NYC No-Fault Eviction Ordinance is Unconstitutional, Class Action Says

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Three plaintiffs have brought a civil rights class action lawsuit challenging New York City’s no-fault eviction ordinance.

The plaintiffs are challenging a New York City ordinance that declares a property to be a “public nuisance” solely because it was the site of a criminal offense.

The lawsuit alleges that under this ordinance, the city has been compelling innocent people to give up their constitutional rights under threat of eviction.

“The identity of the alleged criminal, as well as the culpability of the property owner and leaseholder, is irrelevant. Property owners and leaseholders can be (and are) punished because their property was in the wrong place at the wrong time,” according to this no-fault eviction class action lawsuit.

In the course of enforcing this ordinance, the plaintiffs say the city initiates evictions against persons who have merely been arrested, without regard to whether they were ever charged or convicted.

The city then allegedly uses these eviction actions to compel property owners and tenants to waive a slew of constitutional rights.

Plaintiffs claim that to avoid eviction, these property owners and tenants are required to submit to warrantless searches, to give full access to video surveillance systems, to permanently exclude family members from their property, and to consent to future fines and closing orders without any hearing.

The plaintiffs argue that by using the threat of eviction to compel innocent persons to waive their constitutional rights, these coercive settlement agreements violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Plaintiff Sung Cho says he was subject to one of these coercive settlement agreements after a police sting operation conducted at his Manhattan laundromat ended in a purchase of stolen electronics by persons not connected to Cho or his business.

Even though the sting was successful and went according to the police’s plans, Cho claims they then moved to shut down his business under the city’s no-fault eviction ordinance.

To avoid eviction, Cho says he had to waive his rights to be free from warrantless searches and to seek a court hearing before being hit with future sanctions.

Plaintiff David Diaz says he was forced to exclude several family members from his home to avoid eviction.

A police raid of Diaz’s apartment conducted in 2013 allegedly uncovered a small amount of contraband.

Diaz says he didn’t know it was there nor whom it belonged to, and no one was ever prosecuted for it. Yet police still initiated an eviction under the no-fault eviction ordinance, he claims.

A similar circumstance allegedly befell plaintiff Jameelah El-Shabazz. She says she and her son were arrested in 2011 when police found what they thought were illegal drugs – which turned out to be nothing but crushed egg shells that El-Shabazz used for religious purposes.

Even though the arrest was in error and she had not committed the purported crime, El-Shabazz says she was still targeted for eviction under the no-fault eviction ordinance. She says she was forced to ban her son from her home to avoid eviction.

The three named plaintiffs seek to represent two main plaintiff Classes.

The proposed Closing Order Class would include all persons subject to a no-fault eviction settlement agreement following entry of an ex parte closing order.

The proposed Innocent Occupant Class would include all persons subject to a similar no-fault eviction settlement who have not been convicted of the alleged underlying criminal offense.

The plaintiffs seek court orders that would invalidate all settlement agreements arising out of the no-fault eviction actions at issue and enjoining the city from enforcing such agreements against the Class Members.

They also seek reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and court costs, plus nominal damages for the named plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Robert Everett Johnson, Darpana M. Sheth and Milad Emam of Institute for Justice and Ana-Claudia Roderick of Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe LLP.

The No-Fault Eviction Civil Rights Class Action Lawsuit is Cho, et al. v. City of New York, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-07961, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.