The Brooklyn Supreme Court was scheduled to hear the case of the development of the homeless shelter at 2134 Coyle Street on Sheephead Bay U Avenue on September 3. This case involves a developer suing 11 Chinese homeowners in the vicinity. However, the court session did not formally commence that day. Judge Richard Velasquez only convened a meeting in the back room with the developer and the lawyers of two of the defendants, ultimately ruling to postpone the case.
According to the decision, the cases of two Chinese homeowners were postponed to be heard on September 24, while the remaining nine cases were rescheduled for October 22.
On that day, almost all of the Chinese landlords who were defendants appeared in court. Except for a few elderly individuals who were unable to attend due to physical disabilities, even a pregnant woman and a new mother who had recently given birth participated in person. In addition, community residents who opposed the construction of the shelter rented a bus, with a group of people showing up to listen and show support, demonstrating the residents’ determination to protect their homes.
After the court session, the developer’s attorney Eli Raider emphasized in a media interview that the court’s postponement was to provide more time for all parties to negotiate and reach a solution. He stated, “If both sides can reach an agreement during this time, there will be no need to go to court. Otherwise, the court will rule on the disputed issues.”
Raider explained that under Section 881 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, the developer’s claims are limited to whether they can enter neighboring properties to construct protective facilities during the demolition phase, not whether the shelter can ultimately be successfully built. He gave an example that neighbors can negotiate details through a contractual agreement, such as no construction on weekends or repaving the driveway after completion. Although these matters are not within the court’s jurisdiction, they can be resolved through negotiation between the parties.
Regarding the $124 million contract signed in December 2024 between the New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS) and the operator of the shelter, Westhab, which includes a $200,000 “permit agreement fee,” Raider responded to Dajiyuan, saying, “This might be an unnecessary extra component, like an extra piece in IKEA furniture.” He mentioned that if there are new agreements or court orders, the old documents are “not essential. We can refer to them, but they are not very relevant.”
Benjamin Xue, the attorney representing the two Chinese homeowners, pointed out that Section 881 is not a “pass” for developers to forcefully enter properties and emphasized that the court must ensure full protection of the neighbors’ assets. He stressed that the previously imposed “permit agreements” by the developer were deemed invalid by the court and no compensation was provided to the homeowners, which is completely unacceptable.
Xue stated, “If the developer wants to enter to build protective barriers, they must bear all expenses, including insurance, legal fees, engineering review fees, insurance for pre-construction surveys, and include landlords as beneficiaries in the insurance. We also require their protection plans to be reviewed by engineers to ensure they genuinely safeguard neighbors’ property.”
He further pointed out that the demolition of the old warehouse is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Buildings (DOB) and is not within the scope of this case (unrelated to Section 881). “The core of Section 881 is ‘justice and fairness,’ and developers cannot demand entry without compensation or protection.”
He emphasized that the focus of this case is to establish a fair and protective mechanism, requiring any actions of the developer to enter to be premised on “do no harm,” rather than simply determining who is right or wrong.
Henry Zhu, representing the “Save South Brooklyn Alliance,” revealed that the developer has attempted to cut costs in various aspects, denying the necessity of installing surveillance and providing comprehensive insurance, which has left neighbors uneasy. He said, “If there are issues with the walls, it affects not just a few households, but the entire community. Safety is the core issue.”
Mr. Zhu added that the cases of the two defendants are prioritized by the court, while the other nine households will be in court again on October 22, meaning the developer must negotiate insurance and protection plans with each household individually. “The developer complicated things themselves, and now they have to develop insurance and protection plans one by one.”
Nina Chen, a community organizer against the development, recalled that since the emergency press conference held in March this year, residents have stood shoulder to shoulder in the struggle. Despite the challenges, the community has shown strong cohesion. She expressed that the court’s decision to postpone was “expected” and provided residents with more time to fight for their rights.
She urged the community to continue supporting the homeowners’ legal battle, stating, “We need to raise funds for the legal fees and related expenses of the 11 homeowners. This is a long legal battle that requires everyone’s support.”
Currently, community fundraising methods include visiting 2134 Coyle Street in person and contacting Meizhen, transferring funds via Zelle to [email protected], or writing a check payable to “Save South Brooklyn Inc.”
Nina Chen emphasized that the donation amount is not limited, and the community will publish a list of thanks and transparently manage all funds because “this is not just about protecting properties but also safeguarding the entire community’s safety.”