Mobilization for Justice works to end the root causes of inequities through impact litigation, law reform and policy advocacy. Our impact litigation focuses on two broad areas: Disability and Aging Rights and Economic Justice.


Class Action Lawsuit Challenges New York State’s Failure to Transition Nursing Home Residents Back Into Community Settings

In August 2015, four nursing home residents filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court against the New York State Department of Health (“DOH”) and Visiting Nurse Association Health Care Services, Inc. (“VNA”) for their administration of the Nursing Home Transition and Diversion Medicaid Waiver (NHTDW) Program. NHTDW is a program designed to help nursing home residents with disabilities who can and want to live in the community do so with support.  The named plaintiffs, represented by Mobilization for Justice (formerly MFY Legal Services) and Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, are among thousands of New York City nursing home residents who remain unnecessarily confined in institutionalized settings because the DOH and its sub-contractor, VNA, have operated this program in an ineffective, arbitrary and unlawful manner.  For example, the DOH and VNA fail to timely assess individuals for program eligibility and – even when applicants are found eligible – they often languish for years in nursing homes waiting for the next step in the process to occur.

Bagley et al v. The New York State Department of Health, 1:15-cv-04845-FB-CLP (E.D.N.Y.)

Read the complaint.

Settlement Reached in Lawsuit to Stop the Sudden Displacement of Seniors from Prospect Park Residence; Claims against NYS Department of Health Continue

When Prospect Park Residence announced it was closing, the residents and their family members were shocked and scared. With co-counsel, Legal Aid Society and Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, MFY brought a lawsuit on behalf of residents to challenge the actions of the New York State Department of Health and Prospect Park Residence regarding the home’s inadequate closure plan. The residents allege that the Defendants have violated the residents’ rights to services, due process, and, if necessary, to be transferred to a care setting that is adequate, appropriate, consistent with the residents’ wishes, and the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit under the Social Services Law, the Public Health Law, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. On May 22, 2014, the court entered an order requiring Prospect Park Residence to remain open, provide full services to the residents, and not illegally evict any residents pending the conclusion of this lawsuit. On November 21, 2014, the court granted our motion to stay any attempts to evict the residents pending the court’s decision in this lawsuit. On July 1, 2015, the Court denied all but one small part of the operator’s motion to dismiss and denied in its entirety the Department of Health’s motion to dismiss. In May 2016, the residents and the operator of the adult home agreed to a settlement that provided the residents with time and millions of dollars, which allowed our clients the opportunity and the means to relocate to appropriate housing.  Our clients are still pursuing their legal claims against the New York State Department of Health, whose weak regulations enabled assisted living operators to close facilities with little notice to vulnerable elderly people.

Berger et al. v. Prospect Park Residence LLC et al., 6639/2014 (Kings S. Ct.)

Read the complaint.

Settlement Reached in Class Action Lawsuit by People with Disabilities Challenging Access-A-Ride’s Policies

In May 2015, five people with disabilities filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court against New York City Transit (NYCT) for failing to provide due process to people applying or recertifying for Access-A-Ride, the City’s paratransit service for people with disabilities. The named plaintiffs, represented by MFY Legal Services, Inc., and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP,  are among the tens of thousands of New Yorkers with disabilities who rely on Access-A-Ride for transportation to medical appointments, social activities, and work.   NYCT denies or reduces services – even to those who relied on Access-A-Ride for years – without affording people meaningful notice and an opportunity to be heard.  For example, NYCT’s vague form letters denying or reducing services don’t tell people why they are being denied or that they have the right to access their records from the assessment. On November 10, 2015, the court certified this case to proceed as a class action. In September 2016, a federal judge approved the settlement of this class action. Under the settlement, NYCT will provide specific information why an applicant is denied services instead of a generic form letter; will continue services while an appeal is underway; and will provide an applicant’s file to them for free within 30 days of a request.

Caldwell et al v. New York City Transit Authority et al

Read the Complaint

Read the Settlement.

Amicus Brief Challenges Parole Revocation Process for People Adjudicated Mentally Incompetent

As part of the Correction and Community Reentry Committee of the New York City Bar Association, MFY participated in writing an amicus brief on whether a person who is adjudicated mentally incompetent may lawfully be subjected to a parole revocation proceeding by the state.  The brief argues in favor of the Respondent, Edwin Lopez (represented by the Legal Aid Society), that a person who is deemed mentally incompetent should not be subject to a parole revocation proceeding because it (1) violates due process and (2) is counter to public policy, public safety and rehabilitation.

 Read the amicus brief.

Class Action Alleges Dangerous Conditions & Civil Rights Violations in Adult Home

In May, 2012, residents of Surf Manor Home for Adults filed a class action lawsuit against the facility to address longstanding violations of their rights, including poor conditions, a perennial bed bug infestation, a lack of essential services, and verbal abuse and retaliation. The lawsuit alleges that Surf Manor, which is located in Coney Island, Brooklyn, has breached residents’ admissions agreements and the implied warranty of habitability and violated the New York Social Services Law and New York Human Rights Law. The lawsuit requests injunctive relief and damages to remedy hazardous conditions in the home and require Surf Manor to provide residents with services they are entitled to under the law. Kings County Supreme Court Justice David B. Vaughan granted residents a Temporary Restraining Order preventing Surf Manor’s administration and staff from retaliating against residents for filing this lawsuit.

Bloomfield et al. v. Surf Manor Home for Adults et al., 9038/2012, Supreme Court, Kings County

Read the Complaint




Groundbreaking Settlement Reached in Class Action Lawsuit Lodged Against a Debt Buyer, its Debt Collection Law Firm, and a Related Process Serving Entity for Violation of FDCPA and Related Claims
In 2009, MFY and co-counsel New Economy Project (formerly NEDAP) and Emery Celli Brinkerhoff & Abady LLP filed this class action complaint alleging that a debt collection law firm, Mel S. Harris and Associates, and a debt-buying entity, Leucadia, and a process serving company, Samserv, purposefully obtained default judgments against consumers in New York courts by not serving defendants with court papers and obtaining default judgments using fraudulent affidavits of merit.  The parties reached a groundbreaking $60 million settlement, including injunctive relief and forgiveness of the debts, which was approved by the Court in May 2016.  More information is available at  Also as a result of the settlement, on November 28, 2016, the Attorney General of the State of New York filed a petition on behalf of the Office of Court Administration seeking to vacate the default judgments obtained by the LR Credit entities against Class Members. The case is Fisher et al. v. Leucadia National Corp. et al., No. 452328/2016 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty.). Sykes v. Mel S. Harris, LLC, 09 Civ. 08486 (SDNY)

Read the Second Circuit Decision Upholding Class Certification

Read the Decision on Class Certification

Read the Decision Denying Motion to Dismiss

Read the Complaint

Read the Plaintiffs’ Appeal Brief

 Read the Amicus Brief by NYC Advocates

Read the Amicus Brief by the Consumer Financial Protection Board and Federal Trade Commission

Read the Amicus Brief by AARP, National Consumer Law Center and National Association of Consumer Advocates

Mobilization for Justice Represents Queens Man Swindled by Car Dealership Targeting Immigrants in Deceptive Sales and Lending Scheme

On October 4, 2013, Mobilization for Justice (formerly MFY Legal Services, Inc.) filed a lawsuit against New York Motor Group, LLC and M&T Bank based on the Queens dealership’s fraudulent conduct towards Shahadat Tuhin, a 41-year-old Queens resident, who purchased a used car in June so he could take his chronically ill daughter to and from the hospital. After Mr. Tuhin signed a contract for $12,000, New York Motor Group’s finance manager rushed him through the signing of a series of documents, refusing to allow him to read them while misrepresenting and physically obscuring the terms. When Mr. Tuhin got home, he discovered that he had unknowingly signed documents that had doubled the price of the vehicle. Mr. Tuhin immediately contacted M&T Bank, the assignee of the financing agreement, but the bank refused to honor his request to cancel the fraudulent loan. The complaint charges both the dealership and M&T Bank with deceptive practices, fraud and breach of contract, as well as violations of the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. It also charges Mamdoh Eltouby, the owner of New York Motor Group, with assault for attempting to run over Mr. Tuhin and other community members at a lawful, peaceful protest at the dealership, as well as an unnamed employee with battery for turning a hose on them. Mr. Tuhin is demanding revocation of the purported contract, actual and statutory damages, attorney’s fees and expenses, and an injunction preventing the defendants from engaging in similar conduct again.

Read the complaint.


Mobilization for Justice Files Amicus Brief Urging NY Courts to Adopt Stronger Standards on Retaliation for Complaints of Employment Discrimination
  On March 22, 2016, MFY Legal Services filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of a number of advocates.  The brief concerns how New York courts make it illegal for employers who retaliate against employees who report unlawful discrimination. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that it is a violation of federal law to take any action that could dissuade a worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. This brief urges the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, to adopt the same standard as the Supreme Court. The brief contends that the lower court incorrectly dismissed Ms. Keceli’s employer’s actions–which according to Ms. Keceli, included harsh work assignments and unwarranted write ups—as too trivial to be illegal retaliation. Keceli v. Yonkers Racing Corp., No. 2015-6522 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dept.) 

Read the amicus brief.

Immigrant Worker Sues Supermarket Alleging Years of Unpaid Work
On January 14, 2016, an immigrant worker represented by MFY Legal Services filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the owners of the Washington Heights supermarket where she frequently worked over 100 hours per week failed to pay her any wages, and that the only income she earned came from customer tips.  On October 18, 2016, the court approved a settlement agreement:  the supermarket will pay a settlement of the wages owed.

Pinzon v. 553 La Mina Supermarket, Inc., No. 16-cv-460 (S.D.N.Y.)

Read the complaint.

Low-Wage Workers Fight Arbitrary Barriers to Vindicating Rights
On April 22, 2014, Mobilization for Justice (formerly MFY Legal Services, Inc.) joined other advocates and worker groups as amici curiae, calling on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York to allow low wage workers who allege they were illegally denied overtime to bring their claims as a class action.  As the brief explains, low-wage workers are particularly vulnerable to wage theft.  In practical terms, they often can only vindicate their rights through class actions.  The brief argues that this right should be preserved, contrary to the lower court’s ruling that recent United States Supreme Court cases take it away.  Class actions allow workers “to achieve remedies in common proceedings, share the financial burden of the litigation, and reduce the likelihood of retaliation through safety in numbers.”  It is also more efficient for the court system to deal with one case rather than dozens or hundreds of separate cases. The Second Circuit upheld the certification of the class (see unpublished summary order below.)

Read the brief.

Read the Second Circuit Summary Order.

Wage Theft Against  Home Care Agency
On March 4, 2013, seven home health care workers formerly employed by BNV Home Care Agency, formerly known as Academy Care Givers, Inc., filed a class action in New York County Supreme Court against the company alleging wage theft, including failure to provide overtime and spread-of-hours pay, dating back to January 2006. The plaintiffs, who all provided personal care and assistance to disabled and elderly and disabled clients of BNV, regularly worked over 70 or 80 hours a week. The lawsuit alleges that BNV, which operates in all five boroughs and has offices in the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens, failed to pay the plaintiffs, and all its home health care workers, numbering in the hundreds, the required wages for their long hours. On September 15, 2014, Judge Arthur Engoron granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.  Abbey Spanier is co-counsel with MFY on the case. The Court approved a class settlement on February 19, 2016.  The workers were paid about $650,000.

Castillo et al. v. BNV Home Care Agency , Inc. et al.

Read the complaint

Read decision denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

Read the decision granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification

Read the preliminary approval of settlement.

Home Health Agency Failed to Pay Proper Wages, Alleges Class Action Lawsuit

In January 2013, a home health care worker formerly employed by First Care of New York, Inc. filed a class action lawsuit against the company for wage theft, including failure to provide overtime pay, dating back to January 2007. The lead plaintiff, who provided personal care and assistance to disabled and elderly clients of First Care, regularly worked seven days a week, 12 hours a day — as many as 84 hours a week. The lawsuit alleges that First Care, which has offices in Brooklyn, the Bronx, Manhattan, Queens and Westchester, failed to pay him, and all its home health aides, the required wages for their long hours. MFY and its co-counsel, Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP, filed the lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court, Westchester County. The court approved a class settlement on January 8, 2016.  The workers will be paid about $375,000.

Castillo v. First Care of New York, Inc. No. 51140/2013 (Westchester Sup.)

Read the Summons and Complaint

Read the class certification decision.

Read the preliminary approval of class settlement.


Mobilization for Justice Represents Homeowner in Federal Suit Charging Predatory Lending Scheme against U.K. Bank
On April 30, 2014 Mobilization for Justice (formerly MFY Legal Services, Inc.) filed a federal lawsuit against Barclays Bank PLC, alleging it operated a predatory lending scheme that overwhelmingly targeted New York City’s minority borrowers.  The plaintiff in the case is a Staten Island homeowner who was duped into refinancing with Barclays’ wholly owned subprime subsidiary EquiFirst Corporation with a mortgage that was engineered to fail.

Read the complaint.

Mobilization for Justice Defends Dismissal of Foreclosure Action
In March 2013, Mobilization for Justice (formerly MFY Legal Services, Inc.) filed a brief in the Appellate Division, Second Department defending the dismissal of a foreclosure action it won in Kings Supreme Court on behalf of a life-long Brooklyn resident.  In the court below, MFY successfully demonstrated that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the foreclosure in the first instance, and that its after-the-fact arguments in favor of standing were not supported by any, much less admissible, evidence.

Read brief defending Supreme Court’s dismissal of foreclosure action
Read Supreme Court’s decision

Mobilization for Justice Defends Sanctions Imposed on Bank for Failure to Negotiate in Good Faith
In January 2014 Mobilization for Justice (formerly MFY Legal Services, Inc.) filed the second of two briefs at the Appellate Division, Second Department, related to a consolidated appeal from an interim and final decision imposing sanctions against a foreclosing plaintiff based upon its failure to negotiate in good faith during the CPLR 3408 foreclosure conference process.  Under New York law, mortgage lenders/servicers and homeowners are obligated to negotiate in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable resolution, with the aim of keeping the borrower in his or her home.  Plaintiff, however, engaged in obstructive and dilatory tactics that stymied our client’s good faith efforts to save her home.  After more than a year of submitting and resubmitting mortgage loan modification request packages in the Foreclosure Settlement Conference Part, our client filed a motion by order to show cause in the Supreme Court requesting summary judgment and equitable relief.  The order to show cause was signed on September 25, 2012 and tolled interest that had unfairly accrued due to Plaintiff’s delay.  An October 5, 2012 interlocutory order continued the tolling of interest and noted Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders indicating its failure to negotiate in good faith.  In May 2013, Mobilization for Justice (then MFY Legal Services) was substituted as counsel for Smith. On July 5, 2013, King’s County Supreme Court Judge Solomon issued a decision and order holding that Plaintiff failed to negotiate in good faith and upholding the tolling of interest from September 25, 2012 through July 5, 2013.  Plaintiff separately appealed the October and July orders.  Mobilization for Justice opposed both appeals, arguing the Supreme Court is authorized to redress failures to negotiate in good faith, interest tolling is a proper remedy for such violations, and the Supreme Court correctly found that Plaintiff failed to uphold its obligation and the interest tolling remedy imposed in this case was proper.  The now-consolidated appeals are currently pending in the New York Second Judicial Department Appellate Division.

Read brief defending Supreme Court’s interim sanctions decision.

Read brief defending Supreme Court’s final sanctions decision.

Read Supreme Court Final Decision.

Mobilization for Justice Files Suit against Mortgage Scammer
On November 18, 2013, Mobilization for Justice (formerly MFY Legal Services, Inc.) filed a lawsuit on behalf of Ms. Elva Brardo, a 60-year-old Queens County homeowner who lost thousands of dollars as part of a foreclosure rescue scam perpetrated by American Hope Group, Inc., The Donado Law Firm A Professional Corporation, and multiple individual defendants.  After charging Ms. Brardo an illegal, upfront fee, defendants falsely promised that an alleged “Securitization Mortgage Audit” would identify errors in her mortgage loan documents and this so-called erroneous information would be used to compel her lender to provide her with a more affordable monthly mortgage payment.  In addition to a loan modification, Ms. Brardo was promised legal representation to prevent foreclosure.

Even though Ms. Brardo signed a purported retainer agreement with The Donado Law Firm at American Hope’s office and authorized American Hope Group to automatically debit nearly $700 per month from her checking account in additional fees, defendants never obtained a more affordable mortgage payment for Ms. Brardo and never provided her with the promised legal representation.  In fact, Ms. Brardo never met nor spoke to any attorney.  The complaint asserts claims for violation of New York’s “distressed property consultant” law, Real Property Law § 265-b, which among other things makes it illegal to charge up-front fees for loan modification services; violation of New York’s Deceptive Practices Act, General Business Law § 349; and breach of contract. The lawsuit seeks to recover the illegal upfront fees paid to the defendants and also seeks to enjoin defendants from engaging in the deceptive acts and practices alleged.

Brardo v. American Hope Group, Inc., et al, Index No. 21154/2013, Supreme Court, Queens County

Read the complaint.

Read decision denying defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Class Action Suit for Breach of Contract Lodged against Bank of America by Homeowners in Foreclosure
In November 2010, Mobilization for Justice (formerly MFY Legal Services, Inc.) and co-counsel Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP filed this class action complaint alleging that Bank of America and related defendants breached their contractual obligation to permanently modify mortgage payments for New York homeowners who successfully completed the trial modification period under the federal government’s Make Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). Shortly after it was filed, the case was transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern district of New York and made part of a multidistrict litigation against defendants pending in Boston.

Marie Freeman, v. BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP and Bank of America, CV 10-6380 (EDNY), a/k/a In re Bank of America Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) Contract Litigation MDL No. 2193 (D. Mass.)

Read the MDL Decision Denying Motion to Dismiss

Read the MDL Complaint

Read the NY Complaint


Federal Fair Housing Lawsuit Details Discrimination against African Americans and People with Rental Subsidies

On May 12, 2016, the Fair Housing Justice Center (FHJC), three African American testers, and a woman who was searching for housing with a rental subsidy, filed a lawsuit in federal district court (SDNY) alleging that Kosova Properties, Inc., Mulliner & Properties, Inc., Burr Properties LLC, Dardania Properties LLC, Nezaj Realty LLC, and Hamdi Nezaj discriminate on the basis of race and source of income.  Kosova Properties manages nineteen buildings with more than 285 rental units in the Bronx and Manhattan.  The lawsuit alleges that the defendants’ practices constitute discrimination based on race and source of income in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law and the federal Fair Housing Act. MFY Legal Services is representing one of the plaintiffs and Emery Celli Brinkerhoff & Abady LLP is representing four plaintiffs.

Read the Complaint.

Class Action Suit Cites Operators of Illegal Three-quarter Houses for Deceptive Practices and Violation of Tenant Protection Laws
In December 2010, Mobilization for Justice (formerly MFY Legal Services, Inc.) and pro bono co-counsel Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP brought this class action suit against three companies that rent housing units to people leaving the shelter system, substance abuse programs and prisons. It alleges that the defendants engaged in widespread deceptive practices, harassed tenants into signing away their rights, violated the rent stabilization code and laws, and unlawfully evicted tenants onto the street when they became unprofitable. RYB Realty, #1 Marketing Service, and Top of the Hob, Inc. have illegally converted several buildings into so-called “three-quarter houses,” promising to provide substance abuse counseling, social work services, referrals to vocational programs, and assistance obtaining permanent housing to formerly homeless adults and others with few to no housing options. The class has been certified to include both current and former tenants.

David et al v. #1 Marketing Service, Inc., RYB Realty LLC, Index No. 30238/2010, Supreme Court, Kings County

Read the Order Granting Preliminary Injunction

Read the Complaint

Read the Appeal Brief

Read the Appellate Decision