A Manhattan judge pushed back a hearing this week that would have provided at least a temporary answer on whether the city can open a homeless intake center in the East Village after local residents filed suit to stop it — an “uncommon” move in cases like these, Legal Aid attorneys say.
State Supreme Court Judge Sabrina Kaus now will not hear arguments from the city and residents opposed to the plan to move intake services for single homeless men to an existing homeless shelter at 8 East 3rd St. until May 28, saying she wanted to see additional documents from City Hall before making a ruling.
The decision comes after Kaus issued a temporary injunction against the city last month, foiling the Mamdani administration’s May 1 plans to move intake to the East Village to address serious safety issues at the current Bellevue intake site.
East Villagers suing over the East Village intake site, under an unincorporated group called V.O.I.C.E., say they have concerns about neighborhood safety if the intake site opens.
They also say Mayor Zohran Mamdani “rushed” the plan forward and didn’t have the authority to use an executive order to bypass public and environmental reviews, which they believe are required to open an intake center there. The city has denied that court filings, citing its “broad authority” to manage social services across shelter sites.
A Mamdani spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment on the hearing being moved. City Hall has previously said it will continue operating intake at the Bellevue center until it receives a court green light to relocate to East 3rd St. The city will be stuck using the dilapidated Bellevue site for intake until at least May 28, unless the appellate court the city appealed to rules in its favor beforehand.
Delay in homeless intake center hearing ‘extraordinary’
Josh Goldfein, a staff attorney with the Legal Aid Society, told amNewYork that Kaus’s decision to push the hearing back was “extraordinary,” both because it resulted in a ruling against the city for an extended period of time and because judges typically don’t take cases against homeless shelters like this so seriously, as there is little, if any, legal basis for the arguments being made.
“Usually, in the long history of NIMBY cases opposing shelters opening, judges have seen that the neighbors don’t have any good faith basis to block the opening of the shelter, and they nip it in the bud,” Goldfein said. “For whatever reason, this judge saw something that made her think it was okay to delay the opening of the new intake site for a period of weeks, despite the fact that the city expressed to her their concern that someone is going to get hurt if they continue to have to use the existing intake office.”
Goldfein, however, said he personally didn’t see anything different in what V.O.I.C.E. had to say from the long line of similar cases opposing shelters, which, he said, are often based on racist assumptions.
“I’ve been in this business a very long time,” Goldfein said. “I’ve seen a lot of cases like this. They are all the same. They raise all the same issues. There is no merit to any of these issues. The petition will eventually be dismissed and the [intake center] will open.”
In its court papers, V.O.I.C.E. has said residents will be “directly and adversely affected” by the city’s plan, calling the intake center a “front door” of the city’s shelter system that would mean more homeless people coming in and out of the site than there currently are, and saying the administration’s plan is “misguided, reckless, irrational and unlawful” because it lacked proper community notice.
Goldfein said these concerns strike him as lacking a good-faith basis, particularly since the site is already a homeless shelter and previously operated as an intake site years ago. It’s things like this, he said, that make Kaus’s choice to push the hearing unclear to him.
“I would say that if the neighbors had brought forth some good faith basis for concern, it would make sense for the court to want for there to be a full exchange of information before the court ruled on it,” Goldfein said, referring to Kaus’s request for city documents delaying the hearing date. “But, these plaintiffs in their papers have put forth no discernible, legitimate basis for their concerns and are reduced to saying that they’re scared of shelter residents and worried about their yoga studio.”
He echoed the city’s argument that it has the broad authority – and need – to be able to move shelter services around when it sees fit, saying it has a “legal obligation” to quickly open services that ensure people are able to get inside when they need to.
Attorneys told amNewYork that Kaus’s decision to initially temporarily halt the intake center’s opening last month was also “surprising,” saying judges typically don’t issue restraining orders like that unless they absolutely have to, so the fact that the judge set a hearing date after the planned May 1 opening date seemed strange.
Local workers split on shelter intake plan as businesses weigh safety changes
The court delay leaves residents and workers around East 3rd Street waiting for answers about the plan, which has exposed a divide on the block.
Some say the existing shelter has long been part of daily life and are not concerned with the city’s proposal. Others fear a citywide intake center would bring a different level of disruption to nearby homes and businesses.
Alyssa Glen, 27, who works at Palo Gallery directly across the street from the site, said the current shelter has not been a problem for the gallery and that staff have built relationships with some of the people living across the street.
“It’s become like a community place where folks will stop by,” Glen said. “We know them by name.”
But Glen said business owners are alarmed by the possibility of a larger, more transient population coming through the site. She said she attended an April community meeting and left frustrated by what she described as scripted answers, changing information, and a lack of transparency from city officials.
“It’s never been a problem that it’s a homeless shelter across the street,” Glen said. “It’s when it’s going to be much more than that.”
The city, however, says turning the shelter into an intake center will make for a lower burden on the neighborhood, arguing in court filings that, because it will be decreasing the number of beds at the site from 175 to 117 to make room for the intake operations, there will be a decreased homeless population in the area.
Moreover, the city said, it will be implementing increased security in the area, as is required for intake sites, and will be processing individuals indoors for “short stays”, so lines won’t be forming outside, and people’s presence at the site will be limited.
“There will be fewer people on site overall compared with previous operations at East 3rd Street,” the city said in a filing. “Although some [city] services will change, the East 3rd Street facility will maintain its longstanding existing status as a shelter for single adult men. The historical context of this facility demonstrates that East 3rd Street has long functioned as a multi-service facility, providing various shelter-related services— including intake-to support individuals entering the city’s shelter system.”
The documents Kaus requested are meant to provide evidence that this is truly the city’s plan, along with proof that the construction work that the city is carrying out aims purely to alleviate accessibility concerns advocacy groups have raised about the site (and not something the city would have needed to carry out a public and environmental review).
James, 52, who lives nearby, told amNewYork that residents of the building sometimes spend time outside, describing the shelter as part of the neighborhood’s “mosaic” rather than a serious quality-of-life issue. He said he understood why some neighbors were concerned, but did not feel personally threatened.
“It’s just part of the fabric,” James said. “I’ve never felt threatened.”
James added that he had seen notices posted on his building and had received text messages from V.O.I.C.E., though he did not know how the group obtained his number.
At La Sirena, a Mexican folk art store, manager Mary said the business, which has been on the block for nearly 27 years, has not had major problems with the shelter beyond sidewalk disruptions and occasional confrontations. But she said the store has a mostly female staff, and slow police response can leave workers feeling as though they have to “fend for themselves.”
Mary told amNewYork she does not think the area is ready for the intake center, citing traffic on the narrow street and the need for more staff or outreach workers outside the building during the day, at night and in the early morning. She suggested businesses should have a direct number to reach shelter staff, instead of relying on 911.
“I do believe that they deserve an outreach center,” Mary said of the city’s homeless population. “They should access it in a fairly well accessible area. So it’s a hit or miss.”
AK, 35, who works at a nearby store, said he often sees people from the shelter outside and described them as people seeking help.
“They sit here, smoke their cigarette, drink their coffee in the morning,” AK said. “It don’t bother nobody.”
But for other workers, they worry the proposed intake center would be different from the current shelter, bringing more people through the block for shorter stays and making it harder for businesses to resolve problems with shelter management.
Alex, 30, who works at the nearby 2nd Ave Gourmet Deli & Grill, said the store has dealt with theft connected to the shelter population, but said past managers at the facility would respond when he complained. Now, he said, the staff he knew are gone.
“All the management that I knew for years — gone,” Alex said. “Everybody that’s in that building is new.”
Alex said the deli, which is open 24 hours, may stop overnight service and stop selling beer if conditions worsen after the intake center opens. He estimated alcohol sales account for about 30% of the store’s business, but said worker safety would come first.
“You lose the 30%, you cut some hours, and you make it work,” Alex said.
He said he had not been formally notified by the city as a local business and learned about the changes from workers at the shelter, who told him they were leaving at the end of March.
Mid-interview, a disheveled man entered the store, asked for a free cup of coffee, and refused to leave after Alex declined his request. As the man began ranting incoherently, Alex said, “See, this is what I’m talking about.”
Coalition for the Homeless and accessibility concerns
The Coalition for the Homeless pushed back against neighborhood opposition to the proposed East Village intake center, while also saying the city must address accessibility issues before the site can properly serve homeless men.
David Giffen, executive director of the group, told amNewYork the city needs to operate “a well-functioning, accessible intake facility for homeless men” and said that is not currently happening with the lawsuit causing the delay.
Giffen said an intake center serves a different function than a traditional shelter, but said its purpose is straightforward: to give people who have nowhere to sleep a place to come indoors and be placed into shelter.
“I don’t know how anybody could object to that,” he said.
Both Legal Aid and Coalition for the Homeless have expressed concern over the site’s accessibility, as it currently does not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. While “significant concerns” still exist, Giffen and Goldfein both said they now believe they can be addressed.
Giffen said the main issues include steps at the front entrance, a ramp that is not ADA-compliant, elevators that need repair, and bathrooms that must be made accessible.
Goldfein said that though Legal Aid would prefer if the city moved intake services into a fully accessible building, he felt confident the city was working with them to make accessibility improvements and create plans for disabled people to access it, adding that the Bellevue center also isn’t entirely accessible and is actively unsafe.
“The law doesn’t require them to have every building completely, fully accessible, as long as the system itself is accessible,” Goldfein said. “The current intake site is not safe, and we don’t want our clients exposed to the risk of harm there. As long as they have a plan that will ensure that when people who have disabilities show up, they are able to access shelter, that’s what we need.”
He said Legal Aid would be closely monitoring the site to ensure the city was operating it in an accessible manner and was adhering to capacity restrictions.
“The shelter system needs to be accessible for everyone,” Goldfein said. “At the same time, the city has to be able to open sites in order to help people get access to shelter and these neighbors, without offering any substantive reason, are standing in the way of that.”
