You are on page 1of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


-------------------------------------
Bernard S. Southerland,
Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT AND
-against-
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY
SONYA M. KALOYANIDES(#2158947),
Acting General Counsel and Attorney
of Record for NYCHA, in her official
capacity and Individually; IRENE
KAMBOS (#4330676) Attorney for NYCHA,
in her official capacity and
Individually; JOAN PANNELL (#1352129),
NYCHA HEARING OFFICER, in her official
capacity and Individually; RAQUEL
MIRANDA (#2879633), in her official
capacity and Individually; REGINA
CHU, Current Project Manager for
NYCHA, in her official capacity and
Individually; Earl Roberts former
Project Manager for NYCHA; Chanelle
Davis, Housing Assistant for NYCHA,
in her official capacity and
Individually; KINGS COUNTY LANDLORD/
TENANT COURT; OYMIN CHIN (#1868843),
in her official capacity as a Judge
and Individually; MARIA MILIN
(#2278596), in her Official capacity
as a Judge and Individually.
Defendants.
-------------------------------------

Plaintiff Bernard S. Southerland, complaining of defendants,


respectfully allege as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Plaintiff bring this action for compensatory damages, punitive


damages, and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 USC §§ 1983 and 1988
for violations of his civil rights, 18 U.S.C. §§ 242, 18 U.S.C. §§
245 as said rights are secured by said statutes and the
Constitutions of the United States and the State of New York.

1
JURISDICTION

2. This action is brought pursuant to 42 USC §§ 1983 and 1988 and


the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution, and under the Bankruptcy Laws of the United
States.

3. Jurisdiction is founded upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343,

VENUE

4. Venue is properly laid in the Eastern District of New York


under 28 USC § 1391(b) in that this is the District in which the
claims arose.

JURY DEMAND

5. Plaintiff respectfully demands a trial by jury of all issues in


this matter pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b).

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff, Bernard S. Southerland, a citizen of the United


States, mailing address at 10 Amboy Street, Suite 14-J Brooklyn,
New York 11212 and at all relevant times a resident of the City
and State of New York.

7. Defendant, THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY’ “NYCHA” located


at 250 Broadway, New York, New York 10007, is responsible for
providing low income housing in New York City, and properly
maintaining those buildings, from funding from the City, State and
Federal Government. Defendant has failed to properly train its
employees in Due Process of law and the Equal Protection under the
law. It’s customs, policies and practices denies tenants a fair
opportunity to be heard at their Administrative Hearings, and that
NYCHA having full knowledge of the wrongs conspired to be done as
alluded to in 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 1985, or wrongs about to be
committed in clear violation of the U.S. Bankruptcy Codes, and
having the power to prevent or aid in preventing the same,
neglected or refused to do that which they by reasonable diligence
could have prevented. The defendant was the direct and/or
proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s injury and cause for
Plaintiff’s relief.

8. Defendant, SONYA M. KALOYANIDES(#2158947), Acting General


Counsel and Attorney of Record for NYCHA, Business address 250

2
Broadway, 9th Floor, New York, New York 10007, was at all times
material to this complaint Ms. KALOYANIDES is sued individually
and in her official capacity wherein it is alleged that she
subjected and caused the depravation of Plaintiff’s Due Process
and Civil Rights and privileges secured by the United States
Constitution, and that her having full knowledge of the wrongs
conspired to be done as alluded to in 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 1985, or
wrongs about to be committed in clear violation of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code, and having the power to prevent or aid in
preventing the same, neglected or refused to do that which she by
reasonable diligence could have prevented. The defendant was the
direct and/or proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s injury and cause
for Plaintiff’s relief.

9. Defendant, IRENE KAMBOS (#4330676) Attorney for NYCHA, Business


address 250 Broadway, 2nd Floor, New York, New York 10007, was at
all times material to this complaint Ms. KAMBOS is sued
individually and in her official capacity wherein it is alleged
that she subjected and caused the depravation of Plaintiff’s Due
Process and Civil Rights and privileges secured by the United
States Constitution, Falsified business documents, Tampering with
the U. S. Mail, made false misrepresentations to deny Plaintiff
due process and discovery, and that her having full knowledge of
the wrongs conspired to be done as alluded to in 42 U.S.C. §1983
and 1985, or wrongs about to be committed in clear violation of
the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, and having the power to prevent or aid
in preventing the same, neglected or refused to do that which she
by reasonable diligence could have prevented. The defendant was
the direct cause of the Plaintiff’s injury and cause for
Plaintiff’s relief.

10. Defendant, JOAN PANNELL (#1352129), NYCHA HEARING OFFICER,


Business address 250 Broadway, 2nd Floor, New York, New York 10007,
was at all times material to this complaint Ms. PANNELL is sued
individually and in her official capacity as a hearing officer
wherein it is alleged that she subjected and caused the
depravation of Plaintiff’s Due Process and Civil Rights and
privileges secured by the United States Constitution, Failed to
allow into evidence that NYCHA failed to provide essential
building wide services covering-up that NYCHA breached their
duties and responsibilities (warranty of habitability), and her
having full knowledge of the wrongs conspired to be done as
alluded to in 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 1985, or wrongs about to be
committed in clear violation of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, and
having the power to prevent or aid in preventing the same,
neglected or refused to do that which she by reasonable diligence

3
could have prevented. The defendant was the direct cause of the
Plaintiff’s injury and cause for Plaintiff’s relief.

11. Defendant, RAQUEL MIRANDA (#2879633), Business address 250


Broadway, New York, New York 10007, was at all times material to
this complaint Ms. MIRANDA is sued individually and in her
official capacity as a attorney for NYCHA in the defendant’s
LANDLORD/TENANT COURT wherein it is alleged that she subjected and
caused the depravation of Plaintiff’s Due Process and Civil Rights
and privileges secured by the United States Constitution, her
having full knowledge of the wrongs conspired to be done as
alluded to in 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 1985, or wrongs about to be
committed in clear violation of the U.S. Bankruptcy Codes, and
having the power to prevent or aid in preventing the same,
neglected or refused to do that which she by reasonable diligence
could have prevented. The defendant was the direct cause of the
Plaintiff’s injury and cause for Plaintiff’s relief.

12. Defendant, REGINA CHU, Project Manager at Marcus Garvey Houses


Brooklyn, New York for NYCHA, Main business address 250 Broadway,
New York, New York 10007, was at all times material to this
complaint Ms. CHU is sued individually and in her official
capacity as a Manager wherein it is alleged that she subjected and
caused the depravation of Plaintiff’s Due Process and Civil
Rights, mail fraud, false billing and privileges secured by the
United States Constitution, and her having full knowledge of the
wrongs conspired to be done as alluded to in 42 U.S.C. §1983 and
1985, or wrongs about to be committed in clear violation of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code, and having the power to prevent or aid in
preventing the same, neglected or refused to do that which she by
reasonable diligence could have prevented. The defendant was the
direct cause of the Plaintiff’s injury and cause for Plaintiff’s
relief.

13. Defendant, EARL ROBERTS, former Manager for Marcus Garvey


Houses NYCHA, Main business address 250 Broadway, New York, New
York 10007, was at all times material to this complaint Mr.
ROBERTS is sued individually and in his official capacity as a
former manager wherein it is alleged that he subjected and caused
the depravation of Plaintiff’s Due Process and Civil Rights and
privileges secured by the United States Constitution, He told the
Plaintiff’s female visitor “if you go out with me, I would stop
harassing Mr. Southerland”, and him having full knowledge of the
wrongs conspired to be done as alluded to in 42 U.S.C. §1983 and
1985, or wrongs about to be committed, and having the power to
prevent or aid in preventing the same, neglected or refused to do
that which she by reasonable diligence could have prevented. The

4
defendant was the direct cause of the Plaintiff’s injury and cause
for Plaintiff’s relief.

14. Defendant, Chanelle Davis, Housing Assistant at Marcus Garvey


Houses for NYCHA, Brooklyn, New York, Main business address 250
Broadway, New York, New York 10007, was at all times material to
this complaint Ms. Davis is sued individually and in her official
capacity as a Housing Assistant wherein it is alleged that she
subjected and caused the depravation of Plaintiff’s Due Process
and Civil Rights and privileges secured by the United States
Constitution, and tramping with the U. S. Mail, Conspiracy to
generate false bill and business records, and her having full
knowledge of the wrongs conspired to be done as alluded to in 42
U.S.C. §1983 and 1985, or wrongs about to be committed in clear
violation of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, and having the power to
prevent or aid in preventing the same, neglected or refused to do
that which she by reasonable diligence could have prevented. The
defendant was the direct cause of the Plaintiff’s injury and cause
for Plaintiff’s relief.

15. Defendant, KINGS COUNTY LANDLORD/TENANT COURT, located at 141


Livingston Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201, Defendant has failed
to properly train its employees in Due Process of law and the
Equal Protection under the law. It’s customs, policies and
practices denies tenants any safeguards when determination are
made by defendant NYCHA, they rubber stamp them and the procedure
of filing an article 78 sets the bar to high for a pro se, and
that KINGS COUNTY LANDLORD/TENANT COURT has a double standard,
they apple the laws to private Landlord but relaxes the law when
come to NYCHA, and having full knowledge of the wrongs conspired
to be done as alluded to in 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 1985, or wrongs
about to be committed in clear violation of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Codes, and having the power to prevent or aid in preventing the
same, neglected or refused to do that which they by reasonable
diligence could have prevented. The defendant was the direct
and/or proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s injury and cause for
Plaintiff’s relief.

16. Defendant, OYMIN CHIN (#1868843), a Judge for the defendant


KINGS COUNTY LANDLORD/TENANT COURT, located at 141 Livingston
Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201, Defendant Ms. CHIN has customs,
policies and practices that denies tenants any safe guards when
determinations are made by defendant NYCHA, they rubber stamp
them, and having full knowledge of the wrongs conspired to be done
as alluded to in 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 1985, or wrongs about to be
committed in clear violation of the U.S. Bankruptcy Codes, and
having the power to prevent or aid in preventing the same,

5
neglected or refused to do that which they by reasonable diligence
could have prevented. The defendant was the direct and/or
proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s injury and cause for
Plaintiff’s relief.

17. Defendant, MARIA MILIN (#2278596), a Judge for the defendant


KINGS COUNTY LANDLORD/TENANT COURT, located at 141 Livingston
Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201, Defendant Ms. MILIN has customs,
policies and practices that denies tenants any safeguards when
determinations are made by defendant NYCHA, they rubber stamp
them, and having full knowledge of the wrongs conspired to be done
as alluded to in 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 1985, or wrongs about to be
committed in clear violation of the U.S. Bankruptcy Codes, and
having the power to prevent or aid in preventing the same,
neglected or refused to do that which they by reasonable diligence
could have prevented. The defendant was the direct and/or
proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s injury and cause for
Plaintiff’s relief.

18. Defendants were each and all responsible, in whole and/or in


part, for the planning for and/or creation, promulgation,
implementation, and/or enforcement of the unconstitutional
policies, practices and/or customs complained of herein, and/or
condoned, acquiesced in, adopted, and/or approved of the same,
through their acts and/or failures to act, as set forth more fully
below.

19. At all times relevant herein, as set forth more fully below,
defendants’ actions and/or failures to act were malicious,
intentional, knowing, and/or with a deliberate indifference
to and/or in a reckless regard for the natural and probable
consequences of their acts and/or omissions.

20. All defendants were each and all personally involved in


depriving plaintiff of his rights and in implementing the
unconstitutional policies, practices, customs and/or conduct
complained of herein.

21. At all times relevant herein, as set forth more fully below,
defendant NYCHA and KINGS COUNTY LANDLORD/TENANT COURT has de
facto policies, practices, customs usages of failing properly to
train, screen, supervise, and discipline agents, employees, and of
failing to inform the individual defendants and their managers,
supervisors and attorneys of their need to train, screen,
supervise or discipline said defendants, which were a direct and
proximate cause of the unconstitutional conduct alleged herein and
the damages attendant thereto, and defendants, either personally

6
or through their employees, were acting under color of state law
and/or in compliance with the official rules, regulations, laws,
statutes, customs, usages and/or practices of the State or City of
New York.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

22. Since Plaintiff and his family moved in to said premises in


1996. The defendants have failed to provide essential building
services. Plaintiff has made numerous complaints about, Lack of
Elevator Service, Mold, Structure Cracks in the Stairwell and
other parts of the building, Leaking Rooftop Water Tank, Low Water
Pressure, Roof Ventilation Fan Not Working, Floor Tiles, Vermin,
Water bugs, Bedbugs, Wires hanging in Stairwell, Missing Stairwell
Doors, Missing Stairwell Door Windows, leaky Radiator, No Hot
Water, No Heat, Refrigerator Leaking, When they are working, the
Elevator Door Stick on various floors. Building was not Wheelchair
Assessable, Failure to Make Timely Repairs, Harassment, Complicit
with Burglars that Burglarized Plaintiff’s apartment, Failure to
reimburse spoiled Food from Blackout, Plaintiff’s children being
issued Summons for waiting for the Elevator, Filing Frivolous
Court Actions (Barratry), Failure to provide Security, Failure to
maintain tenant privacy, Failure to notify tenant of dangerous
Health outbreak Conditions in the building, Failure to install
Emergency Lighting in the Building, Petitioner’s employees
fraternizing with Tenants (In one case the Manager offered to stop
harassing Plaintiff if his female Guest would date him),
retaliation due to the fact respondent spoke-out about the illegal
tenant’s Association, and how the Administrative hearing process
denies tenants due process and forces tenant’s to accept probation
or face termination. Defendants have continuously interfered with
the Plaintiff harassed and his family, violating our right to live
in peace without fear and/or intimidation.

23. In or about 2004 the petitioner started their administrative


hearing process and failed to comply with Plaintiff’s request for
discovery for his defense, but instead made several defaults
against Plaintiff. Plaintiff had all 3 of the defaults vacated,
but while Plaintiff was under Bankruptcy. The defendants made a
determination to terminate Plaintiff’s tenancy. Using the
discharged history (that was discharged under bankruptcy) of the
Plaintiff. Plaintiff now states that the defendants has violated
the Discharge Injunction (Fresh Start) Title 11 U.S.C of the
Bankruptcy Law (NYCHA was a named Creditor in a Chapter 7
proceeding EDNY,Case No. 1-07-46969-dem).

7
24. Plaintiff avers that this complaint would be improperly placed
in the State Court. The Kings County Landlord/Tenant Court
defendants has not or refuse to have NYCHA defendants “a Quasi-
Government agency) to uphold the law.

25. The Court should find reason to assume jurisdiction in light


of the defendant’s blatant disregard for the law.

AS AND FOR A FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

DEPRIVATION OF PLAINTIFFS’ RIGHTS UNDER THE UNITED STATES


CONSTITUTION AND 42 U.S.C. § 1983

26. Plaintiffs restate and reallege the allegations contained in


¶¶ 1 through 25 above as if fully set forth hereat and incorporate
them by reference.

27. By their conduct and actions depriving plaintiff of his


freedoms to be let alone, in abusing process against him, in
retaliating against him for the exercise of constitutionally
protected rights, in inflicting emotional distress upon him, in
violating his rights to due process and equal protection, and/or
for failing to remedy the aforementioned violations, and/or by
failing properly to train, supervise, or discipline employees of
the defendants, acting under color of law and without lawful
justification, intentionally, maliciously, and/or with a
deliberate indifference to and/or a reckless disregard for the
natural and probable consequences of their acts, deprived
plaintiff of the equal protection of the laws and/or of equal
privileges and immunities under the laws, and thereby caused
injury and damage in violation of plaintiffs’ constitutional
rights as guaranteed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the United States
Constitution, including its First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth
Amendments, and under guaranteed protections of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Laws.

28. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff was deprived of his


liberty and First Amendment rights, psychological and emotional
injury, humiliation, costs and expenses, and were otherwise
damaged and injured.

AS AND FOR A FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF MALICIOUS ABUSE OF PROCESS

29. Plaintiff restates and reallege the allegations contained in


¶¶ 1 through 27 above as if fully set forth hereat and incorporate
them by reference.

8
30. Defendants failed to abide by the U.S. Bankruptcy codes when a
discharge was granted to plaintiff in order to obtain a collateral
objective outside the legitimate ends of the legal process.

31. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff was deprived of his


liberty and First Amendment rights, suffered psychological and
emotional injury, humiliation, costs and expenses, and were
otherwise damaged and injured.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL


RIGHTS TO FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING

32. Plaintiff restates and reallege the allegations contained in


¶¶ 1 through 30 above as if fully set forth hereat and incorporate
them by reference.

33. Defendants created false information against plaintiff.

34. Defendants therefore violated plaintiffs’ constitutional


rights to fair trials under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution.

35. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff was deprived of his


Constitutional Rights to a fair administrative hearing, suffered
psychological and emotional injury, humiliation, costs and
expenses, and were otherwise damaged and injured.

AS AND FOR A THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS RIGHTS

36. Plaintiff restates and reallege the allegations contained in


¶¶ 1 through 34 above as if fully set forth hereat and incorporate
them by reference.

37. Defendants have customs, policies and practices that deny pro
se tenants the right to due process and the equal protection under
the law.

38. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff was deprived of his


right to due process at the defendant NYCHA administrative
hearing, and have suffered stress, psychological and emotional
injury, humiliation, costs and expenses, and were otherwise
damaged and injured.

AS AND FOR AN FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOR VIOLATION OF THE


BANKRUPTCY DISCHARGE INJUNCTION

9
39. Plaintiffs restate and reallege the allegations contained in
¶¶ 1 through 37 above as if fully set forth hereat and incorporate
them by reference.

40. Defendants selectively targeted against plaintiff, but not


others similarly situated, and were invidiously discriminatory,
malicious, purposeful, and/or arbitrary and capricious in their
enforcement.

41. As a result of the foregoing, defendants have violated the


Bankruptcy discharge injunction causing defamation and wrongfully
putting plaintiff and his family in the street, plaintiff and his
family has suffered psychological and emotional injury,
humiliation, costs and expenses, and were otherwise damaged and
injured.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands the following relief jointly and


severally against all of the defendants:

A. Injunction Stopping defendant from evicting plaintiff,


B. Judgment to be determined by a jury in compensatory damages
and in punitive damages,
B. An award of attorneys’ fees and costs and disbursements, and
C. Other such relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

I hereby declare, verify, certify, and state, pursuant to the


penalties of perjury under the laws of the United States, and by
the provisions of 28 USC §1746, that all the above and foregoing
representations are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
information, and belief.

Executed at Brooklyn, New York, this 15th day of November 2010.

DATED: Brooklyn, NEW YORK


Monday, November 15, 2010

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
_____________________________
Bernard S. Southerland
10 Amboy Street, Suite 14-J
Brooklyn, New York 11212
(718) 624-7666, office

10