The following is the complete text of the Shelter Reform Action Committee's petition in the lawsuit challenging the CACC's denial of requests made pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Open Meetings laws.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
In the Matter of the Application of
SHELTER REFORM ACTION COMMITTEE,
For an Order pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules,
- against -
THE CENTER FOR ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL and THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
Index No. 97/103410
1. This is a special proceeding in the nature of mandamus brought by the Shelter Reform Action Committee ("SRAC"), an unincorporated association of individuals and organizations concerned with the humane treatment of animals in New York City, against the Center for Animal Care and Control ("CACC"), an ostensibly "private" entity primarily responsible for "animal control" in the City, pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR"), the Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL"), Pub. Off. Law §§ 84-90, and the Open Meetings Law, Pub. Off. Law §§ 100-11. In this proceeding SRAC challenges CACC's denials of requests under FOIL and the Open Meetings Law to: (1) inspect and/or copy CACC's records on animal intake, spaying, neutering, adoption and euthanasia, and minutes of meetings of CACC's Board of Directors; (2) inspect and/or copy minutes of meetings of CACC's Board of Directors; and (3) attend meetings of CACC's Board of Directors. SRAC seeks both declaratory and injunctive relief.
2. While ostensibly a "private" non-profit corporation, CACC is, in reality, the "alter ego" of the New York City Department of Health, created by the City of New York to perform "animal control" functions for the City in City-owned animal shelters under an exclusive, multimillion dollar contract with the City. During its brief existence, CACC has reportedly failed to carry out its "animal control" responsibilities in a humane manner, with due regard for the welfare of animals and rights of animal owners, prompting Newsday and the Village Voice, among others, to call CACC "Animal Auschwitz" and "The Cruelest Animal Rescue System in the Country."
3. Alarmed by widespread accounts of animal abuse in the City-owned animal shelters operated by CACC, SRAC made FOIL and Open Meetings Law requests to CACC late last fall. CACC, however, denied those requests, stating -- incredibly -- that it is merely a "private" entity exempt from both FOIL and the Open Meetings Law, even though CACC was created by the City, performs "animal control" functions for the City, conducts all of its business on City-owned or City-leased property, relies almost exclusively on City funding, has a Board of Directors wholly comprised of City officials and appointees, and must obtain prior City approval before entering into many contracts.
4. Under its "corporate policy," CACC will disclose its records on animal intake, spaying, neutering, adoption and euthanasia for inspection only if SRAC agrees to pay $50,000 in estimated costs for redacted copies of those records -- redactions which CACC deems necessary to eliminate all private information about third parties, including mere names and addresses of people who have left animals with, or adopted animals from, CACC, even though disclosure of such information, in most instances, cannot possibly constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Pub. Off. Law § 89(2)(b). Under its "corporate policy," CACC has also refused to disclose the full minutes of meetings of its Board of Directors, offering instead to make available brief "abstracts" of those minutes.
5. SRAC seeks a judgment declaring that CACC is subject to both FOIL and the Open Meetings Law and has wrongfully denied SRAC's requests under those laws. SRAC also seeks a judgment requiring CACC to make available its records on animal intake, spaying, neutering, adoption, and euthanasia -- without redactions or fees -- for inspection. SRAC further seeks a judgment requiring CACC to make available the full minutes of meetings of CACC's Board of Directors for inspection. Finally, SRAC seeks a judgment requiring CACC to allow four of SRAC's members to attend meetings of CACC's Board of Directors.
6. Petitioner SHELTER REFORM ACTION COMMITTEE ("SRAC") is a unincorporated association of individuals and organizations living in and based in the City of New York who advocate the humane treatment of animals in the City. Many of SRAC's members have been affiliated with the Coalition for New York City Animals ("Coalition"), a group of more than 40 animal welfare organizations formed in late 1994 in response to the City's announcement of creation of respondent Center for Animal Care and Control. Liz Grayson, president of The Animal Connection Inc., is one of SRAC's co-chairpersons.
7. Respondent CENTER FOR ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL ("CACC") is a "private" non-profit corporation created by the City of New York in late 1994 to carry out "animal control" functions and duties on behalf of the City under an exclusive, multimillion dollar contract with the New York City Department of Health. CACC's executive offices are located in commercial space leased to the City at 11 Park Place, New York, New York, though CACC operates City-owned animal shelters in all five boroughs.
8. Respondent NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ("DOH") is the agency of the City of New Yorkprimarily charged with safeguarding public health in the City. N.Y.C. Charter §§ 551-68. DOH administers and enforces the New York City Public Health Code, 24 R.C.N.Y. §§ 1.10 et seq., including its animal control policies and procedures. 24 R.C.N.Y. §§ 161.01-161.25. DOH's chief executive officer is the City Health Commissioner, N.Y.C. Charter § 551, a position currently held by Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg. DOH's principal office is at 125 Worth Street, New York, New York.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9. This action is brought pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR for review of CACC's final determinations denying SRAC's FOIL and Open Meeting Law requests.
10. Venue is properly placed in the Supreme Court, New York County pursuant to CPLR §§ 7804(b) and 506 because respondents' principal offices are in New York County, respondents failed to perform their duties under FOIL and the Open Meetings Law in New York County, and the material events took place in New York County.
CACC's Creation and Operation
11. For 100 years, from 1895 through 1994, the ASPCA annually collected and euthanized as many as 40,000 abandoned and stray dogs, cats and other animals in the City pursuant to an exclusive "animal control" contract with the City. Regrettably, most of the animals collected by the ASPCA were euthanized, even though the great majority of them were healthy and adoptable. Because the mass euthanasia of healthy, adoptable pet animals seemingly conflicted with the ASPCA's stated purpose of preventing cruelty to animals, the ASPCA came under increasing criticism from the humane community in recent years. Probably recognizing that this might undermine future fundraising efforts, the ASPCA informed the City in 1993 that it would relinquish its "animal control" contract, effective January 1, 1995.
12. Sometime during 1994, the City decided to create CACC to assume the ASPCA's responsibilities for "animal control" in the City and succeed to the ASPCA's exclusive contract. From the very outset, CACC's operations were shrouded in a veil of secrecy. Without public announcement, the City's Department of Law prepared and filed a certificate of incorporation for CACC with the Secretary of State in August, 1994. (A copy of CACC's certificate of incorporation is attached as Exhibit A.) CACC's initial directors were all City officials: Wilfredo Lopez and Salvatore Uy, who were, respectively, DOH's General Counsel and Assistant Director of Public Veterinary Services, and Elizabeth J. Cucchiaro, who worked in the Mayor's Office of Operations.
13. On September 1, 1994, CACC's three initial directors met -- without any public notice -- in DOH's offices at 125 Worth Street to adopt by-laws. The by-laws adopted at that meeting provided, in pertinent part (in ¶ 2.2), that CACC's Board of Directors would include three "Ex Officio Directors" -- the City's Health and Sanitation Commissioners and the City's Deputy Police Commissioner in Charge of Community Affairs -- and two "Appointed Directors" selected by the City's Mayor or Deputy Mayor for Operations. The by-laws also designated (in ¶ 2.7) the City Health Commissioner as Chair of CACC's Board of Directors. (A copy of the by-laws adopted on September 1, 1994 is attached as Exhibit B.)
14. Soon thereafter, CACC's newly constituted Board of Directors met to select Martin B. Kurtz and Douglas Mansfield as CACC's Executive Director and General Counsel, respectively. Mr. Kurtz had been DOH's Director of Public Veterinary Services for more than a decade, during which time he had come under intense criticism from the humane community for allowing unsanitary and inhumane conditions to exist unabated at the ASPCA's animal shelters and not promoting spay-and-neuter programs, animal adoptions, responsible pet ownership, and other measures that would have ameliorated the need for the ASPCA to kill up to 40,000 healthy, adoptable cats, dogs and other pets each year. Despite becoming CACC's executive director, Mr. Kurtz remained a City employee, having merely taken a leave of absence from DOH. Prior to becoming CACC's general counsel, Mr. Mansfield was also employed by the City, as an assistant corporation counsel in the City's Department of Law, where he frequently represented DOH in litigation.
15. On about September 1, 1994, the City, acting by and through the City's Health Commissioner Margaret Hamburg and DOH, entered into a contract with CACC ("the Contract"), pursuant to which CACC "under[took] animal control functions and duties on behalf of [DOH] and the City" for a term of three years, from September 1, 1994 through December 31, 1997, renewable at the City's option for another three-year term. Contract at pp. 2, 3. (A copy of the Contract is attached as Exhibit C.) The Contract also provided, in Part I, Section II(b)(1)-(2), that CACC "shall meet all its obligations under this Agreement in accordance with all federal, state and local laws and regulations pertaining thereto" and "in a humane manner and respecting the rights of the owners of animals as required by law." Contract at p. 3.
16. The Contract further provided, under Part I, Section II(b)(3), for CACC's submission of various reports to the City "on a timely basis" to facilitate regulatory oversight. Contract at p. 2. CACC must, under Part I, Section IV(a), "submit to the City monthly reports . . . in statistical and narrative form . . . that shall contain sufficient information and data to allow evaluation of [CACC's] monthly operations and activities," including the "number, type, origin and disposition of animals, number and type of activities, length of stay, holding cases, cage utilization rates and other specific information related to the types and quantity of services provided during the report period." Contract at p. 11. Under Part I, Section IV(b), such monthly reports "shall distinguish among dogs, cats, and other animals and shall categorize such other animals by genus, species, country or state or other place of origin and source within the City, method by which such animal came into [CACC's] possession." Contract at p. 11. In addition, CACC must retain all records, including those pertaining to animal control, for a period of six years, and DOH "shall have full access to and the right to examine any of said materials during said period." Contract at (Second) Pt. II, Art. 4, § 4.7 ("Retention of Records").
17. CACC must, under Part I, Section III(d), also "submit a detailed Monthly Financial Report itemizing the applicable revenue and actual expenditures of the previous month to which the report pertains," with "supporting schedules and documentation," as well as copies of "consultant agreements, contracts, and leases" to which CACC is a party. Contract at p. 8. Moreover, all "contracts and consultant and rental agreements for the provision of services or equipment" to CACC are subject to "prior written approval" by DOH under Part I, Section III(f). Contract at p. 10. See also Contract at (Second) Pt. II, Art. 4, § 4.11(A) (requiring CACC to submit two copies of each proposed subcontract to DOH).
18. On information and belief, CACC relies almost exclusively on City monies provided through the Contract and has no other significant source of funding. On information and belief, CACC's primary, if not sole business remains performance of "animal control" functions for the City. On information and belief, CACC's office space at 11 Park Place has been donated by DOH in commercial space leased by the City, while all of the animal shelters which CACC operates are now owned by the City, which has acquired them from the ASPCA through condemnation proceedings. See Contract at Part VI ("Use and Occupancy of City-Owned Buildings") and Part VII ("Operation of Leased Facilities").
19. Seven members now sit on CACC's Board of Directors, three of whom are City officials serving in an "ex officio" capacity while the other four are appointed by the Mayor. The current chair of CACC's Board of Directors is John Doherty, who also serves as Commissioner of the New York City Sanitation Department.
CACC's Denial of SRAC's FOIL Request
20. By letter dated October 21, 1996 to Mr. Kurtz, CACC's executive director, Sara Lee, on SRAC's behalf, requested access to the following data, pursuant to FOIL:
(1) All intake records received by CACC from January 1, 1995 to the present;
(2) All records of the final disposition of animals received by CACC from January 1, 1995 to the present;
(3) All records of the final disposition of animals CACC has sent to the Fund for Animals' Spay/Neuter Clinic from January 1, 1995 to the present;
(4) All minutes of CACC's Board of Directors meetings held from January 1, 1995 to the present.
(A copy of Ms. Lee's letter is attached as Exhibit D.)
21. Ms. Lee's October 21, 1996 FOIL request on SRAC's behalf was prompted by growing concern among SRAC's members and within the humane community generally that CACC was not carrying out its "animal control" functions and duties "in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations pertaining thereto[, ] in a humane manner and respecting the rights of the owners of animals as required by law." Contract at Pt. I, §§ II(b)(1)-(2), p. 3. Indeed, CACC had been called "Animal Auschwitz" by Newsday, 'Animal Auschwitz', Newsday, Feb. 6, 1995, at A8, and "The Cruelest Animal Rescue System in the Country" by the Village Voice. To the Dogs: How New York Created the Cruelest Animal Rescue System in the Country, Village Voice, Aug. 6, 1996, at 1, 27. It had, for example, reportedly euthanized a number of animals "by mistake" or otherwise, in violation of the mandatory 48-hour holding requirement under state law. See All Bark and No Bite?, Our Town, Sept. 7, 1995, at 12 (Copies of these three articles are attached as Exhibit E.)
22. By letter dated October 30, 1996, Jeannie Addoloria, CACC's office manager, denied Ms. Lee's October 21, 1996 FOIL request, stating that CACC was not subject to FOIL, calling the request "otherwise objectionable," but adding that it would be considered under "CACC's own corporate policy to allow access to public information to the maximum extent possible." Ms. Addoloria, however, asserted that the records sought by Ms. Lee contained "private information about third parties," requiring "substantial redaction" and copying of "over 200,000 pages" at an estimated cost of "at least $50,000," which Ms. Addoloria stated that Ms. Lee must agree to pay. Ms. Addoloria also stated that Ms. Lee would have to pay $6.75, or $.25 a page, for approximately 27 pages of "minutes" of the meetings of CACC's Board of Directors held since January 1995. (A copy of Ms. Addoloria's October 30, 1996 is attached as Exhibit F.)
23. By letter dated November 14, 1996 to Mr. Kurtz, CACC's Executive Director, Liz Grayson, on SRAC's behalf, filed an administrative appeal of Ms. Addoloria's October 30, 1996 letter denying Ms. Lee's FOIL request. Ms. Grayson disputed the need to redact any information from CACC's records on animal intake, spaying, neutering, adoption, and euthanasia, noting that disclosure of such animal records could not possibly constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy since they do not contain human employment, medical or credit histories. Ms. Grayson also observed that people who bring pets to, or adopt pets from, animal shelters rarely insist on confidentiality. She further disputed Ms. Addoloria's claim of $50,000 in redaction and copying costs as "grossly overstated and merely designed to be financially repressive." Finally, Ms. Grayson agreed to pay the photocopying charges of $6.75 for the 27 pages of minutes of meetings of CACC's Board of Directors' meetings held since January 1, 1995, though she questioned why there were only 27 pages of minutes covering at least 23 meetings. (A copy of Ms. Grayson's November 14, 1996 letter to Mr. Kurtz is attached as Exhibit G.)
24. In a letter to Ms. Grayson dated November 22, 1996, Mr. Mansfield, CACC's General Counsel, reiterated Ms. Addoloria's claim that an estimated 200,000 pages would have to be substantially redacted before SRAC's members could see them, because, according to Mr. Mansfield, they "contain, among other things, the names and addresses of those who surrendered animals to the CACC, adopted animals or have been charged in cruelty cases." Mr. Mansfield also reiterated Ms. Addoloria's claim that CACC would not make available the redacted documents to SRAC until Ms. Lee, Ms. Grayson, or someone on SRAC's behalf agreed to pay the redaction and copying costs of at least $50,000. Finally, Mr. Mansfield stated that CACC would not make available the actual minutes of meetings of CACC's board of directors but only "abstracts" of those minutes. (A copy of Mr. Mansfield's November 22, 1996 letter to Ms. Grayson is attached as Exhibit H.)
CACC's Denial of SRAC's Request to Attend Board Meetings
25. By letter dated November 4, 1996 to Mr. Doherty, Chair of CACC's Board of Directors, Ms. Lee, on SRAC's behalf, requested that four members of SRAC be allowed to attend the next meeting of CACC's Board, pursuant to the Open Meetings Law. (A copy of Ms. Lee's November 4, 1996 letter to Mr. Doherty is attached as Exhibit I.)
26. By letter dated November 14, 1996, Mr. Mansfield, CACC's General Counsel, denied Ms. Lee's request to attend the next meeting of CACC's Board of Directors, stating that CACC is a private non-profit corporation which is not subject to the Open Meetings Law. (A copy of Mr. Mansfield's November 14, 1996 letter is attached as Exhibit J.)
CACC HAS WRONGFULLY DENIED SRAC'S FOIL
AND OPEN MEETINGS LAW REQUESTS.
27. It is amply clear that CACC has wrongfully denied SRAC's FOIL and Open Meetings Law requests. Indeed, CACC's stated grounds for denial of these requests -- that it is a private entity wholly exempt from FOIL and the Open Meetings Law -- are patently frivolous.
28. FOIL is predicated on the State Legislature's recognition that: "The people's right to know the process of governmental decisionmaking and to review the documents and statistics leading to determinations is basic to our society." Pub. Off. Law § 84. The statute was enacted to provide the public with access to governmental records to ensure not only a more informed electorate but also a more responsible and responsive government. The Court of Appeals has consistently held that FOIL is to be liberally construed and exemptions narrowly interpreted so to best serve these two broad legislative objectives.
29. The term "agency" is defined, for purposes of FOIL, to mean:
any state or municipal department, board, bureau, division, com-mission, committee, public authority, public corporation, council, office or other governmental entity performing a governmental or proprietary function for the state or any one or more municipalities thereof, except the judiciary or the state legislature.
Pub. Off. Law § 86(3) (emphasis added). The Court of Appeals has repeatedly observed that this all-encompassing definition is to be given its natural and obvious meaning and liberally construed to further FOIL's broad objectives.
30. CACC is plainly an "agency," for purposes of FOIL. Not only is its Board of Directors comprised exclusively of high-ranking City officials and individuals appointed by the Mayor but its executive director is also a long-time City bureaucrat, who has merely taken a leave of absence from his managerial position at DOH, the City agency which oversees CACC. (See ¶¶ 13-14, 19 supra.) In addition, CACC relies almost, if not, exclusively, on City funding, and its primary, if not sole, responsibilities are to carry out animal control functions and duties on behalf of DOH and the City. (See ¶¶ 15, 18 supra.) Moreover, CACC is subject to extensive monthly financial and regulatory controls by DOH, occupies office space provided free-of-charge by DOH, and operates animal shelters now owned by the City. (See ¶¶ 16-18 supra.) In short, CACC is clearly DOH's alter ego for animal control, and, as such, is plainly an "agency" subject to FOIL.
31. Even if CACC were not an "agency" under FOIL -- which it is (see ¶ 30 supra) -- its records on animal intake, spaying, neutering, and adoption and euthanasia are surely "records" under FOIL. The term "record" is defined, for purposes of FOIL, to mean:
any information kept, held, filed, produced or reproduced by, with or for an agency or the state legislature, in any physical form whatsoever, including, but not limited to, reported, state-ments, examinations, memoranda, opinions, folders, files, books, manuals, pamphlets, forms, papers, designs, drawings, maps, photos, letters, microfilms, computer tapes or discs, rules, regul-ations or codes.
Pub. Off. Law § 86(4) (emphasis added). As with the term "agency," the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that this all-encompassing language must be given its natural and obvious meaning and liberally construed to further FOIL's broad objectives. Thus, all documents "kept, held, filed, produced or reproduced by, with or for an agency" constitute "records" under FOIL, regardless of the purposes for which they were produced, the functions they serve, or the sources from which they derive. Since CACC's records on animal intake, spaying, neutering, adoption, and euthanasia, as well as minutes of its Board meetings, are "kept, held, filed, produced or reproduced" for DOH (see ¶ 17 supra), they are clearly "records" subject to FOIL.
32. Nor can CACC justify its refusal to make available unredacted records on animal intake, spaying, neutering, adoption and euthanasia on the grounds that disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, Pub. Off. Law § 89(2)(b). Such animal records do not contain human employment, medical or credit histories, id. at § 89(2)(b)(i), nor items involving medical or personal records of a human client or patient in a medical facility, id. at § 89(2)(b)(ii), nor personal information which if disclosed will result in economic or personal hardship to any human being. Id. at § 89(2)(b)(iv). Moreover, SRAC is not seeking access to these records for commercial or fund-raising purposes. Id. at § 89(2)(b)(iii). Finally, such records are plainly relevant to CACC's "animal control" work and, in any event, unlikely to contain information of a personal nature reported in confidence to CACC. Id. at § 89(2)(b)(v).
33. Indeed, the frivolous nature of CACC's stated privacy concerns becomes even more apparent when one considers that CACC has invoked these concerns to withhold records on stray animals that were spayed or neutered prior to euthanasia. Contrary to the claims of CACC's general counsel Mr. Mansfield (see ¶ 24 supra & Ex. H), such records cannot possibly contain any names or addresses of individuals who either surrendered or adopted or have been charged with cruelty to animals. CACC's invocation of privacy concerns as to those records is thus clearly pretextual, designed to prevent disclosure of records possibly showing that many stray animals collected by CACC have been needlessly spayed and neutered -- a traumatic experience for the animals under the best of circumstances -- prior to their euthanasia. See Letter Dated January 16, 1997 from Elizabeth Forel, The Coalition for New York City Animals, to Honorable Kathryn Freed, New York City Council. (A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit K.)
34. The Open Meetings Law is premised on the State Legislature's recognition that:
It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that the public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens of this state be fully aware of and able to observe the performance of public officials and attend and listen to the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy.
Pub. Off. Law § 100. The Court of Appeals has held that the Open Meetings Law, like FOIL, must be liberally construed so as to achieve the purposes for which it was enacted.
35. The Open Meetings Law provides, in relevant part, that" [e]very meeting of a public body shall be open to the public," other than executive sessions, and that "[m]inutes shall be taken at all open meetings of a public body," which "shall be available to the public" under FOIL. Pub. Off. Law §§ 103(a), 106(1),(3). The term "public body" is defined, for purposes of the statute, to include "any entity, for which a quorum is required in order to conduct public business and which consists of two or more members, performing a governmental function for [a city.]" Pub. Off. Law § 102(2). CACC' is plainly a "public body" since it conducts "public business" and performs "governmental functions" for the City through a Board of Directors consisting of more than members who adopt policy for CACC when a quorum is met.
36. The New York State Committee on Open Government, the state agency which issues advisory opinions on FOIL matters, Pub. Off. Law § 89(1)(b)(ii), has previously opined that CACC is subject to FOIL, based on the New York Court of Appeals' decisions in Westchester Rockland Newspapers, Inc. v. Kimball, 50 N.Y.2d 575, 430 N.Y.S.2d 574 (1980), and Buffalo News, Inc. v. Buffalo Enterprises Dev. Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 488, 619 N.Y.S.2d 695 (1994). (A copy of the February 3, 1995 advisory opinion from the Committee on Open Government is attached as Exhibit L.)
ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS
37. SRAC is plainly entitled to attorney fees and costs under FOIL and the Open Meetings Law since CACC's refusal to provide access to the records requested by SRAC and to allow SRAC's members to attend meetings of CACC's Board of Directors has no reasonable basis in law, and since SRAC's FOIL and Open Meeting Law requests are of clearly significant public interest, given the widespread accounts of animal abuse at the City-owned shelters operated by CACC.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE petitioner respectfully requests that this Court:
(1) Declare the Center for Animal Care and Control to be an "agency" subject to the Freedom of Information Law and a "public body" subject to the Open Meetings Law;
(2) Require the Center for Animal Care and Control to make available its unredacted records on animal intake, spaying, neutering, adoption and euthanasia for inspection and copying by members of the Shelter Reform Action Committee;
(3) Require the Center for Animal Care and Control to allow members of the Shelter Reform Action Committee to attend meetings of the Center's Board of Directors;
(4) Award the Shelter Action Reform Committee reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the New York State Equal Access to Justice Act, CPLR Article 86 and Public Information Law §§ 89(4)(c)(i)-(ii), 107(2); and
(5) Grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, proper, and equitable.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
February 24, 1997
/s/ Robert T. Perry, Esq.
509 12th Street, #2C
Brooklyn, New York 11215
Attorney for Petitioner Shelter Reform Action Committee
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
LIZ GRAYSON, being duly sworn, deposes and states:
I am over 18 years of age, reside at 348 East 89th Street, New York, NY 10128, and am an active member of petitioner Shelter Reform Action Committee. I have read the foregoing petition and know the contents thereof. The contents are true to my knowledge, except as to those matters which are alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true.
/s/ LIZ GRAYSON
Subscribed to and sworn to
before me this ____ day of