What Would It Take To Fully Fund Right To Counsel For NYC Tenants?

posted in: Society | 0

“It’s a complicated question,” said Rosalind Black, citywide housing director at Legal Services NY, which aids tenants under the landmark city initiative to provide free representation to low-income New Yorkers facing eviction in housing court. Though the results have been overwhelmingly positive, the program has never been funded to cover every eligible tenant. 

One question came up repeatedly during a recent hearing at City Hall: what would it take to ensure that New York City’s Right to Counsel program, which provides free lawyers to low-income tenants facing eviction, lives up to its name?

The initiative, passed by city lawmakers in 2017 and billed as the first in the nation to provide “universal access” to housing court attorneys for those eligible, has struggled in recent months to keep up with demand, prompting calls to both slow down the speed of eviction cases and increase city funding in order to add staff.

“Have you collectively at any point come up with a number that would make you whole?” Councilmember Diana Ayala, who chairs the City Council’s General Welfare Committee, asked a panel of nonprofit attorneys.

“It’s a complicated question,” replied Rosalind Black, citywide housing director at Legal Services NYC which, along with the Legal Aid Society, received the program’s largest contracts last year.

Did the city want to know what it would take to meet their current obligation to represent about 35,000 households per year, while offering brief advice to others? Or how much it would cost to represent the likely tens of thousands of tenants who qualify for representation, yet will inevitably be left out unless the program is scaled up?

Black and her colleagues were not prepared to answer either question at the March 27 hearing. But they’ve since settled on two figures they say would build meaningfully on the roughly $110 million they currently receive per year.

An extra $125 million would allow legal services providers to fairly fund their current contracts, according to estimates signed off on by Legal Services NYC, the Legal Aid Society, New York Legal Assistance Group and others. With $226 million more, they expect they would be able to cover an anticipated 71,400 qualifying cases in the coming year—only about half of which they’re currently contracted to take on.

Absent from the total $461 million ask is the cost of representing all tenants over 60 facing eviction regardless of income, an offering poised to kick in this August under separate legislation passed by the Council in January.

Cases covered

Now in its sixth year, Right to Counsel funds legal services organizations to provide representation to tenants who earn 200 percent of the federal poverty level or less, or $49,720 for a family of three. Prior to its inception, tenants seldom had access to counsel when their landlords sought to evict them through the courts.

Cynthia Aderogba, a Queens tenant, appeared in housing court last week to meet with her free lawyer, who she matched with a few months ago. “It made a really big difference,” she told City Limits. “And it also brought a sense of comfortability for me, because I felt like I wasn’t by myself.”

Though the results have been overwhelmingly positive—the vast majority of tenants who get lawyers are able to stay in their home—the program has never been funded with the expectation of covering every eligible tenant. The pandemic, which accelerated the program’s citywide expansion, simply made this reality impossible to ignore.

“We all need to acknowledge that this program is massively underfunded and is never going to meet this need unless it grows,” Black of Legal Services NYC told City Limits.

The Office of Civil Justice, or OCJ, which operates within DSS, administers the Right to Counsel program. Its annual reports track how many households receive legal representation, and how many face eviction without a lawyer.

Adi Talwar

People entering Brooklyn Housing Court at 141 Livingston St. on the morning of March 20, 2023.

For example, the year ending last June saw city-funded eviction defense for 23,483 households. Looking just at the period from April to June, 63 percent of tenants who appeared in housing court had legal representation, down from 71 percent for that period in 2021.

Yet the reports do not include information on tenant income, making it hard to know how many qualifying households miss out. In order to estimate how many tenants will likely qualify for Right to Counsel in the coming year, providers had to make certain assumptions.

First, they set 120,000 as the number of anticipated eviction filings per year, extrapolating off of monthly filing rates late last year, which were still below pre-pandemic levels.

Black then discounted 30 percent of that total to account for cases in which the tenant settles outside of court or never shows up, based on analysis by the financial advisory firm Stout Risius Ross LLC, which has studied the cost of Right to Counsel programs nationally.

“Thirty percent reflects a relatively high rate of connection to legal services based on the analysis we’ve done elsewhere in the country,” said Stout manager Neil Steinkamp. “And that expectation would be consistent with a city that has had the right to counsel for a while, has had a lot of outreach related to it.”

Black cut the resulting volume by 15 percent to account for tenants who will likely out-earn the program, landing on 71,400 eligible cases.

Steinkamp noted that estimating income eligibility is particularly difficult, because courts don’t collect that information. Researchers must look to academic studies, and the information collected by attorneys themselves. “It can still be valuable, but you have to appreciate the limitations of it,” he said.

Contracts for the year ending in June show full representation requirements of 32,900 cases, plus further service targets that can be met either through full representation or brief legal advice to a tenant facing eviction. The city, which structures its contracts to pay for “units of service,” stressed that providers have built-in flexibility, and can count three advice sessions as one unit of full representation.

This is not the preferred scenario, according to Marika Dias, managing director of the Safety Net Project at the Urban Justice Center, a Right to Counsel provider. “Obviously the providers want to meet the full representation goals, but that’s not necessarily possible under the current conditions,” she said.

Dollars and cents 

Calculating the cost of Right to Counsel is difficult, in part, because the Adams Administration and attorneys disagree about how the city’s various legal services contracts should be categorized.

The providers point to what the city refers to as Homelessness Prevention Law Project contracts, which include explicit directions to represent households “pursuant to the NYC Right-to-Counsel law.” A batch reviewed by City Limits for the year ending in June is worth about $112 million.

But the city said it currently funds tenant legal services with $166 million, combining eviction defense with counsel for tenants seeking apartment repairs and rent reductions. The latter are supported by Anti-Harassment Tenant Protection (AHTP) contracts.

The city says the two are inextricably linked, since AHTP attorneys can keep tenants from getting to the point of eviction.

But providers insist AHTP is distinct and should be funded separately, and that blurring the lines has come at a cost to tenants seeking repairs as well as lawyers pulled in two directions at once. Their demand for an additional $125 million would build on the Homelessness Prevention Law Project contracts, and factors in 25 percent salary increases for about 480 lawyers currently working on Right to Counsel.

The $226 million they seek for the suspected larger universe of Right to Counsel cases could help hire more than 880 additional staff attorneys at current salaries—no 25 percent boost—plus paralegals and intake staff.

“We weren’t trying to be more conservative just for conservative’s sake, but there are just so many unknowns,” Adriene Holder, chief attorney for the civil practice at the Legal Aid Society, told City Limits.

Meanwhile, some unionized staff attorneys are pushing for a cap of four new cases per month that could further impact program costs.

Joanna Laine, a Legal Aid attorney and member of her union’s bargaining committee, said expanding the program without reducing caseloads would be futile, as attrition will worsen. She has about 70 open cases herself, a situation she described as a nightmare.

“We need sustainable wages and above all sustainable case caps,” Laine said. “If we aren’t able to keep the experienced attorneys we already have, we’re not going to be able to build up the program to sustain it.”

Facing the gap 

In the near term, legal services providers have their eyes on City Hall. The City Council has called for an additional $195 million for civil and criminal public interest lawyers in the budget due in June, with a tentative demand of $70 million for Right to Counsel—an amount they acknowledge won’t expand the program.

Manhattan Councilmember Shaun Abreu, a former tenant attorney himself, said that he plans to push for more—a task that will be made easier if state lawmakers pitch in. “I’m telling you right now, that this council is going to hold the line on Right to Counsel,” Abreu told City Limits.

DSS did not comment on attorneys’ demand for $461 million. However, an agency spokesperson said courts should slow down cases to ensure tenants don’t face judges without an attorney in the near term—a position DSS officials had refused to take at last month’s oversight hearing.

According to an emailed statement, DSS is “supportive of any efforts which would help slow down the calendaring of cases by the courts.”

A recent Tuesday morning in Queens Housing Court showed how attorneys are struggling to keep up with demand under the current scope of Right to Counsel.

Emma Whitford

Room 454 at Queens Housing Court, where tenants can sign up for free legal representation in their eviction cases and are either matched with an attorney or receive brief legal advice.

Four lawyers with Communities Resist were tasked with client intake that day. The organization is an AHTP provider, contracting with the city to help tenants sue their landlords for things like compelling repairs. But it has recently been pulled into assisting with Right to Counsel on a rotating basis.

“Our work is supposed to be meeting with tenants… having tenant association meetings, which we still have to do even if we’re here, right?” said Lino Diaz, a senior staff attorney on call that day.

Of the 50 tenants who signed up for legal assistance, 24 were ultimately deemed income-eligible for Right to Counsel. Another 14 earned too much to qualify, and a further dozen showed up despite not having court appearances that day. Communities Resist ended up taking on nine tenants, offering brief legal advice to the others.

Mona Fletcher, a part-time nanny and speech pathology student, sat outside of the intake room Tuesday having failed to match with a lawyer on a previous court date. “There was a nice gentleman in there, he just gave me a little bit of advice, but he said that he couldn’t represent me because he had other cases,” she told City Limits.

Going before a judge without counsel is intimidating, she added: “For someone like me that is in school, trying to finish up, this weighs on my mind.”

Being the first city in the country to implement a right to counsel program for tenants puts New York in a unique position, according to Holder of Legal Aid. There’s no textbook to follow when it comes to adequate funding.

“Right to Counsel is in its infancy stages,” Holder said. “And everyone wants us to run and twirl but we’re barely out of the crawling stage. So people need to understand that we’re going to need to continue to refine how this work is done, but we need resources to do it.”

Annie Iezzi and Frank Festa contributed reporting for this story.

Police arrest Oxon Hill day care employee for recording child abuse

posted in: Society | 0

A day care employee in Oxon Hill, Maryland, was arrested Saturday after police said she recorded herself abusing kids.

Prince George’s County police said that they charged 23-year-old Kayla Greenwell with multiple counts of child abuse and assault.

A video recorded Wednesday appeared to show Greenwell picking up, slamming and tripping kids at the Oxon Hill Center For Early Learning. Police verified that she recorded some of the alleged abuse on her phone during their preliminary investigation.

The police department was sent videos of Greenwell by multiple people on Friday, including an unaired video from Fox5 News. With help from the community they were able to quickly identify her and obtain an arrest warrant.

Ledarra White’s 3-year-old son attends the day care and she says that she’s considering pulling her child out.

“They come to school, [it’s] supposed to be for a learning environment in somewhere safe while their parents are away at work,” White told WTOP.

The day care sent a letter to families that says they immediately took action and fired the employee. The letter also says the day care reported the incident to child protective services and police.


  • More Local News
  • More Prince George’s County News

“Hopefully, she gets everything she deserves,” White said. “Those are innocent kids.”

The day care also said all background checks for the employee were conducted and came back clear.

This is still an ongoing investigation and police ask that anyone who has information relevant to the investigation immediately call detectives at (301) 772-4930.

Senate approves gun bill, but not without heated late debate

posted in: Politics | 0

This content was republished with permission from WTOP’s news partners at Maryland Matters. Sign up for Maryland Matters’ free email subscription today.

After some procedural maneuvering and heated debate, the Senate gave final approval on an expansive gun bill about 30 minutes before midnight Friday.

Sen. William C. Smith Jr. (D-Montgomery) summarized a gun bill on the Senate floor on April 7, 2023 (Courtesy Maryland Matters/William J. Ford)

The 28-13 vote on House Bill 824 focuses on expanding prohibitions on those who can possess firearms.

The vote may not have happened if Sen. Antonio Hayes (D-Baltimore City) didn’t make a motion to reconsider a special order that would have postponed additional debate until Monday.

The postponement came after Sen. Jill P. Carter (D-Baltimore City) successfully attached an amendment to the bill that would have allowed a person who completed a sentence for illegal gun possession to enroll in a firearms training course. And, after completing the course, that person could petition a judge to convert their sentence to a “probation before judgment,” which would allow them to legally possess a gun again in the future.

Twenty-seven senators — 15 Democrats and 12 Republicans — voted in favor of the amendment, over the objection of Senate Judicial Proceedings Chair William C. Smith Jr. (D-Montgomery).

But Hayes, who originally voted in favor of Carter’s amendment, joined several others in reconsidering their votes. Ultimately, the Senate voted 28-14 to withdraw Carter’s amendment, which paved the way for the Senate to cast a formal vote to approve the bill.

Smith, who urged his colleagues not to approve Carter’s amendment because there wasn’t enough time to work out complicated details, praised Carter’s idea and said he would like to review it next year. But he cited issues with the proposal up for consideration Friday, including that wouldn’t be “practical” to conduct in person instruction with individuals incarcerated who wouldn’t be permitted to hold a firearm.

“When you’re conducting these classes, it’s hard not to have an actual firearm in the actual classroom,” Smith said. “You’d also have to screen people to say, ‘Are you a prohibited person?’ There’s a lot of liability that comes with that process.”

After Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-Baltimore City) requested a recess that lasted approximately 16 minutes before the Senate voted on the overall bill, he and Carter took part in an animated discussion on the chamber floor.

In a brief interview after the vote, Carter expressed deep frustration with what she views as a generalized lack of focus on restorative justice and equity in policies passed by the legislature.

“We sent a message to people that you are unacceptable to be a part of our society,” by not adding her amendment, Carter said.

The ultimate defeat of her amendment in the chamber was particularly tough, Carter said, because it came as progress has stalled on other policies she cares deeply about — restricting police searches based on the odor of cannabis and allowing jury service by convicted individuals who have served their full sentences.

The bill awaits a final vote in the House of Delegates. It is one of two major pieces of gun legislation navigating through the General Assembly in the final hours of the 90-day legislative session.

Lawmakers crafted the gun measures after last summer’s U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down New York’s law that restricted carrying concealed guns in public.

The Supreme Court ruled that a person no longer needed to demonstrate a special security concern to obtain a license to carry a concealed gun in public, saying the requirement violated the Second Amendment. The decision in the case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen — known colloquially as “Bruen” — affected gun laws in Maryland and several other states in addition to New York, where the law was challenged.

Senate bill moving through House

On Friday afternoon, the House of Delegates granted preliminary approval for Senate Bill 1, which restricts where firearms can be carried. But House amendments to the bill condensed restricted areas and changed penalties for violations.

The amended bill would still prohibit gun owners from carrying them at places including hospitals, preschools, election polling sites and state or local government offices. A slightly more than 90-minute debate focused on the overall bill and based on several amendments the House Judiciary Committee advanced Thursday.

The House also amended the penalties previously passed by the Senate for illegal wear, carry or transport of a gun.

Under the amended bill, someone could face up a year in jail, a fine up to $1,000, or both. The same penalty could be imposed if a person trespasses on private property without permission or enters a property with a “a clear and conspicuous sign” that doesn’t allow for firearms.

Del. April Rose (R-Carroll) asked Judiciary Chair Luke Clippinger (D-Baltimore City) if a person would be allowed to carry a firearm inside a church if it also houses a preschool or school.

Clippinger said if a property owner such as private school or a business gives a gun owner permission to carry a firearm, then yes. However, the person wouldn’t be permitted inside the part of the building where a school is located.

Rose said some churches have classrooms in a hallway and people must walk by them to get a specific part of the church.

“Churches provide nurseries. If you want your gun with you at church, but you have to take your child to the nursery that’s in the same building, you have parents who are suddenly criminals,” she said.

Clippinger admitted that Rose’s question could be decided by the courts.

Del. Kevin Hornberger (R-Cecil), who said he has a concealed carry permit, didn’t approve of the bill because he felt it had too many unresolved issues.

“I believe that [gun owners are] being unfairly targeted in this bill,” he said. “If I’m reading the tea leaves on some of the things that are coming out of the Supreme Court decision in the lower courts, I think this bill will be immediately challenged upon this passage.”

The bill could come up for a final vote in the chamber on Saturday.

Senate revisions

Friday night’s Senate vote capped a fast-paced week of negotiation over the gun measures.

On Thursday night, the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee amended House Bill 824, which is sponsored by Clippinger.

The bill’s prohibition on who can carry guns includes those who are fugitives from justice, “a habitual drunkard,” and people who suffer from a mental disorder and have a history of violence “against the person or another.”

The Senate scaled back an increase in gun permitting fees that had been approved in the House. While delegates doubled fees for a wear-and-carry permit from $75 to $150, the Senate settled on a more modest increase. The Senate set the fee for a wear-and-carry permit at $125.

Clippinger has said the fees haven’t increased since 1992.

Other amendments passed in the Senate include provisions that would:

  • Require the state Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy to issue a detailed annual report on gun violations.
  • Expand some firearm training requirements.
  • Make sure an application notes a person’s county of residency, race, ethnicity and gender.

Elizabeth Hilliard, acting director of government relations for Maryland Office of the Public Defender, said in a statement Friday that the office has opposed increased incarceration and felony convictions.

Hilliard referred to an “11th hour” addition to the House version that would extend the maximum sentence from three to five years for possessing a handgun without a wear and carry permit. That comes from a proposal from Baltimore State’s Attorney Ivan Bates (D).

“Research shows that carceral responses to gun violence are antiquated and ineffective,” Hilliard said. “Rather than regurgitating and expanding ineffective punitive approaches, the General Assembly should promote proactive safety measures that invest in communities and respond to the factors that underline gun possession.”

After Friday night’s vote, Smith said the House measure goes back to the House of Delegates and if those members agree with the Senate amendments, it would head to the desk of Gov. Wes Moore (D) for his signature.

“It’s a significant victory for the people. It’s going to make us a lot safer, especially in reaction to Bruen [case] in balancing the realities of violence, gun violence, and also the realities of more guns being in public places and spaces,” he said. “I think that this is a good bill and will make us safer here in Maryland.”

Va. Attorney Gen. Jason Miyares urges DC leaders to address crime spike

posted in: Politics | 0

Virginia Attorney Gen. Jason Miyares wrote a letter to D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and the D.C. Council on Thursday, calling out city officials for not doing enough to combat crime.

“D.C. is dealing with a crime explosion,” Miyares said.

“Actions speak louder than words — and the only actionable items taken by Washington, D.C. leadership have been ways to lessen criminal penalties, further fostering an environment for criminal activity. There is no deterrent for illegal behavior in Washington, D.C., as these repeat offenders know they will either not be charged or let back on the streets in no time.”


  • More Local News
  • More DC News
  • More Government News

Miyares went on to write that because of the proximity of D.C. and Virginia, the District’s crime problem is also becoming that of the Commonwealth’s.

D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson issued a statement saying he was shocked by Miyares’ letter.

“The Attorney General has never reached out to me to discuss any concerns he might really have regarding crime in DC,” Mendelson said. “Although he did not ask to meet, I do. I would like us to discuss how Virginia can work with the District to address the issue of rising crime.”

Miyares said his letter was in response to recent homicides, such as the recent murder of Christy Bautista in her hotel room.

Mendelson said the District did what it could to keep her suspected killer off the streets.

“The man who murdered Christy Bautista last weekend was on the streets because the federal prosecutors (who prosecute all our felonies) plea bargained his arrest for armed robbery with gun to a lesser offense, because a federally appointed judge released him from custody pending sentencing, and because the federal marshals had not apprehended him when he skipped a court date,” Mendelson said.

“The only role of the District in that case was to arrest him, which we did.”

To keep communities safe, Miyares wrote, D.C. and Virginia need to work together and find a solution instead of “sweeping it under the rug.”