Class Action Lawsuit Onabuse Of Homeless New York Residents

The New York Class Action Lawsuit is an attempt by a group of mostly elderly men to get some sort of monetary compensation for the medical expenses they incurred while living on the streets of New York City. The lawsuit was initiated by elderly men who claimed that they were displaced from their homes in the Great Depression because of the actions of the local government, which was determined to eradicate the homeless men from the streets.

The Local Labor Management Authority was sued by these homeless men in an attempt to force the state to prevent the men from entering the park that the homeless men had chosen as their new home. After a number of skirmishes with the courts and different legal organizations the homeless men settled with the consent of the courts to go into court.

York Class Action Lawsuit

The New York State Supreme Court has now declined the request of the homeless men in the class action lawsuit to have the case heard by an Associate Justice of the Appeals Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. This decision was announced on the same day that the lawsuit was denied by the lower court.

The lower court had ruled that there was insufficient evidence to support the complaint that the local government’s decision to prohibit entry into a park was based on the plaintiffs’ status as homeless individuals. The lower court had also ruled that the plaintiffs were not entitled to compensation for the injuries they sustained while residing in the park.

The New York State Supreme Court has refused to hear the argument presented by the homeless individuals who are seeking monetary compensation on the basis of their status as homeless individuals.

In a decision announced on August 14th in the New York State Supreme Court the court said that the claim of the homeless individuals for back wages which were deprived by the decisions of the courts was legally unavailable. The Court however left the door open to future claims by the same plaintiffs for back wages if they were employed by the City of New York in the past. The court also refused to entertain the claim of the homeless individuals for punitive damages as this crime is not a civil wrong and the victims of such crimes may never seek monetary compensation.

The court found that the complaint for compensation was not supported by sufficient evidence to prove that the defendants deprived the plaintiffs of their rightful wages and did not act in bad faith.

The three judges of the lower court which heard the case, opined that the homeless individuals had failed to show that the eviction from the park was done arbitrarily and capriciously with intent to deprive them of their wages. Rather, they maintained that the defendants provided accommodation to the homeless men and women on request and also gave free meals to them.

They also kept the promise to give the homeless men and women’s shelter and secured them from all dangers. The trial court had dismissed several similar complaints against the City of New York without allowing any trial and this led to this lawsuit being filed.

The plaintiff had alleged that the defendants abused their power and influence by keeping the homeless people in foster care in tents and forcing them to live there without any proper facilities.

The court accepted the argument of the homeless people that they were not the victims of the accused’s abuse but were forced to live in these conditions because they were living in the area where the defendant lived. This meant that the homeless people were not able to present any proof that the defendants had abused them. The judge however, saw merit in the complaint as it indicated that the plaintiff had a genuine emotional concern for the homeless people who had been forced to live in squalid conditions and that she would award compensation to such victims.

The court also noted that the defendant could have easily avoided the plaintiffs’ complaint by providing suitable housing for the homeless people. However, the court did not find any abuse of any kind occurred as the defendants had placed reasonable accommodation for the homeless people.

The court did dismiss the claim of the homeless individuals that they had been victims of cruel and degrading treatment by the defendant, saying that they did not have a case to proceed with the complaint.

The court found that the plaintiff had failed to establish a case against the defendant having any malicious intent and that there was no likelihood of success on this ground. Hence, this was the first known class-action lawsuit involving the abuse of the homeless New York City men and women.

Leave a comment

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