that trial

But it is being worked on,

and I'm trying to do it as quickly as possible.

17 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 MR. MASTRO: Proceedings Your Honor, you've been great. We

It's an additional burden being brought upon you. 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: THE COURT: No objection, your Honor.

Counsel? I'm sorry, your Honor, I lost

MR. METZLER:

track of what we were -THE COURT: Just in connection with the Let me rephrase that.

procedural issues, how to get.

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: THE COURT: MR. KING: Your Honor, we would need the 17th. Who is that, Mr. King? Yes. Your Honor, I understand that this

MR. METZLER:

18 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 Honor. question? MR. METZLER: No, it is not a large office, your office. THE COURT: Mr. Mastro, please. It is not a big office. You can get it done by the 10th Proceedings needs to be done quickly. delay. As I said we're not trying to

I literally get back from vacation, I can't write I am getting back from vacation If we could

the papers where I am.

the day before you're having the papers due.

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: MR. METZLER: Your office -Mr. Mastro, you don't know

anything about our office. MR. MASTRO: I do know something about your

MR. METZLER: MR. MASTRO:

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

The General Counsel's office, the City Council,

will be working on these papers, six attorneys, only two

19 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 Monday. Proceedings of whom are litigators. THE COURT: Are you one of those two? I am one of the two, and then we

MR. METZLER:

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

I assume you're returning on August the 8th. MR. METZLER: I'm returning at about noon on

August the 8th. MR. CONNOLLY: THE COURT: Perhaps August 12th, that Friday.

August 12th. Thank you.

MR. METZLER: THE COURT: the 19th sufficient? MR. MASTRO: THE COURT:

Mr. Mastro and the City is August

Yes, your Honor. August the 19th. Yes, your Honor.

MR. METZLER: THE COURT:

Shall I say submission only unless I

20 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 copy? MR. MASTRO: I certainly would, your Honor, Honor. THE COURT: August the 12th for submission by Proceedings direct you to come in for oral argument? MR. CONNOLLY: your Honor. I have no objection with that,

This is Dan Connolly. That's fine by the City, as well.

MR. METZLER: MR. KING:

It's fine by the City Council, your

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. parties received Mr. Mastro's letter? MR. CONNOLLY: Actually, I don't believe the Have the other

City Council was included on that, your Honor. MR. METZLER: your Honor. anything. THE COURT: Mr. Mastro, would you send them a We have not received anything,

We, the city council, did not receive

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 Is that your

another letter that's dated August 1st.

most recent submission, I assume, Mr. Mastro?

21 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 MR. MASTRO: Proceedings 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 COURT: The detox unit is in. 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.

22 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 message. 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: Council, your Honor. MR. METZLER: MR. MASTRO: I didn't receive it. I absolutely did, Mr. Metzler. It I served this letter on the City

is not an e-mail message. MR. CONNOLLY: It's not either an e-mail

When was this letter delivered? MR. MASTRO: MS. OVESEY: It was delivered today, your Honor. 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,

23 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 question? MS. OVESEY: Disability Assistance. MR. CONNOLLY: I just don't think it's It's the Office of Temporary Proceedings that they are waiting for your Honor's ruling. MR. CONNOLLY: testifying. MS. OVESEY: stating a fact. THE COURT: MS. OVESEY: What department is that? I'm the general counsel for And it's our I'm not testifying. I'm just I don't know if Miss Ovesey is

Department of Homeless Services.

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

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. don't think it's appropriate at this point. ruled on this. I just

You sort of

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

24 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 Proceedings and I'd ask you to disregard and reject Mr. Mastro's letter today and any other comments he made about factual representations about what State agencies may or may not be doing. MR. MASTRO: Your Honor, Speaker Quinn's letters

to this particular State agency I believe were posted that same day and said not to rule on Mr. Connolly's client's Web site. court. I'm happy to submit them to the

We have gotten copies of them. THE COURT: What am I to do other than to try to

get a decision out as quickly as possible, which I'm trying to do? I understand the urgency of the situation.

I understand the concerns of all the parties, and I am going to -- I'm having the decision worked on and hopefully I will get it out as soon as possible. If the papers are submitted by the 19th, I should be able to look at the arguments contained in the papers and since the arguments in the City Council's papers have already been briefed by the other parties, with the exception of the preemption, which only the municipal respondents have briefed in detail, I should be able to consider the papers as expeditiously as possible. MR. MASTRO: Thank you, your Honor. And I

should point out BRC did brief in its reply the preemption issue and will take the same position as the

25 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 Honor. Proceedings City Council will take. THE COURT: papers before me. MR. METZLER: We appreciate all your time, your I can't recall. I don't have the

Thank you for all the attention you've given to

this case. THE COURT: And I would request, however, that The

factual assertions not be sent to me in letters. 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. understand the urgency of the situation. MR. MASTRO: I appreciate that, too, your Honor. As I said, I

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: withdrawn? MR. MASTRO: THE COURT: I'm not withdrawing the letter, no. I'm stating for the record I'm not I asked Mr. Metzler to Will you consider that letter

going to consider the letters.

inform the court of the scheduling.

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 --------------------------------------MICHAEL J. DAUGENTI, CSR, RPR, RMR, CRR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER SUPREME COURT-NEW YORK COUNTY It is hereby certified that the foregoing is a true and accurate transcript of the proceedings. C E R T I F I C A T E MR. METZLER: THE COURT: * Proceedings Thank you, your Honor.

Have a good evening, everyone. * *

Exhibit E

Exhibit F

2
3

CITY COUNCIL CITY OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------x
5

THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE MINUTES

6

of the
7

COMMITTEE ON GENERAL WELFARE

8

-------------------------------x
October 30, 1998 Start: 10:15 a.m. Recess: 11:05 a.m. City Hall Committee Room New York, New York B E FOR E:

9 10
11

12 13 14 15

STEPHEN DiBRIENZA 16 17 COUNCIL MEMBERS: 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 LEGAL-EASE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC. 217 Broadway - Suite 511 New York, New York 10007 (800) 756-3410 Ronnie Eldridge Martin Malave-Dilan Juanita Watkins William Perkins Angel Rodriguez Mike Abel Thomas Ognibene Chairperson,

Legal-Ease Court Reporting Services, Inc. 410

(800) 756-

33 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 COMMITTEE ON GENERAL WELFARE shelters a place where people will want to go rather than the streets. We don't want the shelters to become so chaotic that some would choose to sleep on the street instead. CHAIRPERSON DiBRIENZA: Thank you. Actually, you bring up a very key element of the first bill, which is continued in this bill. The Governor of the State of New York, by his actions, took away a long-standing 200-bed limit. The Governor took away the health and safety reporting requirements of the State saying they are duplicative of the existing City rules and regulation. He took away the traditional surge capacity, increasing it to virtually 90 days which could be the entire three coldest winter months. So, in its essence, at its heart, this bill restores what used to exist in those three areas, 200-bed limit, 30-day surge capacity, and health and safety reporting. Now, we can't mandate to report back to the state. What it does say is if you are relying on the City rules, if they are so terrific, if they are so strong, just report them to us. So, I appreciate that point being

Legal-Ease Court Reporting Services, Inc. 410

(800) 756-

38 1 2
3

COMMITTEE ON GENERAL WELFARE there a bill forwarded to the Mayor, as we recommended, he would have what, that is funny?

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 much. anything else?

CHAIRPERSON DiBRIENZA: No. No, no. It is not funny. Go on. MR. McDONALD: -- He would have signed it, and the agency would have been created, like the Council's Commission on the Homeless recommended. CHAIRPERSON DiBRIENZA: Okay. Is there

MR. McDONALD: No. CHAIRPERSON DiBRIENZA: Thank you very

MR. McDONALD: You are welcome. CHAIRPERSON DiBRIENZA: For the record -- thank you for that strange testimony. For the record, let me just repeat some of the strings attached or conditions that were commented on. This bill attempts to restore a 200-bed limit for new shelters for homeless adults, while all existing shelters are grandfathered in at their current rate. Some shelters exist and happen to work fairly well, even though they happen to be above 200. In a perfect world perhaps none of them

Exhibit G

Exhibit H

Exhibit I

Exhibit J