Opinion ID: 6984383
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Allegations as to X-Men’s Services at Ocean Towers

Text: By the early 1990s Ocean Towers had become a dangerous place to live, victimized by “the scourge of drugs and the wrath of ... drug gangs” and characterized by high levels of violent crime. (Complaint ¶ 20.) The various companies theretofore retained to provide security at the complex either resigned, or “were terminated by management for their failure to resolve the crime and drug trafficking problems,” or themselves became aligned with criminal elements at Ocean Towfers. (Id. ¶ 22(c).) In June 1993 (see Complaint Exhibit B), BSR entered into a contract, subsequently approved by DHCR, with N.O.I. Security Agency Inc. for security services at Ocean Towers (the “1993 contract” or “Ocean Towers contract”) on a “month to month basis” (Complaint Exhibit A). N.O.I. assigned the 1993 contract to X-Men. When X-Men began performing under the 1993 contract, safety at Ocean Towers immediately began to improve. Vandalism was significantly reduced, and drug trafficking was eliminated. Simultaneously, however, according to the complaint, Polo-netsky, whose New York Assembly district encompassed Ocean Towers, and King, whose Congressional district was nearby, began to organize a conspiracy to oust X-Men (see Complaint ¶¶ 38-39) “because plaintiffs X-Men and Richards are composed of or are African-American and Muslim” (id. ¶ 36). The complaint alleges that in fact X-Men is not “connected or affiliated or owned in whole or part by the religious corporation of the Nation of Islam” (id. ¶ 34); however, when public bidding was opened for the next security contract for Ocean Towers, in compliance with DHCR regulations (the “1994 bidding”), Polonetsky and King contrived to impede the retention of X-Men by representing that there was such a connection: 39. The goal of the conspiracy was to cause the termination of service contracts that plaintiffs held with defendants DU Realty and B/S/R Management and to prevent plaintiffs X-Men and Richards from procuring future contracts .... 40. The manner in which the conspiracy was carried out was to hide behind their official positions to create a public frenzy which would lead to the termination of the contract upon illegal discriminatory grounds and to coerce and entice others to join the conspiracy. 41. The actions of the defendants were intentional, negligent and motivated by racial and religious prejudice. 42. The focus of defendants’ statements were [sic] the allegations made by defendant Polonetsky and other co-conspirators that the X-Men were completely controlled by Minister Louis Farrakhan and that monies from the contract went directly to the Nation of Islam. 43. Defendants at various times caused false accusations to be made against plaintiff X-Men that they attempted to distribute their religious literature and recruit tenants into their religious organization while on duty. 44. Defendants at various times caused additional false accusations to be made against plaintiff X-Men that they were a “hate group” and “racist.” Further, defendant Polonetsky as a means of convincing co-defendants and other conspirators to join the conspiracy caused accusations to be made that the X-Men, its employees and Richards as its principal owner were guilty of fraud, mismanagement, unpaid debts, and other irregularities. 45. On or about September 24, 1994, defendant Polonetsky along with King planned and forwarded under [sic] defendant Polonetsky’s signature a letter to then DHCR Commissioner Donald Halperin which accused plaintiffs X-Men and Richards of hating Jews, women, Catholics and others. Specifically, Polonetsky stated “Since the Nation of Islam promotes hatred against whites, Jews, women, Catholics and others, it is difficult to understand how the X-Men are eligible for a state supported contract — which requires compliance with equal employment and non-discrimination guidelines. It seems clear that state support for this contract subsidizes the activities of a hate group and helps fund the racist and anti-Semitic goals of Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.” 46. In that same letter Polonetsky urged then Commissioner Halparin [sic ] to terminate the contract with the X-Men. These actions were not based upon any reasonable belief, but motivated purely to further the aim and goals of the conspiracy and cause the plaintiffs los[s] of property on the basis of defendants’ individual racial and religious prejudice. (Complaint ¶¶ 39-46.) The complaint alleges that the private defendants at first participated in the conspiracy, notifying X-Men in November 1994 that the 1993 contract “would not be renewed for any definite period” (id. ¶ 47), and “effectively excluding]” X-Men from consideration (id. ¶ 48). X-Men did not submit a bid in the 1994 bidding. However, the private defendants “attempted to then resist further participation in this illegal scheme to deny the X-Men their rights” (id. ¶ 50): DU and BSR rejected all of the bids submitted during the 1994 bidding process (see id. ¶¶ 49, 50) and recommended to DHCR that all of the 1994 bids be rejected and that X-Men be retained (see Complaint Exhibit A). DU and BSR “were forced to do so after the tenants of Ocean Towers made [a] show of support for the X-Men.” (Complaint ¶ 49.) “Notwithstanding this setback to their conspiracy” (id. ¶ 51), the legislators asked HUD and a United States Congressional Committee to investigate X-Men for possible improprieties. The complaint alleges “[ujpon information and belief’ that thereafter, in or about March 1995, HUD concluded that X-Men had no official affiliation with either Farrakhan or the Nation of Islam and that the FBI did not consider the Nation of Islam to be a hate group. (Id. ¶¶ 52, 53.) The legislators “ridiculed” these findings (id. ¶ 56) and “intensified their efforts to illegally harass, conspire and discriminate against the X-Men” (id. ¶ 55), continuing to “pressure” DHCR and the private defendants to remove X-Men from Ocean Towers (id. ¶ 56). A new bidding process was conducted (the “1995 bidding”); but there was no responsible low bidder (see id. ¶ 64). The contract to provide security services to Ocean Towers was initially awarded to a company that had submitted a “bogus bid” and was not capable of performing those services; the contract was subsequently awarded to a company that had not submitted a bid during the 1995 bidding. (Id.) Pursuant to a letter dated September 9, 1996, X-Men’s month-to-month contract was terminated as of October 10, 1996.