“We are very pleased that these recipients are finally getting the benefits they were erroneously denied, although we regret that we needed to sue the City and State to get them to correct their mistakes,” said Julia Russell, an attorney with NYLAG’s Special Litigation Unit.

The United States Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the negotiated settlement in Hercules v. Doar and more than $3 million in retro-active benefits payments are being issued by the City of New York.

The federal lawsuit was filed in August, 2010, by NYLAG, The Legal Aid Society and the law firm Cooley LLP against the New York City Human Resources Administration and the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance. In addition to Russell, NYLAG lawyers representing the plaintiffs include Special Litigation Unit Supervising Attorney Jane Greengold Stevens, and staff attorney Danielle Tarantolo.

Plaintiffs are Safety Net Assistance recipients living with young children whose public assistance benefits were reduced or discontinued for excessively long periods when they were sanctioned for alleged violations of the public assistance employment requirements.  Families can be penalized or sanctioned by having all or some of their benefits cut for up to six months when they miss a mandatory appointment. Due to a computer programming error which lasted for several years, HRA and OTDA issued notices that incorrectly told SNA recipients living with children that they were subject to the longer penalties which are, by law, applicable only to individuals living in households without children. The typical family with two children receives a maximum benefit of only $789 per month, including payments for rent.

As a result of the Hercules v. Doar negotiations, HRA and OTDA have corrected their computer systems, modified their sanction notices to include information necessary to allow individuals to challenge the duration of their sanctions, and lifted any improper sanctions currently in effect.

In addition to the more than 7,000 individuals who are receiving payments now, approximately 8,000 additional households are eligible to receive Hercules payments if and when they return to the public assistance rolls within the next 34 months.  Defendants will also delete the sanctions resulting from these improper notices from class members’ records.

Click here to view the Settlement Agreement

Click here to view the Signed Final Court Order

As lawyers dedicated to helping low-income New Yorkers, we insist that NYCHA do the right thing, and ensure justice is done for residents still without heat, power and hot water.

Read the Letter Here

NYLAG and Paul, Weiss lawyers worked with NYCHA over the course of three years to reach agreement on milestones for repairing and maintaining elevators. “What is critical about this settlement is that it requires NYCHA to meet measurable, quantifiable goals in improving elevator performance,” said Paul, Weiss litigation partner Andrew Ehrlich. “These practical benchmarks will ensure that we can monitor NYCHA’s performance and ensure that it lives up to its end of the bargain.”

Under the Agreement, NYCHA must prioritize repair of elevators where a building is left without any elevator service whatsoever. Within six months, NYCHA must repair 70% of all elevator outages within 8 hours of learning of the outage, and 90% within 24 hours. NYCHA must also ensure that the average number of elevator outages City-wide is not more than one outage per elevator per month. The Agreement further requires NYCHA to conduct rigorous preventive maintenance to help avoid elevator breakdowns. The Housing Authority also agreed to approve transfer requests from mobility-impaired tenants to lower floors, where they will be less affected by elevator outages.

“We are delighted that NYCHA has agreed to improve the elevator service it provides to its most vulnerable residents,” said Jane Greengold Stevens, NYLAG’s Director of Litigation. “Although everybody benefits from working elevators, they are especially critical to the health and safety of people with mobility impairments.”

Over the next three years, NYCHA will report to Plaintiffs’ attorneys on its compliance with the Agreement. If NYCHA does not meet the goals in the Agreement, it can be forced to do so in Court. Plaintiffs’ attorneys can also alert NYCHA when they learn of specific class members who have been denied transfer requests or have suffered because of particularly problematic elevators. “We look forward to working with NYCHA over the coming years to make sure that they meet the crucial milestones in this Agreement,” Stevens added.

Borough President Stringer, who played a major supportive role in bringing the case, stated, “It’s about time. For far too long, NYCHA tenants with disabilities have been held hostage to the Housing Authority’s inability to repair, modernize or replace poorly functioning elevators. I’m proud to have worked with NYLAG and with Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison to help secure a settlement from the Housing Authority that will enhance the mobility of disabled tenants when elevators breakdown. I look forward to carefully monitoring NYCHA’s compliance with this settlement and will be in close contact with tenant leaders and advocates for the disabled to ensure that NYCHA keeps up its end of the agreement.”

Yisroel Schulman, NYLAG’s President and Attorney-in-Charge, spoke about the milestone: “This Agreement is a victory for all of NYCHA’s tenants, and represents another success in NYLAG’s continuing effort to improve the lives of low-income people with disabilities.”

Tthe official case name and number are: Wilma Brito, et al. v. New York City Housing Authority, et al., Civ. No. 09-1621 (RRM) (RML) (E.D.N.Y.).

###

Litigation Background

The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) operates more than 2,600 buildings in the five boroughs with a total of nearly 180,000 apartments. The lawsuit is the first citywide class action suit brought against the Housing Authority challenging the Authority’s failure to adequately maintain its elevators, though there has been previous litigation about elevator operations in particular NYCHA developments.

NYLAG attorney Jane Greengold Stevens, with other legal services and Legal Aid attorneys, sued NYCHA in 1994 under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act in an effort to force the Authority to provide reasonable accommodations to mobility impaired tenants in their own apartments and the common areas of their buildings. That case was settled in 2000, with the Authority agreeing to modify apartments for tenants with mobility impairments who requested accommodations and to make nearly 5,000 apartments accessible for residents with mobility impairments.

Left to Right: Proskauer COO Art Gurwitz, NYLAG President Yisroel Schulman, NYLAG Board Chair Abby Milstein, Proskauer Partner Claire Gutekunst, former Proskauer Chairman and current NYLAG Board Vice Chair Alan Jaffe.

On March 6, 2012, at a ceremony in its midtown offices, Proskauer Rose LLP presented NYLAG with a check for $422,000, representing the law firm’s share of legal fees received in settlement of the Belovic v. Doar action, in which Proskauer was co-counsel with NYLAG. This generous contribution honors the firm’s pro bono commitment to providing equal access to justice and recognizes its longstanding partnership with NYLAG.

Belovic is a class action lawsuit that challenged the City’s Adult Protective Services (APS)’s systemic failure to provide mandated services to mentally and physically disabled adults. In its role as co-counsel, Proskauer dedicated thousands of pro bono hours to this case since the initial filing in April 2007. APS’s dysfunction caused elderly and disabled New Yorkers to go without food, home care, medical care, and in some cases caused them to be unnecessarily placed in nursing homes. NYLAG and Proskauer claimed that the agency APS inadequately administered the program, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York Social Services Law, and the federal and state constitutions. “The goal was to incite institutional reform,” noted Jane Greengold Stevens, Director of NYLAG’s Special Litigation Unit. The Court approved a settlement in January 2012, which requires APS to make changes and to provide information to allow NYLAG and Proskauer to monitor its compliance on an ongoing basis.

Proskauer Chief Operating Officer Art Gurwitz presented NYLAG Chair Abby Milstein with the six-figure check in front of a packed audience of Proskauer and NYLAG attorneys. Stacey Fahey, Proskauer Director of Pro Bono, and Alan Jaffe, former Proskauer Chairman and current NYLAG Board Vice-Chair, spoke about their desire to continue cultivating an ongoing partnership between the two organizations.

A portion of the donation is being used to create and fund the Proskauer Special Litigation Fellowship at NYLAG. Claire Gutekunst, lead counsel for Proskauer on Belovic v. Doar, spoke about the case and introduced NYLAG’s Eileen Connor, who is the first attorney to hold the new position. Connor updated the audience about her first two months on the job and her work on several new potential actions to protect the rights of vulnerable New Yorkers. The remainder of the Proskauer donation will support general operations and enable NYLAG to file additional class action law suits that address systemic problems.

Kicking-off another successful co-venture, NYLAG President Yisroel Schulman delivered a brief presentation on NYLAG’s new Mobile Legal Help Center. Attorneys from Proskauer plan to provide monthly volunteer staffing of this new mobile legal services office and courtroom, which was developed in partnership with the New York State Courts’ Access to Justice Program.

For more photos of the event, visit our Facebook album at www.facebook.com/newyorklag.

Josef, a 90 year-old Holocaust survivor who lived alone in Brooklyn, suffered from muscle weakness and shortness of breath, leading to difficulty walking and getting up and down from a chair or bed. For two years, he received 12 hours of Medicaid-funded home health care per day. Suddenly, however, and without notification, his provider terminated his care despite the fact that his medical conditions had not changed. In the spring of 2011, similar cases in which home care for elderly and disabled individuals had been illegally reduced or terminated emerged in large numbers. NYLAG received well over 100 calls from clients facing these issues.

The 2011-2012 New York State Budget Bill, effective April 1, 2011, changed the way the State calculates payment to providers of Medicaid-funded certified home health care, placing an annual cap on the amount providers can receive for providing such care. As a result, many Certified Home Health Agencies (CHHAs) that provide these services began illegally reducing and terminating care, leaving poor elderly and disabled patients without critical assistance and in imminent danger of being sent to nursing homes. “Providers of Medicaid-funded CHHA services are putting their own fears about payment ahead of their legal obligations to their clients,” explained Jane Greengold Stevens, Director of NYLAG’s Special Litigation Unit (SLU). “CHHAs cannot be allowed to ignore the constitutional and statutory rights of the disabled and elderly in a scramble to protect themselves financially.”

In 2011, NYLAG filed two cases, Johnson, et al. v Shah, et al., against Personal-Touch Home Care, Inc., Americare Certified Special Services, Inc., and Empire State Home Care Service, Inc., and Spitzer, et al v. Shah, against Prime Home Health Services, LLC, VIP Health Services, and Excellent Home Care Services, for illegally reducing and terminating home health care without adequate notice to recipients and without providing the opportunity for a Fair Hearing or Aid Continuing benefits required by federal law. The cases allege that the practices of these CHHAs have violated the Medicaid Act and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs further allege that these illegal reductions and terminations violate the Americans with Disabilities Act because they force CHHA patients into nursing homes, even though these individuals could remain safely in their homes if provided with appropriate care. The suits charge government Defendants, the New York State Department of Health and the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, for failing to prevent these illegal terminations, and challenge state regulations denying due process rights to individuals when cuts are characterized as “pursuant to doctor’s orders.”

NYLAG settled a motion for a preliminary injunction with the CHHA defendants. As part of these temporary settlement agreements, the CHHA defendants have agreed to provide notice to patients prior to reducing or terminating their care. “It’s a good start,” said NYLAG attorney Ben Taylor, “but we still have a long way to go.” NYLAG continues to litigate the case against both the CHHA and State defendants, and in addition, is faced with the monumental task of representing many of these clients at administrative fair hearings to contest their home care reductions.

Ms. Stevens has worked in civil legal services representing indigent clients since 1969. With an illustrious career specializing in class actions, she joined NYLAG in 2001 and became Director of Litigation in 2007. Her successful impact litigation cases have enforced the rights of public assistance recipients, people with disabilities, and others denied rights, benefits, and services due to them under federal and state law.

Presided over by Justice Carmen Beauchamp Ciparic, the Awards ceremony praised Ms. Stevens for her role as lead counsel in a 1982 class action that found the NYC Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the NYC Transit Authority in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The government agencies had failed to make public transportation accessible to people with mobility impairments. Of her many career victories, Ms. Stevens says this case gives her the most on-going satisfaction because she can see its effects every day when people in wheelchairs ride NYC buses.

Plaintiff Boris Shakhnes, who suffers from multiple sclerosis, waited more than seven months for State Defendants to even schedule a Fair Hearing after his doctor’s request for an increase in home health care was denied. Mr. Shakhnes’s suffering increased greatly during the many months he went without the care to which he was legally entitled. Jane Greengold Stevens, the Director of Litigation at NYLAG, explained that under the federal Medicaid system, “states are required to provide an opportunity for appeal through a fair hearing process for any individual whose claim for assistance is denied or not acted upon, or whose benefits are terminated or reduced. The State has failed to comply with its statutory obligations. This lawsuit is another example of NYLAG’s efforts to ensure at-risk population receive the access to justice to which they’re entitled.”

Finding that Plaintiffs have a right of action to enforce the applicable provisions of the Medicaid Act, United States District Judge Richard J. Holwell agreed that, with a few exceptions, a Plaintiff’s “right is violated when the agency fails to carry the hearing through all steps necessary to completion within ninety days of the request for the hearing.” The Special Litigation Unit brought this case with Ben Taylor of NYLAG’s General Legal Services Unit, and with the law firm of SNR Denton, working pro bono.

“The MTA provided absolutely no accessible public transportation until people with mobility impairments sued them in the early 1980s. Two lawsuits ultimately resulted in the current fully accessible bus service, the existence of the paratransit system, and limited improvements in accessibility of the subway system. It is a shame that it now requires another lawsuit to maintain access to public transportation for people with mobility impairments in this city,” said NYLAG’s Director of Litigation, Jane Greengold Stevens.

Under the settlement agreement, USCIS was ordered to adjudicate approximately 90% of the naturalization applications of the 1,426 individuals residing in Kings, Nassau, Queens, Richmond, and Suffolk counties who had been waiting more than 120 days after their citizenship interviews for decisions on their applications. The most common concern of the clients at the time was that they would not be able to vote in the presidential election. That fear was put to rest when the court further ordered timely adjudication of the applications and for approved applicants to be sworn in in time for the election.

“There is no reason to believe that the defendant agencies will comply with the terms of a court order or settlement agreement when they have already shown a willingness to disobey the law.  We need to watch, over time, to see whether they change their practices to comply with the law,” explains Jane Greengold Stevens, NYLAG’s Director of Litigation.  “Monitoring is most important in what we call ‘practice cases,’ in which we are challenging not policies, but system-wide practices of failures to comply with legal requirements such as time limits or standards of eligibility for benefit programs.”

When SLU achieves a victory in a class action, the resulting order typically requires defendants to provide data about their compliance with the terms of the order or stipulation.  Monitoring periods often last several years during which the court usually retains jurisdiction over the case.  The defendants’ obligation to provide data about compliance ensures that the defendants themselves pay attention to their continuing obligations and also allows SLU attorneys to track defendants’ compliance post-victory.  SLU then uses this information to seek further assistance from the court if defendants fail to comply with the terms of the court order or settlement agreement, and the court may issue further orders, or hold the defendants in contempt of a court order.  No defendant wants to be found in contempt of a court order, so this threat gives SLU a potentially powerful tool.

As a result of diligent monitoring,  for example, SLU and NYLAG’s General Legal Services Unit recently filed a contempt motion in Acevedo v. Turner. Through this case, plaintiffs challenged New York City’s failure to inform applicants and recipients of family assistance cash grants about procedures for lifting sanctions.  Acevedo was successfully settled in March 2004 when defendants agreed to use a new notice and begin properly lifting sanctions. However, over the past two years, monitoring reports have shown that defendants have consistently failed to comply with the settlement, and in September 2009, NYLAG had to return to court.  “NYLAG’s goal is to hold the City defendant to its obligations under the stipulation of settlement to provide adequate notice to all individuals prior to imposing sanctions and to restore such individuals to the place in which they would have been  had the defendant complied with the settlement agreement,” stated Sabrina Tavi, staff attorney with SLU.

Acevedo v. Turner is only one example of many in which SLU has used the monitoring process to achieve compliance from defendants.  SLU attorney Caryn Lederer elaborates, “Our goal is to ensure that our cases end only when the defendants fully comply with the law.”

“For people with disabling mobility impairments, broken elevators are more than an inconvenience – they deprive residents of the full use and benefit of their homes,” said Jane Greengold Stevens, NYLAG’s Director of Litigation. Ms. Stevens further explained that the named plaintiffs suffer from conditions such as cerebral palsy, rheumatoid arthritis, and chronic asthma, which make it near impossible for them to move without the help of handicap equipment such as wheelchairs or walkers.

Brito vs. NYCHA challenges widespread and systemic failure to maintain elevators in operable working condition. Citing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and New York State and New York City Human Rights laws, the lawsuit accuses NYCHA of denying people with disabilities the full use of their homes. Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction ordering NYCHA to maintain its elevators by repairing, modernizing, and where necessary, replacing them. They also demand provision of accommodations for disabled residents when elevators are not working.

NYLAG and Paul Weiss are working closely with Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringer to identify residents most affected by this elevator issue. In 2008, Borough President Stringer’s office studied NYCHA elevators and found that 75% had failed routine inspections over the past five years. Stringer said, “The lawsuit brought by NYLAG and Paul Weiss will, I hope, put an end to this dangerous and unacceptable situation once and for all.”

One of the seven individual plaintiffs cited in the case is Wilma Brito, a 38 year-old cerebral palsy patient who uses a wheelchair and lives in NYCHA housing. Back in March, when both elevators in her building were broken simultaneously for three days, Ms. Brito was trapped in her apartment and unable to attend a doctor’s appointment or take her children to school. On another occasion when both elevators were broken simultaneously, Ms. Brito was stuck outside her building from 7 p.m. to 2 a.m.

“Ms. Brito’s story is representative of the hardships faced by thousands of New Yorkers with disabilities who live in NYCHA housing. Those residents are rendered effectively homeless when they return home and find that the elevator in their building has failed, so that they cannot access their apartment for hours, if not days. This lawsuit seeks to remedy this fundamental violation of the rights of people with disabilities,” said Andrew J. Ehrlich, a litigation partner at Paul Weiss who is working on the case.

NYLAG filed the lawsuit, Gorovets v. Chertoff, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of Irina Gorovets. Mrs. Gorovets is the widow of Emil Gorovets, a world-renowned singer and composer, who spent most of his life in the former Soviet Union. Mrs. Gorovets is facing deportation because her husband tragically died from kidney failure while the Gorovetses’ immigration applications were awaiting approval.

Federal law allows the spouse of a U.S. citizen to become a lawful permanent resident and obtain a green card. However, if the citizen spouse dies before the couple has been married for two years and before USCIS processes the couple’s immigration papers, USCIS refuses to treat the widow or widower as the spouse of a U.S. citizen and denies the green card application.

USCIS’s policy, often called the “widow’s penalty,” has resulted in more than 170 widows and widowers throughout the country fearing deportation. NYLAG’s challenge to the policy is part of a larger, national movement. NYLAG hopes Mrs. Gorovets’s case will prevent USCIS from continuing this policy in New York, where it currently remains in effect.

Under USCIS’s policy, whether a surviving spouse can obtain a green card can be purely a matter of chance. For widows and widowers whose citizen spouse dies before their second wedding anniversary, their eligibility for a green card solely depends on when USCIS makes decisions on their applications. If the citizen spouse dies after the application is processed, the surviving spouse gets a green card; but if the citizen spouse dies before the application is processed, the surviving spouse is denied a green card and placed in deportation proceedings.

In Mrs. Gorovets’s case, although her husband passed away prior to their second wedding anniversary, the couple had lived together for years before his death. Ms. Gorovets was devastated when USCIS ruled that her marriage “ceased to exist” upon her husband’s death. “I will always be the widow of Emil Gorovets,” she said.

Mrs. Gorovets has dedicated her life to preserving her husband’s cultural legacy, a fact that USCIS refused to consider and which highlights the harshness of its policy. The late Emil Gorovets a singer, composer, and world-renowned icon, has been credited with the extraordinary achievement of preserving Jewish and Yiddish culture in the former Soviet Union. In the 1970s, pressure from Soviet authorities forced Gorovets to emigrate to the United States. He became a U.S. citizen in 1978 and performed both in the United States and internationally until his death in 2001.

Mrs. Gorovets served as a coproducer of many of Mr. Gorov- ets’s artistic projects and is intimately familiar with his work. Deportation will cause Mrs. Gorovets more than just personal hardship. If she is forced to leave the United States, she will be torn from the important job of archiving and preserving her husband’s artistic works, abandoning the development of a critical historical archive for Jewish, Yiddish and Russian culture.

Caryn Lederer, a staff attorney at NYLAG, said, “Mrs. Gorovets is the victim of an arbitrary and unjust policy. Whether widows and widowers like Mrs. Gorovets can stay in the United States should not depend on whether the government processes their properly-filed applications before or after the tragic death of their spouses.” For more information on this or other Special Litigation Unit information please contact Caryn Lederer at clederer@nylag.org or 212.613.5108.

For more information on NYLAG’s other immigration-related legal services please contact Irina Matiychenko at imatiychenko@nylag.org or 212.613.5013.

Many of the immigrants who will benefit from this settlement have been waiting years for a decision on their naturalization applications. “The most common concern that our clients expressed was fear that they would not be able to vote in the presidential election this November. Now, that fear can be put to rest,” said SLU attorney Deborah Berkman.

Under the settlement agreement, USCIS must adjudicate approximately 90% of the naturalization applications of the 1,426 individuals residing in Kings, Nassau, Queens, Richmond, and Suffolk counties who as of June 12, 2008 had been waiting more than 120 days after their citizenship interviews for decisions on their applications. These applications must be adjudicated by the end of August 2008, and successful applicants must be given the oath of citizenship in time to register to vote in the November election.

NYLAG brought this suit in 2006 after learning from its clients that naturalization backlogs were causing serious harm to thousands of New York City immigrants. While waiting for decisions on their applications, would-be citizens could not vote, they could not sponsor immediate relatives for visas, they could not receive certain lifesustaining federal benefits, and they were ineligible for numerous types of jobs. As a result of the court-ordered settlement in Yakubova, those eligible for naturalization will soon be granted all the benefits of citizenship.

Muhammad Shabbir Sajid, one of the plaintiffs, recently became a citizen after waiting for a decision on his naturalization application for almost three years. “I am so proud to be a citizen of the United States! I registered to vote the day I was sworn in and am thrilled that I can take part in November’s presidential election. I finally feel like I am a full part of American society and I know my vote can bring about great change.”

For more information on Yakubova v. Chertoff, or the Special Litigation Unit, contact Jason Parkin jparkin@nylag.org.

In the face of a slowing economy and rising prices for food and fuel, the number of Americans eligible for food stamps (those whose gross income falls at or below 130% of the poverty level, or $27,560 for a family of four) is on the rise and likely to reach 28 million this year. With one in seven (1.13 million) New Yorkers currently receiving food stamps, it often takes weeks, or even months, for the City to process applications.

NYLAG, along with the National Center for Law and Economic Justice and the Urban Justice Center, filed Williston v. Eggleston to challenge the City’s failure to process applications within legal time frames (30 days, 5 for expedited cases of acute need), as well as the State’s failure to adequately supervise the City’s timely processing of applications. Recently settled, the decision in Williston requires that the City abide by federal and state timelines and that the State improve oversight.

“This ruling ensures that prompt attention and relief will finally be paid to those low-income families that depend on food stamp benefits and are most at risk of going hungry” stated Randal S. Jeffrey, Director of General Legal Services at NYLAG.

The recent settlement of a related case will also provide relief to vulnerable New Yorkers who were denied access to food stamp benefits while working to become self-sufficient. Walker v. Eggleston was filed by NYLAG on behalf of qualified food stamp applicants who were denied transitional benefits when required to participate in the Parks Opportunity Program (POP) as part of their transition from welfare to work. Although food stamps are meant to provide vital economic security during the first stages of employment, New York City’s Human Resources Administration has for years denied benefits to cash assistance (welfare) recipients assigned to low-wage, temporary jobs in the POP program, which pays $7.50 an hour.

Based on federal regulations of the US Department of Agriculture, the Walker decision requires the City and State of New York to restore over $7.2 million in food stamps to nearly 6,000 families living in New York City – about $1,200 per family.

Lead plaintiff Tanya Walker, whose food stamps had dropped from $256 to $94 per month when she started the POP program, said, “I am glad that the case has been settled and that the judge saw that welfare was wrong not to give us food stamps. These food stamps were not just for us, but were also for our kids.”

Elena Goldstein, an attorney with NYLAG’s General Legal Services Unit, applauded the ruling. She said that, “While it is unfortunate that the City and State delayed paying these families their rightful food stamp benefits for many years, this is an enormous victory for working families who struggle to provide food for their families and make ends meet.”

Yet despite a positive outcome for the plaintiffs, future POP participants still face an unjust denial of benefits. New York State, who subsidized the POP program, initially argued that federal regulations forbid them from granting food stamp benefits to POP employees. When the court found in Walker that federal regulations were in fact not prohibitive, the State took procedural steps to disqualify employees who joined POP after October of 2006.

Mr. Jeffrey stated that NYLAG will continue working to prevent the unlawful denial of food stamps, saying that “while this case was a huge victory and first step towards justice, it is crucial that NYLAG continue to improve access to these important benefits.”

For information about food stamps or other public benefits, contact Randal S. Jeffrey, Director of General Legal Services, at rjeffrey@nylag.org or 212.613.5053.

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP was honored with NYLAG’s Raising the Bar Award for its long history of working with NYLAG on challenging pro bono cases. Attorneys from Skadden have represented victims of domestic violence in complicated and contested child custody trials, helped clients with child support modification proceedings and uncontested divorces, and assisted with the filing of immigration petitions.

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, recipient of the Pro Bono Visionary Award, was honored for dedicating countless pro bono hours to the litigation of a complex case on behalf of 55 low-wage workers who faced unjust labor practices at an upscale Manhattan restaurant, including extensive unpaid overtime and long hours. After the case was filed, the restaurant instituted a campaign of retaliation against workers who had joined the lawsuit in hopes of intimidating these employees and preventing others from joining the lawsuit. Paul, Weiss was able to protect these workers’ rights by successfully obtaining an injunction that forbid further retaliation. We are optimistic that with the help of Paul, Weiss this case will see a very favorable resolution.

A full-time lay volunteer, George Sole, was honored for dedicating his time and talent to NYLAG’s Justice at Work Project. Mr. Sole has been an invaluable asset to NYLAG, and his work in helping low-wage workers secure pay, overtime and other crucial benefits from employers demonstrates his commitment to justice for all. Mr. Sole said that his time at NYLAG has been full of rewards and that, “It was eye-opening to see that I could be a part of making such a fundamental difference in someone’s life.” Discussing the importance of legal services to low-income populations, Lloyd Constantine of Constantine Cannon delivered a keynote address. The evening’s emcee was Jonathan Alter, Senior Editor of Newsweek Magazine.

For information about Pro Bono or volunteer opportunities at NYLAG, contact Alison Sclater, Director of Pro Bono, at asclater@nylag.org, or at 212. 613.5017.