-
State Supreme Court Judge rules that Town’s case against SureStay will not be combined with Town’s state court case against migrant hotel and government defendants
-
Denies hotel’s request for preliminary relief to stay Town Court charges until state court proceedings are resolved.
-
Supervisor says ruling allows elements of home rule in Colonie
MONTICELLO – A State Supreme Court Judge refused to consolidate two lawsuits filed in response to the migrants living at the SureStay Hotel on Wolf road and also rejected the hotel’s request for a preliminary injunction, allowing the case against the owners and management to move forward in Town Court.
In a decision dated June 7, Acting Supreme Court Justice Danielle Jose-Decker rejected SureStay’s attempt to consolidate the two lawsuits into a single action, remove it from the Town to the State Supreme Court and and stay the Town’s prosecution of the hotel’s owner Amandeep Dhillon for violating Colonie’s local law limiting hotel stays of guests to 28 days.
The Supreme Court case in which Justice Jose-Decker issued her decision was brought as an Article 78 proceeding filed by Town Supervisor Peter Crummey on behalf of the town against the Cities of Albany and New York, New York City Department of Social Services and the SureStay. Jose-Decker ruled in May to allow that case to move forward by dismissing a motion for summary judgment.
The complaint in the Article 78 proceeding, which was filed shortly after migrants were bussed to Colonie on Memorial Day weekend 2023, alleged that the hotel was operating as an unregulated homeless shelter and violated State, County and Local laws and executive orders.
On June 30, the Town filed a complaint in Colonie Town Court against the hotel for allegedly violating a 2015 local code that limits how long a person may stay and requires the hotel to make available for inspection to the Town’s police and Building Departments, a register of all persons provided lodging at the premises.
The law was aimed at preventing motels from being used as substandard apartments.
At the time, Colonie was having a significant public safety problem with people living in unsafe conditions for long periods of time in hotels and motels along Central Avenue. This prompted the change to section 119 of the town code that says that people cannot stay more than 28 consecutive days or more than 60 days in a 180-day period, unless the Town Board approves a request for extension of the 28 day limitation due to a “clear and convincing proof” that an extension is needed for “humanitarian reasons.”
On June 30, 2023 34 days had passed since New York City officials and its contractor DocGo transported and housed 24 migrants at the SureStay. If the migrants were determined to still be there, the hotel would be in violation of the local code.
Colonie police officials asked at that time to see the register and hotel management, under advice from its lawyers, refused to provide the information, Town of Colonie Deputy Police Chief Robert Winn said.
According to the law, a violation is punishable, if found guilty, by a fine of $100-$500 or up to 15 days in jail or both. Each day that a violation continues shall be deemed a separate offense. Police are directed by the law to issue an appearance ticket for Colonie Town Court.
Winn returned to the hotel and served an appearance ticket for Thursday, July 6. Because the hotel is a business, Winn also had to serve the Department of State in Albany with the same ticket, he said.
On that night, lawyers for the hotel entered pleas of not guilty in front of Colonie Judge Andrew Sommers. The case was awaiting scheduling orders to move towards trial, but lawyers for the hotel attempted to consolidate the Town court case to the Article 78 proceeding filed in the higher court.
Then presiding Justice James Gilpatric, issued a temporary restraining order August 4, that paused the Town Court criminal case until a ruling could be made on the motion to consolidate the cases before the Supreme Court.
The case was then assigned to Jose-Decker who found that the cases are not similar enough to warrant consolidation.
“Unlike the Justice Court matter, The Supreme Court matter involves a myriad of legal issues, as well as ongoing discovery disputes, the subject of which have been heavily litigated since the commencement of the case,” she wrote.
“In contrast, the Justice Court is being tasked with determining whether there is sufficient evidence presented to establish by the appropriate quantum of proof as to whether the Town of Colonie Code has been violated.”
Jose-Decker said proceedings do not contain common questions of law or fact warranting consolidation. “The Court concludes that the interests of justice and judicial economy would not be served through consolidation,” she wrote.
As for the preliminary injunction request, Jose-Decker determined that the hotel failed to meet the three part test for granting that relief. Significantly, she doubted that the hotel has a “likelihood of success on the merits” because the law has been in effect since 2015 and has not been challenged for its constitutionality. She also dismissed the SureStay’s argument that the Town was selectively enforcing the law and that it was discriminatory.
She also said the SureStay did not make a “good faith” attempt to follow the provisions of the law and said, “in particular”, there was no showing of “extraordinary circumstances by clear and convincing evidence” that a time extension beyond 28 days is required for humanitarian reasons.”
“Accordingly, SureStay’s application for a preliminary injunction is denied,” Jose-Decker said.
She also vacated the existing order from August. The case will now move forward in Town Court.
“This Judge gets it. She recognized the importance of home rule,” Colonie Town Supervisor Peter Crummey said. “Where does Mayor Adams have the right to place migrants in other municipalities without any notification or permission across the State and how is it that I can be told that we can’t enforce a local law that was passed in 2015. It just doesn’t make any sense.”
Crummey said that the Town is moving forward with the prosecution of the Baymont Inn and Suites for violating a different part of the local law. When Town officials asked to view the register of that hotel on Wednesday, May 29, the hotel did not provide the individual occupant’s information as required by the local law.
“When we requested the information the hotel did not have it,” Colonie police Deputy Chief Robert Winn said. “The didn’t have it because DocGo does not provide names to the Hotel and therefore they could not provide it.”
“DocGo told them that they did not have to provide that information to us,” Crummey said. “Why is it that Doc Go is in charge of New York now? They are preventing municipalities from seeing who is staying there. It is not right.”
According to Winn, the Baymont was served with an appearance ticket for Colonie Town Court on June 27 to answer charges it violated section 119. On June 1, the Baymont hotel did not renew its agreement with DocGo and all migrants left the property, he said.
Crummey said that even though the migrants are no longer at the hotel, that does not absolve the management and ownership of not keeping the information and providing it to Town officials when asked.
“We will move forward with this,” Crummey said.
Winn said that DocGo has provided the police department with information, including names, when they were investigating cases.
“Why does DocGo have to be involved in a human shell game? We do not know where they sent the families from the Baymont,” Crummey said. “And they are doing it all under the cloak of darkness.”
According to Crummey, DocGo is funding the legal action against the hotels and that money is coming from the contract with New York City.
“The taxpayers are funding both sides here. This is actually insane,” He said. “When will taxpayers say enough is enough? This is a Federal issue, but it is New Yorkers that are paying big time for this.”
This story was updated 2:53 p.m. on June 13 to add information about the court dates for the Baymont hotel.
