skip navigation

WESTCHESTER FALSE CLAIMSWESTCHESTER FALSE CLAIMSCASECASE

A year after the entry of the Consent Decree in August 2009, Westchester has still not come up with either an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice or an Implementation Plan that complies with the Consent Decree.  We would invite County officials to do a little remedial reading -- especially of the first two pages of the Consent Decree, along with paragraphs 22(f), 31, and 32 of the Consent Decree.

August 2010 Implementation Plan: Still Just Window-Dressing

On August 9, 2010, the County submitted the third iteration of an "Implementation Plan," the first two having been rejected by the Monitor.  As before, the key to the document is understanding that the County's goals were: (1) avoiding committing to taking any specific actions that could then be deemed enforceable obligations under the Consent Decree; and (2) proceeding in a way to maintain the demographic and zoning status quo as much as possible.

County "Analysis of Impediments" Woefully Inadequate

On July 23, 2010, Westchester submitted to HUD an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice ("AI").  The submission was required by the Consent Decree, and, pursuant to paragraph 32 of the Consent Decree, is not compliant unless it is deemed acceptable by HUD.  A brief summary of some of the egregious deficiencies of the AI (along with the full document and attachments thereto) is available by clicking "more."

ADC Statement on Monitor's July 2010 Rejection of County Implementation Submission

A statement from Craig Gurian, ADC's Executive Director. 

Excerpts from Monitor's July 2010 Submission to the Court

Some of the key points made in the Monitor's submission.

Monitor's July 2010 Submission to the Court Rejecting Westchester's Plan (PDF - 280.46 KB)

The July 7, 2010 Monitor filing with the Court whereby he found that Westchester had once again failed to comply with the requirements of the Consent Decree.  The report of his Housing Advisor, the Pratt Institute Graduate Center for Planning and the Environment, submitted as Exhibit 1 to the Monitor's Court filing, is appended.

ADC's Draft Implementation Plan (PDF - 1.28 MB)

Shortly after Westchester published its second attempt at an "implementation plan" on March 12, 2010, ADC -- recognizing that the County had no intention of developing a compliant plan on its own -- submitted a Draft Implementation Plan to the Monitor.  ADC's Draft Implementation Plan was included as Exhibit 3 to the Monitor's July 2010 submission to the Court.

Civil Rights Advocates Highlight Importance of Full County Compliance (PDF - 40.93 KB)

In late-February, 2010, close to 100 civil rights organizations and advocates called on the Monitor to "require Westchester to remedy each and all of the deficiencies identified by ADC in Prescription for Failure."  The letter was contained as part of Exhibit 4 to the Monitor's July 2010 submission to the Court.

Monitor Rejects Westchester's Jan. 2010 Submission in Filing to Federal Court (PDF - 33.9 KB)

Hard on the heels of ADC's Prescription for Failure report, the federal Monitor appointed to oversee compliance with the Settlement Order has rejected what Westchester had described as an "implementation plan."  In February, 2010, the Monitor found a "lack of specificity with respect to accountability, timeframes and processes,"and further found that the County's submission lacked "any concrete short-medium- or long-term strategies" for how the County plans to develop the affordablehousing required by the Settlement Order to foster desegregation inWestchester.  Noting the Settlement Order's requirement that the County use all means, including legal action, to overcome municipal resistance to the goals of the Settlement Order, the Monitorspecified that a revised plan "should include a clear strategy for how the County will employ carrots and sticks to encourage compliance bymunicipal governments" (emphasis added).

Prescription for Failure (PDF - 10.67 MB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ADC's February 2010 analysis of Westchester's submission to theMonitor, subtitled "A Preliminary Report on Westchester's Attempt to Ignore andEvade the Requirements of the Historic Desegregation Order Entered in U.S. ex rel. Anti-Discrimination Center v.Westchester County, a/k/a Westchester's 'Implementation Plan'"

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Monitor Letter to County Executive Astorino (PDF - 1.31 MB)

A letter summarizing the Monitor's initial findings regarding the deficiencies of Westchester's submission.  The letter directs Westchester to review ADC's report, putting the County on notice that the Monitor was likely to request the County's response to at least some of the issues raised by "Prescription for Failure."

Westchester False Claims / Desegregation Press

A compiliation of some of the extensive media coverage of the case, the Settlement Order, and (prospective) implementation.

Fact Sheet on Key Elements of the Settlement

If implemented properly, this settlement will mark the end of unchecked residential racial segregation in Westchester County.

Excerpts from Decision Granting Center's Partial Summary Judgment Motion

Some key elements of the Court's decision finding that the County "utterly failed" to meet its affirmatively furthering fair housing obligations and repeatedly submitted claims to the government that were "false or fraudulent."

Final Westchester Attempt to Excuse its Misconduct Rejected (PDF - 37.02 KB)

Westchester tried to argue that the federal government was not hurt by the County's fraud because the government got the "benefit" of the County performing the non-AFFH requirements of its grants.  The Court, in a decision dated April 24, 2009 (2009 WL 1108517) firmly rejected this argument:  "Accepting Westchester's proffered argument that because the grants may have been administered in accordance with other program requirements, the damages to the government are mitigated, would essentially write the requirement to AFFH out of the statutes and regulations. Thus, in the circumstances of this case, Westchester's damages cannot be reduced by reference to the alleged 'benefit' it provided to HUD by administering the grant funds at issue."

Decision Establishing that Westchester's False Claims Were "Material" as a Matter of Law (PDF - 36.59 KB)

The Court's April 22nd decision granting the Center's motion to find that Westchester's certifications (already found to be false) were "material" as a matter of law to its receipt of the funding at issue.  The citation is 2009 WL1110572.

Decision on Motion to Dismiss (PDF - 70.63 KB)

The July, 2007 federal court decision denying the County's motion to dismiss.  The citation is 495 F.Supp.2d 375 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).

Denial of Immediate Appeal of Decision Granting Partial Judgment Against Westchester (PDF - 50.84 KB)

April 9, 2009 decision denying the County's attempt to appeal the decision immediately and get the trial delayed.  Among other things, the decision stated that "the defendant has also repeatedly mischaracterized the [opinion granting partial judgment against the County.]"  [page 7, fn. 3]  The County's prediction of a "stream of follow-on lawsuits," the Court also wrote, depends at least on several things occurring, including "the defendant and other jurisdictions not taking their requirements to affirmatively further fair housing seriously and being unwilling to reform their practices..."  [page 8]

Decision on Motion to Certify Interlocutory Appeal (PDF - 26.36 KB)

The August 2007 federal court decision denying Westchester's motion to certify for interlocutory appeal the denial of its motion to dismiss.  The citation is 2007 WL 2402997 (S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2007).

Complaint (PDF - 233.34 KB)

The complaint, originally filed under seal in April, 2006.

Some Westchester filings

Read some of the positions that the County took during the litigation.