In response to the case involving homeless individuals at 2134 Coyle Street on U Avenue in Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn, the Brooklyn Supreme Court held a hearing on April 2 regarding the lawsuit brought by the developer against two neighboring Chinese homeowners. The judge ultimately ruled that the lawyer for the Chinese homeowners could submit documents challenging the validity of relevant agreements by May 7, but cannot block the developer from entering their property through the Coyle Street entrance.
On that day, more than 50 Chinese and Western residents gathered, with some observing in the courtroom while others demonstrated outside demanding affordable housing for residents who can afford it, rather than homeless individuals. The developer’s representative lawyer, Eli D. Raider, told the judge that the project is part of New York City’s “Turning the Tide” initiative and will be used as transitional housing primarily for single parents with children, not as a shelter for the homeless.
Raider pointed out that the owners of 2134 Coyle Street need to demolish an old warehouse to construct a seven-story mixed-use residential building, requiring temporary partitions to be installed on neighboring properties before construction. However, the defendants had initially signed an agreement allowing the developer to enter the adjacent backyard to set up construction fences, scaffolding, and other protective measures, but later refused to cooperate, leading to a standstill in the project.
The defendants’ lawyer, Benjamin Xue, argued that the December 17, 2023 agreement signed between the Chinese homeowners and Coyle Street Owner LLC was invalid since Coyle Street Owner LLC did not obtain ownership of the property until June 4, 2024, after the agreement was signed. He questioned the validity of the agreement as the company was not the owner of 2134 Coyle Street at the time of signing.
Xue also highlighted that 2134 Coyle HDFC, a non-profit organization that sued the defendants, did not officially acquire the land ownership until January 6, 2025, although they had submitted a proposal back in May 23, 2023, and obtained approval. This discrepancy raised concerns about the legitimacy of their actions.
The judge ruled that the defendant’s lawyer can submit formal documents listing all the challenges by May 7. Additionally, the judge did not order the defendants to allow construction but merely prohibited them from blocking the plaintiff’s access to their property from Coyle Street. If the community protests impede progress, the plaintiff needs to communicate with the community as they have the right to access their own land.
Xue, the defendants’ lawyer, suggested that the developer should engage in discussions with the community to clarify whether the initially approved plan was for affordable housing rather than shelters for the homeless. He also highlighted inconsistencies in the developer’s legal documents regarding the project’s purpose and requirements.
Moreover, if the developer’s land use involves zoning changes, community participation and review should have occurred. If there were discrepancies or misleading information during the approval process, the community could challenge the government decision through an Article 78 administrative proceeding to review the legality of the development project.
Reporter inquired why the developer’s lawyer, Raider, claimed the project was transitional housing and not a shelter. Raider explained that the accommodation aimed to provide living spaces for single mothers with children to facilitate their access to schools and essential amenities. In contrast, shelters are typically located in industrial areas without nearby schools or supermarkets. He mentioned that Westhab manages similar transitional housings for mothers and children, offering independent living spaces with kitchen facilities for a duration of 12 to 15 months.
Defendant’s lawyer, Xue, countered that despite the developer’s claims, the restrictive terms of the property purchased by 2134 Coyle HDFC in January clearly defined the property usage as temporary emergency housing and shelters for individuals and families, contradicting the developer’s assertions.
Raider expressed hope for further negotiation with the community in the upcoming week.
The judge’s ruling yesterday prohibits the defendants from blocking the developer’s entry into their property but did not mandate granting permission for neighboring construction. This restraint implies that the developer cannot access the backyard for constructing partitions or demolishing the old warehouse. However, some residents vowed to “hold the line” until May 7 to prevent the developer’s intrusion.
Long-time resident Kenny Pan criticized the city authorities for initially promising affordable housing only to later shift to shelters post-2023 without community consent, which left the residents feeling deceived. He emphasized the stark differences between shelters, fully subsidized by the government, and affordable housing where eligible individuals apply for residency. The community vehemently opposed the shelter project and mobilized thousands for protest, determined to persist in their resistance.
Protest leader Lina Chen reiterated the need for the developer to revert to the original commitment of providing affordable housing; otherwise, the protests will continue. The WeChat protest group, initially capped at 500 members, has expanded to five groups, now comprising over two thousand Chinese protesters with increasing numbers. She acknowledged the community’s readiness to confront law enforcement risks without backing down.
It is anticipated that on May 7, the defendants’ lawyer, Xue, will submit legal documents, marking the commencement of a new legal battle in the case.