Judge Levine Prejudices Against Residents In Favor of Real Estate Developers

Published by FlowerLover on

Judge Levine Prejudices Against Residents In Favor of Real Estate Developers

On June 4, 2021, a court appearance that was closed to the public, Judge Levine ordered a Preliminary Injunction Hearing and demanded that Petitioners (three African-Americans, LaShaun Ellis, Michael Hollingsworth [who is running for City Council], and Alicia Boyd)  bring in at least 20 witnesses to prove that people in the Crown Heights/Flatbush community can not readily access a virtual platform.

She also stated that Petitioners could not subpoena any one.

On June 10, 2021, Judge Levine stated that she was not going to allow Petitioners to bring those witnesses she had ordered for Petitioners to bring because Petitioners are Pro se litigants (do not have an attorney representing them).

  • Judge Levine ordered on June 4, 2021, for Ms. Boyd to produce at least 20 witnesses for the Preliminary Hearing set for June 10, 2021.
  • Judge Levine told Ms. Boyd, on June 10, that she could not present any witnesses because she was a Pro se litigant.
  • Judge Levine demanded that Ms. Boyd produce case law which says that a Pro se litigant may bring witnesses to a hearing.
  • Judge Levine stated that Ms. Boyd could not make objections on the record because she was a Pro se litigant.
  • Judge Levine prevented Ms. Boyd from cross examining a witness, because she was a Pro se litigant.
  • Judge Levine stated that Ms. Boyd could not cross examine a witness because Ms. Boyd did not represent the witness.
  • Judge Levine also closed the Preliminary Injunction hearing to the public.
  • Judge Levine stated that Ms. Boyd’s community does not have to be let into the hearing.
  • Judge Levine stated that Petitioners who are African-American and are of low to moderate income could not establish themselves as a part of a protected class to benefit from the
[1]“equal protection under the law” doctrine. (This law states that the Courts and the City may not treat one group differently than another simply because of race, ethnicity, class, gender, religion etc.)
Of course any attorney or anyone with any common sense would see how prejudiced Judge Levine was towards the Petitioners.  And of course it is not hard to see that the Judge ruled in favor of the Developers and the City, denying the Petitioners and the Crown Heights/Flatbush community the right to have an in-person hearing on the rezoning but at the same time granting that same right to the White moderate to upper middle class residents of Gowanus!
Petitioners went to the Appellant Division 2nd Department yesterday morning and demanded that a stay be put in place to stop the rezoning process until it can be determined if Petitioners’ right to litigate a case were violated by Justice Levine.  A non-appearance court date has been set for June 29, 2021.

Petitioners are also going to file a complaint with the Ethics board that reviews Judge’s conduct as well as demand that Judge Levine recuse herself and that our case be given to another Judge, from a random pool. 

Also Petitioners are going  to write a formal complaint about the conduct of the City’s attorney Alice Baker,  for unprofessional behavior and unethical conduct.  Ms. Baker is noted on the record of having made suggestions to Justice Levine that Pro se litigants had no right to litigate.

Below are the direct quotes taken from the transcripts of these hearings and if you want to read the entire transcript please click here to access them.

Below are the direct quotes taken from the transcripts of these hearings and if you want to read the entire transcript please click here to access them.

Petitioners Can Not Have a Public Hearing

  •  “We are not doing a public hearing now.  She [Ms. Boyd] doesn’t have to have her community inside.”(Transcript dated June 10, 2021, pg. 3 lines 14-16, emphasis)
Petitioners Can Not Subpoena Witnesses

MS. BOYD: Just one other thing, I would need subpoena power to be able to subpoena people on Thursday.
THE COURT: I will not give you subpoena power at this point. What do you mean you need subpoena power?
MS. BOYD: Am I not suppose to sit here and present witnesses?
THE COURT:
You don’t have to subpoena them, if they want to show up, they can show up.
MS. BOYD: But I want to subpoena —
THE COURT: Ms. Boyd, you don’t have to subpoena people. If there are members of the community that really — 
MS. BOYD: Talking about CB9 members.
THE COURT: No, you will not subpoena them.  (Transcript of June 4, 2021, pg.35, lines 5-21, emphasis added).

Petitioners Were Told to Bring Witnesses to Preliminary Injunction Hearing

THE COURT: You [Ms. Boyd] will have to present a case to me that there are at least more than 20 people because that’s the number of used to decide whether I was gong to order another hearing if 20 people couldn’t testify, cannot for whatever reason get to it.
MS. BOYD: which is the, Your Honor, do want witnesses or do you want affidavits?
THE COURT: No you will have witnesses. (Transcript, dated June 4, 2021, pgs. 21-22, lines 20-25 and 1-4, emphasis added)

Petitioners Can Not Produce Witnesses at the Hearing

THE COURT: Since she’s [Ms. Boyd] pro se, I don’t know that she had the authority or the ability to bring in anybody else. (Transcript dated June 10, 2021 pg. 14, lines 12-14, emphasis added)

———————–

THE COURT:  They’re [Petitioners] not attorneys and don’t have the authority to bring in witnesses… (Ibid pg. 17, lines 3-4,emphasis added)

———————–

MS. BOYD: We are allowed to bring affidavits and witnesses to support our argument.
THE COURT: No, you’re not. No, you’re not. I don’t think you are. You’re not.
MS. BOYD:  I am, your Honor. (Ibid pg. 17 lines 12-16, emphasis added)

———————–
MS. BOYD: Affidavits may be used freely to preserve meritorious claims.
THE COURT: Affidavits by a pro se litigant?
MS. BOYD: It does — please. This is for — yes. We may produce evidence, affidavits in support of claims as long as claims themselves have merit 
(Ibid pg.19 lines 12-17, emphasis added)
———————–
MS. BOYD: Your Honor, I also need to state that I have witnesses that I wanted to put on.
THE COURT: You’re not putting witnesses on. I’m not allowing you to put on witnesses. You don’t have standing to put on other witnesses.
MS. BOYD:  Your Honor —
THE COURT: You can take an exception to my ruling. You do not have — you cannot put on other witnesses. You show me a case that allows you as a pro se who is not an attorney who is suing in your individual capacity to put on witnesses? You’re suing on behalf of yourself, Ms. Ellis and Mr. Hollingsworth.
MS. BOYD: Yes, your Honor. And I’m allowed to produce affidavits and witnesses in support of the arguments that I am presenting within my legal papers. (Ibid 93- lines 6-20, emphasis added)

Petitioner Can Not Cross Examine Witness

MS. BAKER (The City’s Lawyer!) : Your Honor, I’m not sure Ms. Boyd questioning Ms. Ellis is proper.
THE COURT: I don’t think it’s proper. It really isn’t. (Ibid pg. 97 lines 9-12, emphasis added)
———————–

THE COURT: Ms. Boyd, you’re really not an attorney. You’re a party. But this whole hearing is kind of, I don’t know, so let’s — we got it done.
You can testify on your behalf, Ms. Ellis. Do you have anything to say on your behalf? I rather you speak than Ms. Boyd. She’s not your attorney. (Ibid pg. 97 15-20, emphasis added)

———————–

THE COURT: I don’t really feel that comfortable with Ms. Boyd asking you ad nauseam questions to an equal level. And she’s not your attorney. (Ibid, pg. 97-98 lines 23-15, emphasis added)

Petitioners Can Not Object During Live Testimony:

THE COURT: You’re not representing Ms. Ellis, Ms. Boyd.You can’t say objection. You’re not an attorney. (Transcript dated June 10, 2021, pg. 38, lines 12-14, emphasis added)
———————–

MS. BOYD: We object to that questioning as leading. 
THE COURT: Excuse me. Who is objecting?
MS. BOYD: I am, your Honor.
MS. RECINE: Ms. Boyd is objecting.
THE COURT: You are not an attorney. And you are not one petitioner. You can’t object to a question. You’re not an attorney.
THE COURT: I don’t know. Ms. Boyd, excuse me. Ms. Boyd, you are not Ms. Ellis’ attorney. And you can’t object. (Ibid pgs. 40-41 lines 23-25 and 10, emphasis added)

Petitioners Can Not Argue Equal Protection Claim

THE COURT: Excuse me, Ms. Boyd.  I am not going to spend my time researching equal protection. (Ibid pg. 106, lines 19-20, emphasis added)

THE COURT: Equal protection is a very complicated analysis.  You have to show you’re a member of a protected class…. It’s not going to pertain to my decision today, but go ahead. (Ibid, pg. 107, lines 1-2)

THE COURT: I have nothing in my opinion to do with equal protection, completely different ball game as to who is the applicant which makes Boyd not similarly situated to the applicant in Gowanus,
(Ibid, pg. 126 lines 8-17, emphasis added)

[1]Petitioners argued that they are entitled to “equal protection under the law”, because in two court cases Gowanus and So Ho No Ho rezonings, the City was and is willing to conduct in-person hearings where the residents are moderate to upper middle class white people, whereas in Crown Heights/Flatbush community the residents and Petitioners are low to moderate income people of color.
Categories: Fight Against RezoningLegal Actions

0 Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts

City of Yes Text Amendments

Agitators Invade Community Boards: COY’s No Parking Mandate

No Parking! – Final Nail in the Coffin!  Mayor Adams’ City of Yes Demands for No Parking Requirements Does anyone recall Mayor Eric Adams making the bold statements that outside agitators were influencing the Columbia’s Read more…

City of Yes Text Amendments

NYC’s Data Shows: City of Yes Fails in Helping Homeless Crisis

City’s Data Shows and the City agrees  “City of Yes” Will Not Help Housing Crisis? Mayor Adams made a big announcement about HPD’s Vacancy Survey, to justified his City of Yes “COY” Housing Text Amendments.  According to Read more…

Knowledge Is Power

Can’t Find the 2024 AMI (Area Median Income) Rates? Here They Are…

We noticed the 2024 AMI rates are no longer on the HPD site.  Luckily we got them before they were removed.