Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Amended Summons With Notice(1)

Amended Summons With Notice(1)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,328 |Likes:
Published by westsiderag
Neighborhood in the Nineties Lawsuit
Neighborhood in the Nineties Lawsuit

More info:

Published by: westsiderag on Jul 17, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/21/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Page
1
of 
4
 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK  NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE NINETIES, INC.,Plaintiff,-against-THE CITY OF NEW YORK (“NYC”); MICHELEOVESEY, Commissioner for the Department of HomelessServices for NYC (“DHS”); JOHN C. LIU, Comptroller of the City of New York, and AGUILA, INC.;Defendants.Index No.SUMMONS WITH NOTICETo the above-named DEFENDANTS:You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon plaintiff’s attorney, at its addressstated below, a notice of appearance or demand for a complaint.If this summons was personally delivered upon you in the State of New York, a notice of appearance or demand for a complaint must be served within twenty (20) days after such serviceof the summons, excluding the date of service. If the summons was not personally delivered toyou within the State of New York a notice of appearance or demand for a complaint must beserved within thirty (30) days after service of the summons is complete as provided by law.This seeks both a declaratory judgment and an injunction. Plaintiff Neighborhood in the Nineties, Inc. (“N90s”), a not for profit corporation formed to speak as a coalition on behalf of  block associations, residents, retailers and property owners situated between West 90
th
and West97
th
Street between Riverside Drive and Amsterdam Avenue, seeks:
 
Page
2
of 
4
 
1)
 
(a) a declaration that Defendants Department of Homeless Services (“DHS”)and Aguila, Inc. (“Aguila”) are operating the shelter services for homelessfamilies at 316 West 95
th
and 330 West 95
th
St. (collectively, the “Premises”)known as Freedom House (the “Shelter”) in violation of the New York CityCharter and the Administrative Code in that i) the placement of the Shelterviolates the New York City Charter and City Planning Commission FairShare requirements, ii) the operation of the Shelter as proposed would violateAdministrative Code §21-312 which limits the size of a shelter to 200 persons;and iii) upon information and belief, the Shelter will operate in violation ofthe certificate of occupancy of part of the Premises, and, (b) as a result of theforegoing, permanently enjoining the operation of the Shelter at the Premises;2)
 
a declaration that the manner in which Aguila and DHS hasoperated the Shelter from its inception constitutes a nuisance to theneighborhood and members of N90 and enjoining the continuation of anyfurther conduct which would constitute a nuisance, including, but not limitedto, loitering by Shelter residents, sleeping in neighborhood parks, litteringand the creation of unreasonable noises; and3)
 
a declaration that the Comptroller of the City of New York properlyrejected contract number 1427016 (the “Contract”) between DHS and Aguila
 
Page
3
of 
4
 
for the operation of the Shelter and permanently enjoining the Comptrollerfrom registering or otherwise implementing the Contract.
If you do not serve a notice of appearance or demand for a complaint within theapplicable time limitation stated above, a judgment may be entered against you, by default, for a judgment A) declaring that the Shelter violates the New York City Charter and AdministrativeCode and enjoining its operation; B) an order compelling Aguila to abate the nuisance created bythe operation of the Shelter; and C) declaring that the Comptroller properly rejected the Contractand enjoining the Comptroller from registering the Contract, together with the costs and disbursements of this action.The action will be heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, in and for theCounty of New York. This action is brought in the County of New York because the plaintiff,the City defendants and the property at issue in this action are located there.Dated: New York, New York July 14, 2013Respectfully submitted Tane Waterman & Wurtzel, P.C.By Stewart E. Wurtzel, Esq.
 Attorneys for Plaintiff 
120 Broadway Suite 948 New York, New York 10271(212) 766 4000

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->