New York City Defenders Sue Court Administrators Alleging Reopening Is Causing Bias Against Disabled
The lawsuit comes days after the organizations publicly objected to the planned return of the in-person court proceedings for nonemergency matters.
July 15, 2020 at 11:49 AM
4 minute read
Public defender organizations launched a lawsuit Tuesday against The New York state court system, saying a criminal court plan to start in-person appearances discriminates against people with disabilities.
The suit, filed in the federal Southern District of New York, is brought by the Legal Aid Society, Brooklyn Defender Services, the Bronx Defenders, New York County Defender Services, Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem and Queens Defenders.
"Plaintiffs' clients with these disabilities face the tragic and illegal choice between their fundamental right to participate in their own cases and their health and safety," according to the lawsuit.
Hundreds of clients and staff members with the public defender organizations have medical vulnerabilities that place them at a high risk of death or serious illness from the virus, according to the lawsuit.
"The completely unnecessary rush to throw hundreds of people back into the courts on almost no notice is nothing short of traumatic and irresponsible," the lawsuit argues.
Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence Marks is listed as a defendant.
The lawsuit says the state court system violates the Americans with Disabilities Act by following a policy that does not take into account a person's disability. The policy also does not provide reasonable modifications, like virtual court appearances or sufficient advance notice for a court appearance, according to the lawsuit.
"Communication has been chaotic at best," according to the lawsuit. "In many cases thus far, neither the Public Defenders nor the individual counsel of record received notice of a case being selected until less than 48 hours prior to the appearance."
The court plan discriminates against individuals with disabilities who "need sufficient notice to seek and receive accommodations or modifications" before an appearance, the lawsuit argues.
The organizations are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, specifically an order directing the state court system to pause implementation of the in-person order.
State courts spokesman Lucian Chalfen issued a statement saying defender organizations "had already agreed to, and we have already held, in person appearances for some of their clients."
"As we begin our entirely legal plan for a slow return to normalized operations, with a focus on personal health and safety, starting today, we are calendaring approximately 10 in person cases a day in each Court," he said in a statement.
The lawsuit comes days after the organizations publicly objected to the return of the in-person court proceedings for nonemergency matters.
New York County Defender Services executive director Stan Germán said Thursday that, prior to any announcement by court officials, the defender organizations believed OCA had been planning to wait for a report from public health experts who were touring courthouses before reopening.
Germán said there are also questions about whether the move was inspired by New York City Bill de Blasio's statement to The New York Times about the court system "not working" amid a spike in the city's gun violence.
"The mayor came out on Monday, I believe, in The New York Times and essentially blamed the courts not being fully reopened for the rising shootings in uptown Manhattan," Germán said. "I don't understand that logic, I don't know what courts opening in person has to do with those shootings. OCA issued a statement pushing back on any notion that you could make a correlation between the two, but there are individuals who feel that perhaps this was in reaction to the mayor's criticism."
Jane Wester contributed to this report.
READ MORE:
|Public Defenders Call on NY Courts to Reconsider In-Person Appearances During Reopening Process
|'Major Milestone': NYC Judges Return to Courthouses as City Enters Phase One of Coronavirus Reopening
|Court Officials Vow New Push to Enact DiFiore's Reorganization Plan, After Its Exclusion From Budget Deal
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDecision of the Day: Second Amendment Does Not Offer Right to Obtain Firearms 'On Demand'
Decision of the Day: Firm, Founding Partner Disqualified From Probate Case Amid Investigation on Undue Influence Claim
Decision of the Day: District Judge Vacates Magistrate's Ruling to Disqualify Prosecutors in Kidnapping Case
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250