Case 2526/17 Boyd vs Liburd

Please Click on the below titles in the table of Contents and then go to that section. To come back to the Table of Contents just click on "go back to the top".

Table of Contents

  1. Community Board 9 never voted upon Recommendation.
  2. Despite changing actual Vote Controversy in the Case still exists!
  3. Case is not Moot
  4. Borough President place Musa Moore on CB9 despite being his client.
  5. Musa Moore, Chairman of CB9 Violation of Conflict Of Interest Laws
  6. Musa Moore never Notified Community Board 9 he was a Real Estate Lobbyist
  7. Musa Moore has received over $145,000 since becoming Chairman of CB9
  8. Musa Moore Voted upon Land Use issues.
  9. Musa Moore Never Stepped down as Executive Chief officer of CB9 board.
  10. Musa Moore has absolute power over CB9's Land Use Committee
  11. Conflict Of Interest Boards Advisory Opinions
  12. Musa Moore not Capable of Conducting his duties.
  13. Respondents say the Courts do not authority to enforce the City Charter Chapter 68
  14. Conflict Of Interest Boards Advisory Opinions

Respondent Community Board 9 (CB9) Never Voted Upon Any Recommendations

  1. Despite the fact that Respondents are making the claim Respondent Liburb stated that recommendations were going to be prepared by the Executive Committee, this was never done. Respondents have failed to provide any evidence that the recommendations that were submitted regarding the ULURP Bedford Union Armory application both on August 11, 2017 and again on September 21, 2017 was created and approved by any committee, subcommittee or board of CB9.
  1. According to the City Charter article 2801. Actions of Community Boards

Whenever any act is authorized to be done or any determination or decision made by any community board, the act, determination or decision of the majority of the members present entitled to vote during the presence of a quorum, shall be held to be the act, determination or decision of such board.

  1. Secondly, Respondents are now making the claim that the recommendations that was provided within the official community board’s response is a “summary of suggestion from ‘“local stakeholders”’, when in fact the letter submitted by Michael Liburd on the official letter head of CB9 states that it was the Board who made these recommendations.  On paragraph four it states  “The board also recommends:” and then provides a list of 9 recommendations. (emphasis added) (see Respondent’s exhibit B)

 

  1. The second letter, dated September 21, 2017, which was suppose to correct the “error”, stated on paragraph two that there was only “one change” being made to the original documents submitted on August 11, 2017 and that was changing the “Disapprove to not Disapprove with Modifications/Conditions”. Thus Respondents continued to lie and state respondent CB9 made the recommendations that were submitted. (see Respondent’s exhibit C)
  1. Not only did, no committee of CB9 created or voted upon these recommendations but when given the chance to remove them and correct the “error”, as it is now being called, Respondents refused to remove the list of recommendations and continued with the lie that Respondent CB9 had made these recommendations.

go back to top

Controversy Still Exists

  1. Petitioners maintain that there exists controversy in this matter regarding the official vote of the Community Board.  Petitioner states that the official recommendations submitted by Respondents is unlawful and does not reflect the accurate decision of Respondent CB9.  According to Respondent’s own evidence they did not withdraw these recommendations from the official record, thus this controversy still exists.
  1. Additionally, the controversy of having a Chairperson who is a Real Estate Lobbyist be the chair of a community board still exists, along with the request for the Chairman of CB9, Chairman of the ULURP committee and Common in law wife of Chairman of CB9 be removed from these respective positions still exists.

go back to top

Argument of Mootness

  1. Petitioners maintain that when this petition was submitted it was submitted in a fashion to warrant a correction of the official record of the CB9 within a timely manner.  However, the case due to unknown forces continued to be shuffled from court room to court room without any logic, rational or explanation until a final decision had been made in the ULURP procedure application.
  1. However, The highest court in the case Community Board Seven of the Borough Of Manhattan v. Richard L. Schaffer, &C., ET Al., 84 N.Y.2d 148 (1994). June 16, 1994, stated that a case may not be dismissed for mootness, despite a decision having already been made, (1) if it likely is to recur in regards to community boards responsibilities under ULURP process, (2) the issue will typically evade review because of the short time frame, and (3) the issue is both novel and substantial.

 

“Initially, we note that we do not deem it appropriate to dismiss the proceeding for mootness, despite the facts that the Trump City proposal has been scaled down to the less ambitious Riverside South project, petitioner has completed its review of the project and submitted its recommendations and the FOIL request for documents has been withdrawn. The issue presented here -- whether a community board has the capacity to bring an article 78 proceeding to enforce its ostensible FOIL rights -- is one that is likely to recur, particularly in view of the community boards' responsibilities under ULURP. Moreover, the issue is one that will typically evade review because of the relatively short time frame in which those responsibilities must be carried out (see, New York City Charter § 197-c). Finally, the issue is both novel and substantial, since it has not yet been considered by this Court and has unquestionable significance for the way in which land use decisions are made within New York City. Thus, the exception to the mootness doctrine that was delineated in Matter of Hearst v Clyne (50 NY2d 707, 714-715) is applicable.”

  1. Petitioners make the claim that this issue of the unlawful reporting of the Community Boards vote and its recommendations falls within these categories along with having a Real Estate Lobbyist and employee of the Borough President and City Council person being the head of a Community Board, who’s primary responsibility is to make determinations and decisions regarding land use issues, that may be controversial and unpopular within the community.

 

  1. If Respondent CB9 and its members are allowed to conduct its behavior in the matter in which this petition has described and provided evidence for, it will make the vote of Community Boards all over the city irrelevant and unsubstantial.  Petitioners recognize the fact that Community Boards votes are advisory in nature, but still their positions have an impact politically. In light of this fact, allowing board members to change and include comments, decisions and positions that have never been approved of by the Community Board is substantial. If gone unchecked, it will diminish the limited power that Community Boards currently have in being able to place political weight onto real estate proposals within their community.
  1. Another substantial issue is having a Real Estate Lobbyist be the chairperson of a Community Board who has financial and personal ties with both the Borough President and City Council person of that Board.  The Conflict of Interest Boards speak of this issue when it has stated:

“Chapter 68 is based upon the premise that the public service is a public trust, and that certain limits on the conduct of public servants are necessary in order to promote public confidence in government and to protect the integrity of the government decision making.   Because they act as an interface between the neighborhoods and the providers of the City Services, community boards are an important arm of the City government and are therefore subject to many of the limitation imposed by Chapter 68.”

  1. The City Charter empowers Community Boards to vote on land use issues, the time frame being short for the Community Boards (2 months) and the entire process being 7 months.  It is foreseeable that continued unlawful reporting of CB9’s recommendations and decisions will recur again as there are land use proposals currently being presented and pushed by developers in CB9, which are highly controversial just like the Bedford Union Armory. 

 

  1. For example, there is a long strip of land along the Brooklyn Botanical Garden, which has height restrictions of 6/7 stories in CB9.  Within the last three years developers have purchased these lots and have submitted ULURP applications to build from 15 to 30 plus stories under the Mandatory Inclusionary Housing program, which would have to be done via the ULURP process.  These proposals have already stirred up a lot of controversy in that these buildings will infringe upon the Brooklyn Botanic Garden by casting major shadows on to their conservatories and land.  A petition was signed which contained over 5,000 signatures showing the community’s oppositions to these development proposals. (attached as exhibit H)
  1. Additionally, due to the fact that Borough President Eric Adams has not only placed his employee on the board, but during the course of the past four years, has continued to exercise his power of purging the board of any opposition to the board’s leadership, it would indicate that if Respondent Moore is not removed from his position by the courts that he will continue to be the Chairman of CB9 and a Real Estate Lobbyist, who also provides benefits to his employers of the real estate industry and Borough President Eric Adams and Councilman Mathew Eugene. 

(I.E…at the start of Borough President Eric Adams’ tenure, there was a major shift in the leadership of Community Board 9, including the placement of Musa Moore and Michael Liburd onto the Board.  Since that time lawsuits have been filed by residents which speak about this purging, index #1835/16 and 16 Civ.3767 (NG)(ST).  Additionally, on June 24, 2017 the former 1st Vice Chair of CB9 (2016-2017) Dr. Zorina spoke out about her removal off the board because of her objection to unlawful behavior by other board members in leadership positions within the Board.  Board members Lorraine Thomas, and Mr. Richardson both who challenged and exposed unlawful behavior displayed by board members were also removed from the board in June 2017.)

go back to top

Borough President Eric Adams benefited from Respondent Moore’s Actions
Violation of the Conflict of Interest Law Article 2604

  1. When Respondent Moore submitted the fabricated vote along with its modifications this allowed the Borough President Eric Adams to submit a No with Modifications.  In Eric Adams’s explanation for his recommendation on the Bedford Union Armory proposal he stated he had based it upon the vote and recommendations submitted by Respondent Moore and Liburd. In his letter to the City Planning Commission he states:

“Consideration: On June 27, 2017, Brooklyn Community Board 9 (CB9) disapproved these applications with conditions. On August 22, 2017, Borough President Adams received a letter clarifying CB9’s recommendation on the Bedford Union Armory. CB9 seeks a revised plan that will primarily serve the local community, while drawing resident of nearby neighborhoods, in order to generate revenue for area businesses.  CB9 recommended enhancing the commercial and recreational aspects of the proposal, building 100 percent affordable units instead of market-rate housing and targeting Armory programs to seniors and youth.” (emphasis added) (see Petitioners’ exhibit G)

  1. As a result, Respondent Moore’s position as Chairman of CB9 and the one empowered to submit the official records of CB9 submitted the recommendation to Disapprove with Modifications/Conditions along with 9 recommendations.  This allowed Borough President political cover in a highly contested land use issue.  Thus Respondent Moore’s used his position to provide a personal advantage to his employer, which is prohibited by law.

 

  1. Article§2604 Prohibited Conduct (b)(3) states:

No public servant shall use or attempt to use his or her position as a public servant to obtain any financial gain, contract, license, privilege or other private or personal advantage, direct or indirect, for the public servant or any person or firm associated with the public servant.

  1. Borough President Eric Adams decision was submitted on September 1, 2017.  At this time the community was completely unaware of what had transpired.  Despite Respondents making the claim that they notified the community of this vote there was no “news” reported by Respondent on their website and not proof submitted by Respondent regarding this “news”.

go back to top

Musa Moore Conflict Of Interest -  Violation of the City Charter Chapter 68
Musa Moore is Employee of Borough President and Councilman Mathieu Eugene
Musa Moore’s Appointment in Direct Violation of the City Charter

  1. The City Charter Article 1135 Restriction on community board membership of employees of council members and borough presidents.

No person who is employed by a borough  president  or  a  council member may be appointed to serve on a community board to which such borough president may make appointments or to which such council member may make recommendations for appointment.

  1. In June 2014, Respondent Musa Moore was placed on CB9’s community Board by Borough President Eric Adams.  Borough President Eric Adams both placed him on the board and recommended him for this position. (attached as exhibit I)
  1. According to Respondent Moore’s website, he lists both Borough President Eric Adams and Councilman Mathew Eugene as his clients. (see Petitioners exhibit F).

go back to top

Musa Moore Never Notified CB9 of his Conflict Of Interest as Real Estate Lobbyist
Dates and Activities of Respondent Moore.

  1. October 2016 runs for Chairman of CB9.
  2. October 24, 2017, hired as real estate lobbyist by S&G Reality I LLC.
  3. November 29, 2016 Moore does not disclose employment to CB9.
  4. November 29, 2016 Moore is voted in as New Chairman of CB9.
  5. January 1, 2017 hired as real estate lobbyist by S&G Reality I LLC.
  6. May 1, 2017 hired as Real Estate Lobbyist by Riverside Developers USA Inc.
  7. May 15, 2017 hired as Real Estate Lobbyist by AbcNY Inc.
  8. June 12, 2017 hired as Real Estate Lobbyist by 150 Mill St.
  9. June 27, 2017 Moore failed to disclose his employment as a real estate lobbyist to CB9.
  10. June 27, 2017 Moore was voted in again as the Chairman of the Board.
  11. July 15, 2017 hired as Real Estate Lobbyist by Council for Unity, Inc.  (attached as exhibits K, J and J.1)

 

  1. On November 29, 2016, Respondent Moore did not disclose his employment situation before he was voted in as the newest Chairman of the Board.
  1. On June 27, 2017, I was present at the Community Board general board meeting and during this time Respondent Moore was voted in as the Chairman of CB9 but did not disclose his current employment as a real estate lobbyist to the board.  He did however speak about his past employment as a worker for a non-profit organization.

go back to top

Musa Moore Received Money for His Work as Real Estate Lobbyist 

Direct Violation of the Conflict of Interest Laws

  1. October 24, 2016, -  hired by S&G Reality I LLC
  2. January 1, 2017 - hired by S&G Reality I LLC  and                         Received $75,000
  3. May 1, 2017 - hired by Riverside Developers USA Inc and R       Received $13,000
  4. May 15, 2017 - hired by AbcNY Inc., and                                                                Received  $5,328
  5. June 12, 2017 - hired by 150 Mill St, LLC and                                                         Received $30,000
  6. July 15, 2017 hired by Council for Unity, Inc.
  7. TOTAL PAYMENTS RECEIVED………………………………………………$145,328 (Ibid)

 

  1. Petitioners allege that Respondent Moore has benefited from work as a Chairman of  CB9 by the Real Estate Industry. This is not a coincidence that Respondent Moore has been employed by four major real estate companies at the same time that he has held the position of Chairman of a community board that is hot on the market for real estate development.
  1. The Conflict of Interest Board in their opinion 93-21 has stated the benefits that board members have when it comes to land use issues.

While membership on a community board is an uncompensated position, there is a certain degree of power and prestige in holding such a position, and such appointments must be deemed to confer private or personal advantages. As an example of the power and prestige conferred by community board membership, it should be noted that community boards are authorized to conduct public hearings on, and submit recommendationsconcerning, a wide variety of matters under the City's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), including site selection for certain capital projects, designations of zoning districts under the City zoning resolution, and certain sales, leases or other dispositions of City property. See Charter Section 197-c. (emphasis added)

  1. Thus the Conflict of Interest Board specifically states that there are private and personal advantages board members have in regards to ULURP procedure in the submission of the recommendations of the board. 

 

  1. New York City Charter Article§2604 Prohibited Conduct (b)(3) states:

No public servant shall use or attempt to use his or her position as a public servant to obtain any financial gain, contract, license, privilege or other private or personal advantage, direct or indirect, for the public servant or any person or firm associated with the public servant.

  1. In the case of Bedford Union Armory it is not a coincidence that an incorrect vote along with modifications was submitted, which not only benefited his employer (Eric Adams), but also himself by the weakening of the Community Board’s position in favor of the industry that he works for.  The fact that the modifications were still attached shows how Respondent Moore used his power to continue to support and provide a benefit to his employers against the Community.

go back to top

Musa Moore Voted on Land Use Issues.

  1. On June 24, 2017 at the general board meeting Respondent Moore not only conducted the meeting in which the Bedford Union Armory deal was presented for the official vote, but he also voted on this project. I, Alicia Boyd was present during this meeting and saw Respondent Moore conduct this meeting and also cast a vote on the Bedford Armory Proposal.

go back to top

Musa Moore Never Stepped Down as Chairman of the Board

  1. On June 24, 2017 at the general board meeting in which the Bedford Union Armory ULURP application was voted upon officially by Community Board 9, Respondent Moore conducted this meeting.  He never recused himself or selected someone else to stand in his position, during the discussion and the vote.

go back to top

Musa Moore Never Relinquished his Duty as Chief Executive in the Submission of CB9 Vote and “Recommendations”

  1. According to CB9’s Bylaws Article VII Duties of the Officers 7.1

The chairperson shall be the chief executive officer of the board.  All reports required by the Charter shall be filed by the Chairperson.

  1. Musa Moore never stepped down or appointed anyone else to conduct the duty of submitting the official record of CB9’s vote on the Bedford Union Armory application, both on August 11, 2017 and the “corrected” version on September 21, 2017. Nor was any evidence provided by Respondents that he did.

go back to top

Respondent Moore Has Absolute Power Over CB9’s Land Use Committee.

  1. According to CB9 bylaws Article 8.2 states

“Each standing committee shall consist of a committee chairperson, such other appointed members as volunteers and are appointed by the Chairperson of the Board…. The committee chairpersons shall be appointed members, shall be appointed annually by the Chairperson of the Board.

  1. Article 8.1. J lists the ULURP committee as a standing committee of CB9, which handles all real estate development issues including discussing, disseminating information regarding ULURP applications and casting votes for the proposals presented to the committee.

 

  1. According to document of CB9’s land use committee members, there are 26 members of the ULURP committee, 20 who are board members and 6 who are non-board members. This 20 to 6 ratio ensures that all decisions of this committee will fall into the community board member’s hands. This means that Respondent Moore has full control over this committee by placing, not only the chair of the committee but the board members as well. (attached as exhibit L)

go back to top

Conflict Of Interest Boards (COIB) Opinions

  1. In Advisory Opinion No. 93-2 COIB states:

Chapter 68 is based upon the premise that the public service is a public trust, and that certain limits on the conduct of public servants are necessary in order to promote public confidence in government and to protect the integrity of the government decision making.   Because they act as an interface between the neighborhoods and the providers of the City Services, community boards are an important arm of the City government and are therefore subject to many of the limitation imposed by Chapter 68.” (emphasis added)

The Board also cited Charter Section 2604(b)(2), reflecting its view that if a community board member were allowed to cast a vote on matters involving his or her other City agency, two governmental roles would be placed in direct competition, preventing the employee from properly discharging either role in a fair and unbiased manner.(emphasis added)

The Board also ruled that a community board member was free to participate in discussions concerning matters which have been or may be considered by the City agency where the member is employed, provided that, before participating, the member discloses to the other members of the community board the nature and extent of his or her interest in such matters…….. that he votes neither in the committee nor at the meetings of the full board with respect to such matters.” (emphasis added)

  1. According to the COIB there is the need for the board member to provide full disclosure about his/her potential conflict, and that he/she not cast any vote regarding matters that pertain to his/her conflict.  Respondent Moore discussed, chaired and voted on the Bedford Union Armory Proposal and failed to disclose to his fellow board members his conflict.

go back to top

Respondent Moore Not Capable of Conducting His Duties.
Relief Requested is Lawful

  1. As the above COIB opinion states that when conflicts of this nature arise (the voting on real estate deals that his industry supports but the local community residents don’t), that board members are prevented from conducting their role in a fair and unbiased manner. Thus Petitioners request for Respondent Moore’s removal as chair of CB9 is appropriate as it would afford the community of having a board member who is capable of conducting his/her job in an unbiased and fair manner. It will also preserve the integrity and appearance that judgments and decisions that are being made, both in front and behind closed doors are being done towards the betterment of the community residents, whom board members are suppose to serve and represent.

 

  1. Additionally, Respondents sited the City Charter in its ability to remove a board member off of the board.  However, Petitioners are not seeking the removal of respondents Liburd and Moore off of the board but their removal as chairs, along with Respondent’s Moore’s common in law wife, Respondent Bennett.  There is no prevailing law which states how this can be done and by whom. Thus relief can be granted by the court of law and not violate any existing legal procedures.
  1. Also Respondents have made the claim that the known relationship of respondent Moore and respondent Bennett is a fabrication.  However, Respondents have provided no evidence including sworn statements that Respondent Bennet and Respondent Moore are not common in law and that they do not have a son together.

go back to top

Respondents State Courts Do Not have Jurisdiction to Enforce Chapter 68 of the City Charter.

  1. Respondents have made the claim that the courts have no jurisdiction to grant the reliefs that are being sought regarding the Conflict of Interest Laws created and empowered by the City Charter. However, Respondents have completely failed to provide any proof, decision of the higher courts or any other legal argument to support this position.
  1. Petitioners are aware that Judges in the Brooklyn Supreme Court have sworn an oath to uphold and enforce the City Charter and this would include Chapter 68 Conflict of Interest Laws, despite other governmental agencies involved in making recommendations and opinions regarding this chapter.

go back to top

Advisory Opinions of the Conflict Of Interest Board (COIB)

  1. In Advisory Opinion No. 95-18 COIB states:

“The Board has determined that under the current Chapter 68, to avoid potential conflicts a community board member may not chair a committee if that committee is likely to have matters before it which concern the community board member's private interests or employment.” (emphasis added)

“There is thus a possibility that a community board member could use his or her position as a committee chair for the private advantage of a firm in which the community board member had an ownership interest or position.” (emphasis added)

  1. In addition, Charter Section 2601(12) states that an "interest" in a firm means an ownership interest in a firm or a position with a firm.

 

  1. The Conflict of Interest Board and law is not just about dealing with current issues but about avoiding and preventing future conflicts. Thus the premise that a conflict may not currently exist is not a viable excuse to not address the conflict of interest issues that could occur as it pertains to CB9 members.
  1. In Advisory Opinion No. 571 (1980), The COIB states

“[c]hairing a committee which has as a primary function considering matters which come or may come before an employee’s City agency is analogous to voting on [such] matters.” That is because a committee chair can, if she or he so wishes, greatly influence a committee by controlling the agenda, recognizing speakers and making rulings”

  1. In this opinion a vote and chairing a committee is treated the same according to the COIB.  Thus not only was Respondent Moore not suppose to be the chairperson but he wasn’t suppose to vote.

 

  1. In Advisory Opinion No. 93-21 The COIB states

“Charter Section 2604(c)(2), which provides that No member of the board of estimate or the council or other officer or employee of the city or any city agency, whether paid or unpaid ... shall use or attempt to use his position to obtain any financial gain, contract, license, privilege or other private or personal advantage, direct or indirect, for himself or any person, firm, corporation or other entity with which he is associated; he shall be deemed "associated" with each person who is a close relative by blood or marriage, with each person with whom he has a business or other financial relationship and with each firm, corporation or other entity in which he has a present or potential interest, direct or indirect.” (emphasis added)

“Former Charter Section 2604(c)(2) was added in 1975, to make clear that public servants were forbidden from using their official influence to obtain special privileges or treatment for persons or firms with whom they may be associated - regardless of whether or not there is any direct business or financial relationship involved. See Preliminary Recommendations of the State Charter Revision Commission for New York City (June 1975), at p. 169.”

Chapter Section 2604 (b)(1)(b)… The entire of this prohibition was to insure that the actions taken by a community board are not tainted by questions of self-interest or divided loyalty on the part of the member.

  1. COIB clearly states it isn’t just financial benefits that are being addressed but other benefits and privileges. In the case of Respondent Moore and his employer Borough President the benefit that was afforded Borough President Eric Adams was a political one.  Politically the Borough President Eric Adams was allowed to say his own recommendations was based upon the recommendations of CB9 and thus he was “siding” with the people. This granted him the political cover to actually vote in opposition to the board, who had voted a straight no.

 

  1. Petitioners allege that it would have been the perspective of COIB that Respondent Moore was not suppose to use his authority to benefit his client, Borough President Eric Adams nor the industry in which he is employed by, which is the real estate industry, even if the benefit wasn’t financial.
  1. According to the Conflict of Interest Board,

“The member may not “vote on any matter before the community….board which may result in a personal or direct economic gain to the member or any person whom the member is associated.” Chapter Section 2604 (b)(1)(b).. The entire of this prohibition was to insure that the actions taken by a community board are not tainted by questions of self-interest or divided loyalty on the part of the member.”

  1. In the case of Respondent Moore, not only does his employment pose a serious case of split loyalties, especially regarding controversial land deals that are being proposed, but taking actions which benefit his client Eric Adams also poses a serous conflict.

 

  1. The Advisory opinions speak about “potential conflicts”, which means the conflict does not have to exist currently but can be for seeable in the future. 
  1. It is the official duty of Community Board chairs to file reports and decisions of the board in the ULURP review process.  Respondent Moore’s private employment both as an employee of Borough President and as a real estate lobbyist allowed him to engage in behavior which was direct conflict with his duties and that is to report accurately and lawfully the Community Board’s decisions.

 

WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully request that the Court deny Respondent’s Cross Motion To Dismiss and grant Petitioners relief as stated in the original petition and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Date:        Brooklyn, New York
                  January 9, 2018     

_______________________________________
Alicia Boyd, Pro Se Litigant

go back to top