Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Derry Sykes, Petitioner v. New York City Housing Authority

Supreme Court briefApr 26, 2023

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

f)}

No._

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM 2023

Derry Sykes, Pro Se,

Petitioner,

-againstNew York City Housing Authority,

Defendant.

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States

Supreme Court For The Second Circuit Court

Appellant’s Brief

FILED

■1

^'3 ay

Derry Sykes, Appearing Pro Se

70 East 115th Street, Apt. No. 6H

New York, New York

10029

Cell No.: (813) 471-8241

Email- svkesderrv@vahoo.com

RECEIVED

MAY - 2 2023

g»go1i:.*gg

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Whether the district court abused its discretion and made a clear error of

law in dismissing petitioner’s complaint for failure state a claim under

the Fair Housing Act of 1988 (FHA)(42 USC Section 3601 et seq.) for

New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) failure to make

repairs and remove mold/fungus from petitioner’s apartment.

2. Whether district court trial judge and the Second Circuit Court in

ignoring petitioner’s private laboratory test results establishing mold

and fungus in apartment violates the Federal Rules of Evidence that

contradicts NYCHA false allegation that no mold was present in

petitioner’s apartment establishes prima facie evidence creates a

showing of a clear error of law.

NYCHA that no mold was found discovered created blatant bias.

3. Whether district court Judge Vyskocil, erroneous dismissal of this action

usurp Congress legislative purpose for enactment of the Fair Housing Act

surrounding petitioner claims of lack of repairs and mold that endangers

the health and safety of petitioner and occupants of his apartment.

4. Whether the Second Circuit has a pattern of depriving petitioner due of

process of law in Svkes v. N.Y.S. Office of Children & Family Servs. et al..

and Svkes v. James, et. al.. before the court below that resulted in an

fundamental unfairness, bias, and bad adjudicating that deprived

petitioner of his basic civil rights protection as is present here

Pages

Table Of Contents

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..............................................................

QUESTIONS PRESENTED....................................................................

INDEX TO APPENDIXS........................................................................

OPINION BELOW AND ORDERS BELOW.........................................

JURISDICTION......................................................................................

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

STATEMENT OF THE CASE......... ......................................................

THE PARTIES....................................................................

II.

FACTS................................................................................

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT............. ...............................

PETITIONER HAS LEGAL STANDING IN THIS ACTION BASED ON

BAEZ V. NYCHA, THAT HELD NYCHA CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR

FAILUTE TO REMOVE MOLD UNDER THE ADA ACT OF 1990, AND

SECTION 504 OF FAIR HOUSING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1988 ........ 8

THE DISTRICT COURT AND SECOND CIRCUIT COURTS BELOW ARE

PROVIDING CARD BLANC INSULATION TO NYCHA AND USURP THE

CONGRESS LEGISLATIVE INTENT IN ENACTING FHA TO HOLD

NYCHA ACCOUNTABLE FOR FAILURE TO MAKE REPAIRS AND

REMOVE MOLD/FUNGUS FROM PETITIONER’S APARTMENT......... .9

THE DISTRICT COURT IGNORED PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE

DEMONSTARTING NYCHA LYING ABOUT NO MOLD FOUND IN

PETITONER’S APARTMENT AND PETITONER’S LABORATORY

EVIDENCE CONTRADICITING NYCHA FALSE ALLEGATIONS TO

THE COURT OF NO MOLD FOUND IN PETITIONER’S APARTMENT... 13

THE SECOND CIRCUIT HAS A HISTORY OF DEPRIVING PETITIONER

EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW IN TWO PRIOR CASES PRESENTED

TO THIS COURT IN SYKES V. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF

CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES. ET AL, & SYKES V. JAMES.......15

Supreme Court Opinions

Cohen v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 96(Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed. 257 (1821)

Hurd v. Hodge. 344 U.S. 24 (1964)............................................................

Marburv v, Madison. 5U.S. (Cranch) 127 (1903)...................................

Shelly v. Kreamer. 344 U.S. (1948)...........................................................

Smith v. Wade. 461 U.S. 30 (1983)............................................................

Svkes v. Bank of America. 136 U.S. 48, cert denied (Oct. 5, 2015)....

10, 12

Svkes v. James. 512 U.S. 1240 (1994)................ ..................................

Svkes v. N.Y.C. ACS. N.Y.S. OFCS. Dkt. No. 20M30 (Oct. 16, 2020)

17, 19

Federal Court Opinions

Bovdv. LefrakOrg.. 509 F. 2d. 1110-, 1117 (2d Cir. 1972), 517 F. 2d 918 (2d

Cir. 1975); cert, denied, 423 U.S. 896 (1975)...........

5, 9

Davis v. NYCHA. 379 F. Supp.3d 237 (SDNY2019)

5,9

Davis v. NYCHA. 839 F. Supp 215 (SDNY 1993)....

Lombardi v. Wehitman. 485 F. 3d 73 (2d Cir 2007).

Masclotta v. Clarktown Cent. Sch. Dist.. 136 F. Supp. 3d 527 (SDNY 2015)...9

Maribel v. Baez. 533 F. Supp 3d 135 (SDNY 2021)................................. 5, 8, 22

Robinson v. 12 Lofts Realty. Inc. 610 F.2d 1031 (1979)..........................

W.B. LLC v. Will of Haverstraw. 511 Fed. Appx. 33, 34 (2d. Cir. 2013)

State Court Opinion

People v. Kennv 167 Misc. 51, 54, 3 N.Y.S. (2d) 348, 352 (1938)

Svkes v. NYS Parole Div.. Order No. 59745, 3rd Dept., Oct. 23, 1989......

Seelah Diamond . NYCH. Olatove. Chairperson. Index No. 153312/2018 23

The CitvWide Council of Residents And At Risk Community Service Inc, v.

NYCHA. and Olatove. Chairperson. Index No. 100283/2018

United States Codes

42 USC Section 1245[l]...........

42 USC Section 11201.............

42 USC Section 1983...............

42 USC Section 1982...............

42 USC Section 1981...............

42 USC Section 2000d, et seq.,

42 USC Section 3601 et seq„ ..

1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15

1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 22 21, 23

Federal Rules Appellate Procedures

Rule 4[l][6][7]

Rule 36 [b]......

Rule 45[c]......

Federal Rules of Evidence

Ride 301

1, 12

Rule 302

Rule 402

Rule 801

Rule 802

1, 12

2, 12

Federal Rules Civil Procedures

Rule 8[a]

Miscellaneous Cases

Sherron Piage v. NYCHA. No. 17-cv-7481 (SDNY Aug. 4, 2018 (WHP)

Svkes v. LAZ Parking System. And NYCHA. No. 17-cv-6185 (SDNY 2017)..22

Svkes v. NYCHA. No. 13-cv-4990 (EDNY 2013)(Judge Gleeson)

Svkes v. New York State OFCS. New York City ACS, and New Jersey Family

Services. 18*cv*8309 (SDNY 2018)9Judge Wood)..............................

United States v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.. No. 18-cv-5213 (SDNY 2018)

United States v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.. No. 92*cv*4873 (SDNY 1992)

United States Constitution

Fourteenth Amendment of United States Constitution,

2, 7, 9, 10, 11,

Law Review Journals

Alkon Law Review. Vol. 20, Issue 2, Art. 4 (1987), “Making & Meeting The

Prima Facie Case Under The Fair Housing Act” Frederic S, Schwartz......... 21

St. John Law Review. Article 6. No. 2. Vol. 13. Dated. April 13. 1939.

“Scientific Aids In Poof’ By Harold Peller........................................................ 12

52 N.Y.U.L. Review. 36, 98*99, 103 (1997), “Eisenberg, Disproportionate

Impact And Illicit Motive- Theories of Constitutional Adjudication”............. 21

Conclusion,

INDEX TO APPENDIXS

1. Appendix - “A” Second Circuit Order of Dismissal Of Appeal,

Docket No. 22-1699, Dated February 1st, 2023.

2. Appendix - “B” U.S. SDNY Civil Docket Case 22-cv-2127

(MKV), Dated July 22, 2022.

3. Appendix - “C” Pro Lab Certificate of Mold Analysis Report

No. 1533224, Dated June 22, 2022.

4. Appendix - “Dl” NYCHA Notice-Mold Inspection Review,

Work Order No. 93314034, Dated July 5 2022.

5. Appendix - “D2” NYCHA Notice-Mold Inspection Review,

Work Order No. 93314272, Dated July 5, 2022.

6. Appendix - “El” United States Supreme Court Docket No.

20M30, entitled Svkes v. NYS OCFS, et al.. Sept. 28, 2020.

7. Appendix - FI” Letter to United States Supreme Court Clerk

Michael Duggan, Dated September 13th, 2020.

8. Appendix - “F2” Letter to Unites States Supreme Court Clerk

Office, Dated September 18, 202.

9. Appendix — “G” NYCHA Counsel Letter To Judge Vyskocil,

making false statements about the status of mold in

petitioner’s apartment dated April 29, 2020.

10. Appendix - “H” Letter From Mark H. Snyder, Principal Court

Attorney to the Honorable John N. Byrne, Dated July 6, 2000.

OPININS AND ORDERS BELOW

The Order of United States District Court Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil,,

Southern District of New York, Order of Dismissal, dated June 7, 2022 (See,

Appendix “A”); Second Circuit Court Order of Dismissal of Appeal, entered on

February 1st, 2023 (See. Appendix “B”); and U.S. District Court, Southern

District of New York, Civil Docket Sheet Case No. l-22-cv-02127 (MKV),

entitled Svkes v. New York City Housing Authority. (See. Appendix “C”)

JURISDICTION

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Court of New York dismissal of

petitioner’s appeal was filed on February 1st, 2023, thus jurisdiction is

properly invoked pursuant to 42 USC Section 1245[l], and Rule 13[l], of the

United States Supreme Court to timely hear and prosecute petitioner’s civil

appeal.

CONSTITUTIONAL & STAUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

This United states Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide this

civil appeal pursuant to the Fair Housing Act of 1988 (FHA) (42 USC Section

3601 et seq.); the “Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC Section 1983); and the

Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Equal protection

and Due Process of Law Clauses; the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 301302;

Rule 402," Rule 801-802; Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, and Rule 8[a];

which were not recognized by the courts below in erroneous dismissal of this

action.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant is a disable Black 64 years old cancer survivor who completed

an eight (8th) grade education and resides in a Section 504 apartment with

two other occupants who are also, disable. The nexus of this case is whether

the defendant New York City Housing Authority violated the provisions of

the Fair Housing Act of 1988 (FHA), by failing to make harrowing major

repairs caused by years of neglect pertaining to water leaks causing major

substantial structural damages to numerous rooms surrounding walls and

ceilings areas in petitioner’s apartment.

Petitioner alleged and setforth prevalent facts and evidence that NYCHA

due to gross negligence failed miserable in their obligation and

responsibilities to make timely repairs and more important remove the mold

caused by years of water leaks which a blatant violation of 42 USC Section

3604 [a], that strictly prohibits discrimination in “terms, conditions or

privileges of sale or rental” and subsection concludes [b], and a number of

other practices. Petitioner correctly point out to this Supreme Court that any

racial intent motive component isn’t required in proving a bative of a

violation of the FHA statutes. Based on the premises that petitioner is Black

and the occupants of his apartment are Hispanic belonging to a minority

group is a sufficient showing to establish racial disparities.

The district court trial Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, a former President

Trump appointee erroneous dismissed this action on the narrow

misinterpretation of the “Reasonable Accommodation” factors of the FHA,

and ignored the glaring violations of petitioner’s due process of law claims

and the dangers of harm to the safety and health of petitioners and the

occupants of his apartment is callous and reckless disregard of these civil

rights guarantees as shall be abundantly demonstrated in this writ.

PARTIES

Petitioner, Derry Sykes, is appearing pro se, for this application for a Writ

of Certiorari to this United States Supreme Court from an order of dismissal

from the Second Circuit Court of New York upholding an erroneous dismissal

of petitioner’s complaint before the trial court Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, of

the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Defendant New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) is an repeated and

notorious offender of tenant’s housing rights and this action represent on of

several discriminatory litigations petitioner has brought against NYCHA all

ending in favorable settlements for petitioner. In this proceeding before this

Supreme Court petitioner is alleging violations of civil rights to timely

repairs and extensive lengthily water leaks that caused the growth of

mold/fungus saturated throughout petitioner’s apartment representing a

severe dangerous health risk hazardous to petitioner and the occupants of his

apartment including his pet.

II.

FACTS

The district court Order of Dismissal of petitioner’s complaint on the

narrow scope of the “Accommodation” factor runs counter to the authoritive

Court related decisions in Maribel Baez v. NYCHA. 533 F. Supp. 3d 135

(SDNY 2021), before the late Great Honorable William E. Pauley, Senior

United States District Judge; Sherron Paige v. NYCHA. et al.. No. 17-cv-7481

(Aug. 4, 2018XWHP); Davis v. NYCHA. et al.. 839 F. Supp. 215 (SDNY

1993)(Judge Sweet); and Davis v. NYCHA. 379 F. Supp. 3d 237 (Judge J.

Paul Oetken)(2019).

Petitioner correctly argued that he had viable legal standing to bring this

for punitive damages against NYCHA in light of the decisions held Smith vs

Wade. 461 U.S. 30 (1983), Sherron Paige v. NYCHA. No. 17-cv*748i; and

Davis v. NYCHA. 379 F. Supp. 3d 237 (2019), allowing punitive damages if

sue in their individual capacities. Then, after realizing this exception

petitioner requested that the Second Circuit Court before dismissing his

appeal in entirely remand that portion back to the district court to allow for

amendments in “Statement of the Issues Presented For Review” in his appeal

brief at pages 5-6. The courts below obviously weren’t concern about any

prevailing aspect petitioner presented that would ordinary and fairly shock

the conscience of any rational civilized person to be rightfully outraged by the

egregious capricious conduct of NYCHA under both human and civil rights

circumstances alleged here except the lower courts below.

However, NYCHA is an habitual offender of petitioner’s due process of law

deprivations and has long track record of willful and reckless behavior

through the New York City NYCHA Developments properties.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

Because it would be in the public interest to grant petitioner’s Writ of

Certiorari to protect a Federal Right remedies, enshrined in the FHA

Statutes and Section 1983 Civil Rights Statutes Remedies regulatory and

statutory provisions actionable under the these above stated statutes

unambiguously and erroneously applied by the district court trial Judge

Vyskocil and Second Circuit Court dismissing petitioner’s appeal for failure

to state a claim on February 1st, 2023, (See. Appendix “A”). As abundantly

demonstrated the Courts below foreclosed petitioner to a remedy for

violations of his federal rights deprivation under the FHA and Section 1983

Petitioner and his household members are still being subjected to

dangerous unsafe health risk factors from continuation of water leaks which

were not sufficiently repaired and water leaks continue today and mold

growth has reoccurred thus, the harm was negligently inflicted paramount on

the poor quality or incomplete repairs of the water leaks crisis creates an

atmosphere of deliberate indifference to failure to make adequate and timely

repairs support a substantive due process claim here.

The fact that district court trial judge and the Second Circuit Court

ignored the fact that NYCHA presented false statements to the Court stating

that no mold was found in petitioner apartment without the use of any mold

testing devises implemented b NYCHA when their counsel made that false

statement to the Court was not acknowledges, sanctioned or reprimanded

support petitioner’s contention of bias and unfair treatment by the lower

courts that triggers violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United

States Constitution, Equal Protection & Due Process of Law Clauses.

More over the fact that lower courts ignored petitioner’s independent mold

laboratory test results (See. Appendix “C” Pro lab Certificate of Mold

Analysis” dated June 21, 2022”; “Dl” Notice-Mold Inspection Review/Mold

Inspection Receipt-Work Order # 93314034; and Appendix "D2’ Notice-Mold

Inspection Review/Mold Inspection Receipt Work Order #93314272) that

proved the growth of mold & fungus in his apartment in several areas also,

demonstrate a callous disconcert for petitioner’s and his household members

safety and being exposed to dangerous contaminants is offensive to human

dignity and integrity of the courts below dispensing fair impartial justice. The

fact that NYCHA intentionally concealed the results of petitioner’s mold test

results which were furnished to them also, illustrate an equal callous and

uncaring disposition to petitioner’s being exposed to dangerous health risks

and unsafe conditions is unconscionable.

PETITIONER HAS LEGAL STANDING IN THIS ACTION BASED

ON MARIBLE BAEZ V. NYCHA. THAT HELD NYCHA CAN BE

HELD LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO REMOVE MOLD UNDER THE

ADA ACT OF 1990, AND SECTION 504, FAIR HOUSING AMEND

MENTS ACT OF 1988.

Petitioner believes that he has presented valid argument that the NYCHA

and the courts below refusal to take into considerations that the evidence he

submitted to the courts below are consistent with the regulatory scheme of

the FHA and Section 1983 remedies, that constitutes petitioner’s evidence as

acceptable objective and subjective permissible evidence to substantiate a

claim under FHA statutes.

The Court in Maribel Baez v NYCHA. F. Supp. 3d 135 (SDNY 2021), the

late Great Honorable William H. Pauley III, Senior United States District

Court Judge, a defining and well crafted ruling held that NYCHA can be

liable for non repairs, lack of heat; hot/cold water, non repairs services and

mold/lead contaminations in the NYCHA apartments unites. Thus, NYCHA

was forced to create inter alia “Mold Busters” program through the “Original

Consent Decree” in April 2015, granting appointment of a Special Master

remediating mold and excessive moisture.

During an extraordinary hearing on September 26, 2018, this Court heard

from scores of NYCHA tenants, elected officials, and representatives of

community organizations concerning the fairness of the further amended

consent decree. During this hearing, this Court also, considered a sweeping

proposed consent decree parallel action brought by the United States

addressing NYCHA’s systematic failure to provide any semblance of adequate

housing. See, generally. United States v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.. 18-cv -5213.

Witnesses, “[ojne after another,... rendered harrowing accounts of the squalid

conditions in their apartments and the indifference of NYCHA management,

called for the firing or prosecution of NYCHA officials, and urged greater

tenant participation in the negotiation and enforcement of the proposed

consent decree.”

The Court in Davis v. New York Housing Authority. 379 F. Supp. 3d 237

(2019), addressed what constitutes a violation of Constitutional Rights,

acknowledge that Davis premises this claim on the violation of her

substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. To

adequately plead a substantive due process violation, a plaintiff must allege:

(l) the infringement of a right protected by a substantive due process; and (2)

that the conduct of the state actor was sufficiently “egregious” or

“outrageous” to rise to a level of a constitutional violation. See. Masclotta v.

Clarkstown Cent. Sch. Dist.. 136 F. Supp. 3d 527, 542 (SDNY 2015)(quoting,

Lombardi. 485 F.3d at 79); 49 WB, LLC v. Will. Of Haverstraw. 511 Fed.

Appx. 33, 34 (2d Cir. 2013).

The Court in Davis v. New York City Housing Authority. 839 F. Supp. 215

(.S.D.N.Y 1993), dealt with a different set of policies violations under

the FHA, alleging discrimination based of race, color, and national

origin in the selection and assignment of public housing tenants in

violation of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended, 42 USC Section

3601 et seq. (The “Fair Housing Act”); Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, 42 USC Section 2000d, et seq.; and 42 USC Section 1981, Section

1982, Section 1983. The Government later initiated United States v.

New York City Housing Authority. 92-cv-4873, also, alleging that

NYCHA’s policies and practices of selecting tenants for projects

violated the Fair Housing Act.

THE DISTRICT COURT AND SECOND CIRCUIT COURT BELOW

ARE PROVIDING CARTE BLANCHE INSULATION TO NYCHA TO

USURP CONGRESS LEGISLATIVE INTENT IN ENACTING FHA

TO HOLD VIOLATORS OF DUE PROCESS LIABLE SUCH AS

NYCHA FAILURE TO MAKE REPAIRS AND REMOVE

MOLD/FUNGUS FROM PETITIONER’S APARTMENT

Despite the Supreme Court decisions such as Shelly v. Kraemer. 344 U.S. 1

(1948), a landmark United states Supreme Court case that held racially

restrictive housing covenants can’t legally be enforced argued by George L.

Vaughn, a BLACK attorney who represented J.D. Shelly, in an Opinion

Joined by all participating Justices, the United States Supreme Court Chief

Justice Fred Vinson, held that the “Fourteenth Amendments Equal

Protection Clause” prohibits racially restricted housing covenants from being

enforced.

Also, in the “companion case of’ Hurd v. Hodge. 344 U.S. 24 (1948), the

Supreme Court found that the “Civil Rights Act of 1966” forbade restrictions

on covenants, which later legislation in the “Civil Right Act of 1968”.

In this proceeding petitioner presents dual nature prima facie claims in

the following^ (l) that unduly delays in rendering repairs caused hy water

leaks; (2) that due to the severity water leaks petitioner apartment became

saturated with growth of dangerous mold/fungus bacteria’s (See, Appendix

“C”, “Dl”, and “D2”), which not got a response on the summation of

petitioner’s prima facie evidence to both the district court and the Second

circuit Court certainly petitioner’s evidence represents more than a scintilla

of evidence to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to a claim as the district

court erroneous pointed out in its Order of Dismissal. Moreover, there was

never a denial from NYCHA that they lied to the district court about no mold

be found in petitioner’s apartment, nonetheless, petitioner’s complaint was

unsuccessful on with grounds based on the lower courts observation and

decisions dismissing petitioner’s complaint.

The district court and the Second Circuit Court are providing NYCHA with

free reign to continue with their campaign of systemic abuses and violation of

the Fair Housing Act of 1988 statutes and Section 1983 Civil Rights

remedies, which encompasses the Fourteenth Amendment of the United

States Constitution, Equal Protection and Due Process of Law Clause.

The district court trial judge failure to consider petitioner’s evidence of

mold in is apartment is a staggering dereliction of the district court’s

obligation and duty to obfuscate the Federal Rules of Evidence in light of the

petitioner raised strong and reasonable objections to NYCHA’s being

untruthful to the Court in their false assertions that no mold was found in

petitioner’s apartment. The Court taking on face value this admission while

ignoring petitioner’s factual evidence of existence of mold as illustrated by

petitioner’s Appendix “C”; Appendix “Dl”; and Appendix “D2”. (See. People v.

Kenny. 167 Miec. 51, 54, 3 N.Y.S. (2d) 348, 351 (1938)

MEETING THE EVIL OF BIAS AND THE MOTIVE TO LIE

The fact that the district court trial judge failed to give required weighing

to the materiality assessment of the petitioner’s Pro Lab Mold Test Results

(See. Appendix “C”), and photographs of various stages of growth of the

mold/fungus in petitioner’s apartment foster the appearance of bias and

unfairness is supported by the district court unwillingness to adhere to

Federal Rules of Evidence, Article III, Rule 301, Rule 302, Article I, Rule 402;

Article VII, Rule 801, Rule 802, represents a horrendous and coerciveness to

the fundamental due process protection described in the FHA statutes. (See.

St. John Law Review. Article 6, No. 2, Vol. 13, Dated April 13, 1939,

“Scientific Aids In Proof’ By Harold Peller)..

When judges and magistrates become judicial trespassers to the Canon

Laws of Ethic there is a seldom a remedy or that remedy is executed which is

treasonous to the Canon Laws of Ethic And Conduct of a violation of a judge’s

oath of office. (See. U.S. v. Will. 449 U.. 200*16 (1980); and Cohen v. Virginia.

19 U.S. 96 (Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821); and Marburv v. Madison. 5

U.S. (l Cranch) 127 (1903), this case established judicial review in the United

States, meaning the American Courts have the power to strike down laws,

statutes and some government actions that violates the Constitution of the

United States, as the exhaustive dissent of Justice Marshall Opinion, “that

concluded paten violations of laws the very essence of due process whether

the law has provided a specific remedy’. (See. 5 U.S. 137 at 169)

THE DISTRICT COURT IGNORED PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE

DEMONSTRATING NYCHA LYING ABOUT NO MOLD FOUND IN

PETITONER’S APARTMENT AND PETITIONER’S LABORATORY

EVIDENCE CONRADICTING NYCHA’S FALSE ALLEGATIONS TO

THE COURT OF NO MOLD FOUND IN PETITIONER’S

APARTMENT

Petitioner submitted credible evidence to the district court that refute

NYCHA false statement of no mold found in petitioner’s apartment to the

court which was never rebutted by NYCHA because the district was acting

more in capacity of advocating and protecting NYCHA from petitioner’s

undisputable claims of years of non-repairs caused by water leaks, which

caused the growth of mold demonstrated in petitioner’s Appendix’s “C”,

“Dl” & “D2”, be relieving NYCHA of the burden of production to rebut

petitioner’s claims and evidence. The appellate court is equally at fault for

their failure to weight and perform a partial competent actual analysis to

explain the relevancy of petitioner’s evidence in violation of the Federal

Rules of Evidence both courts below failed to adhere to.

The fact that the district court ordered emergency repairs to petitioner’s

apartment by “Order For hearing On Plaintiffs Request For Emergency

Relief, dated March 3rd, 2022, (See, Appendix “B” “U.S, District Court,

Southern District of new York -Civil Docket Sheet Case No. 22*cv-2127

(MKV) Docket No. 7, Dated march 21, 2022) under cuts her the issues she

raised in its Order of Dismissal due to nature of serious and major repairs

that were neglected by NYCHA that represent a legitimate severe health

danger factor to petitioner and his household members.

Petitioner attempted to submitted video evidence of the deplorable

damages in his apartment caused by water leaks in letter to Judge Vyskocil,

dated March 29th, 2022, (See. Appendix “B” Civil Docket Sheet, Dkt. No. 12,

the Court denied on the basis that petitioner failed to secure prior approval

from that court for submission of a video evidence contained a USB drive

which was return to petitioner. It should be noted in that letter to the court

dated March 29th, 2022, at page 3, quoting” its hard to conceive how a pattern

of systematic neglect and recklessness for failure to make major serious

repairs does [not] equate to a viable claim of due process deprivations from

NYCHA had neglected ...obligations and duties to make repairs should be

sufficient to give rise to a cause of action in the essence of “willfulness

encompassing conduct that can on be interpreted as ‘deliberate’ or ‘egregious’

or just bad faith on defaulting in their required actions to make timely and

adequate repairs or a violation of 42 USC Section 1983, Civil Rights Statute,

which have multiple remedies including injunctive relief’.

Petitioner is under no illusion that had he submitted false statements to

the courts below as NYCHA has committed he would have found guilty of

perjury, sanctioned or had his case dismissed solely on the basis of false

statements, instrument, testimony given to those courts which creates a

strong appearance of indifference and bias that was allowed and tolerated to

NYCHA making those proceeding an un-fare playing ground for petitioner.

Yet NYCHA legal counsel was allowed to submit false declaration to the

district despite petitioner’s objections that counsel misinforming about the

district court about no mold be found in NYCHA’s counsel Seth Kramer,

letter to Judge Vyskocil, dated April 29th, 2022 (See. Appendix “G”).

It’s very disturbing to the rule of law when a pro se litigant like petitioner

presents credible prima facie evidence to the court and when that evidence

isn’t acknowledge taken seriously, or rejected proves a an impartial judicial

system that treats pro se usually poor and minorities with such contempt.

(See. Akron Law Journal, Vol. 20, Issue. 2, Article 4, July 2015, Making And

Meeting The prima facie case Under The Fair Housing Act” By Frederic C.

Schwartz)

C. THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT HAS A HISTORY OF DEPRIVING

PETITIONER EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW IN TWO PRIOR CASES

PRESENTED TO THIS COURT IN SYKES V. NEW YORK STATE

OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES. ET AL. AND

SYKES V. JAMES

Petitioner has been unfortunately subjected to bad judicial decisions from

the Second Circuit Court of New York first beginning in Svkes v. James, et

al., 13 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 1994);(cert. denied) 512 U.S. 1240 (1994), in that

proceeding petitioner was subjected to a federal kidnapping crime by a

conspiracy involving the NYS Parole Div.J New State Attorney General

Office, several New York State Judges, Justice Hecht of the Bronx County,

NYS Supreme Court and Justice Leary, of Washington County, NYS

Supreme Court that held petitioner in unlawful imprisonment for ten (100

months despite a pro se writ of habeas petitioner had been sustained by

Judge Byrne, of the Bronx County, NYS Supreme Court also, more cruel my

Legal Aid attorney Scott Buell, Esq., was part of this diabolical scheme. Two

days before petitioner hand written pro se Article 78 Petition was to be heard

before the NYS Appellate Court, Third Department Docket No. 59745, the

Order of Judge Byrne filed Ten (10) month earlier maliciously appeared and

petitioner was released from illegal incarceration, and of course the NYS

Appellate Court, 3rd Dept., dismissed petitioner’s appeal as moot by Presiding

Hon A. Franklin Mahoney, on October 23rd, 1989, on grounds I was no longer

in custody regardless of the merits and nature of the state appeal challenging

the unlawful conduct of all the State actors mentioned in the above.

It appears that even Judge Byrne was deceived about the circumstances

that led to the disobedience to his Order, releasing petitioner some ten (10)

later as stated in letter from Mark H. Snyder, Court Principal Attorney to the

Honorable John N. Byrne, dated July 6th, 2000 (See. Appendix "H”).

Now turn to the Second Circuit Court they upheld this cruel scheme of the

defendants because petitioner in sound theory due petitioner being an ex

parole, poor and black an evil trinity of being born Black and facing a federal

and state judicial system infested with a deadly cancer also, known as

racism. Today the decision Svkes v. James from the Second Circuit Court of

Appeals baffle the most brilliant minds of legal scholars but the stench of

racism will enable these injustices inflicted upon me.

Now in the other travesty of justice legal morass petitioner suffered at the

hands of the Second Circuit Court is more outrageous and ludicrous to the

rule of law and make you wonder what in the hell is going on in the Second

Circuit Court. In this action entitles Svkes v. New York State O.F.C.S., and

New York City A.C.S., and New Jersey Family Services. 18-cv-8309 (Judge

Wood); Second Circuit Case No. 19-3360, United State Supreme Court,

Docket No. 20M30-Distrubted for Conference on October 16th, 2020, (See.

Appendix “E”) which was denied as time barred pursuant to Supreme Court

Rule 13.1, due to the negligent and errors of the Second Circuit Court of

Appeals to deliver timely written notification of dismissal of petitioner’s

appeal in violation of FRAP Rule 4Q[6][7]; Rule 36[b]; and Rule 45[c], is

indefensible and explains why petitioner has well earned right to be critical

of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that petitioner pleaded with the

Supreme Court should be an exception due the clear error and negligence of

the Second Circuit Court in communications to Supreme Court Clerk Michael

Duggan, dated September 13th, 2020, (See. Appendix “FI”, and letter to

Supreme Court Clerk Office, dated September 18th, 2020; “Appendix “F2).

Paramount as consequence of Second Circuit Court negligence and errors

that caused petitioner to be time barred from submitting his writ of certiorari

to the United States Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 13.1, and lost

opportunity to obtain custody of his two (2) great nephews ages 15 months

and four years old at time that action was filed. And now strangers are

raising my two (2) great nephews instead of his blood family their uncle the

petitioner/plaintiff in that proceeding. These issues illustrate the injustices

from New York State and Federal Courts that gravely injured his civil rights.

Note 1. Independent Democratic Conference Break The Mold- Cleaning Up

NYCHA’S Mess-March 2018 httpsV/www.nvsenate.gov/sites/default/filespress

Note 2. New Scathing report & Survey On Mold In NYCHA Unveiled By The

Independent Conference, NYCHA Tenants & Advocates, By Former New

York State Senator Jeffery D. Klein, March 8th, 2018, NYCHA Investigation

Public Health Housing, httpsV/www.nvsenate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/

Note 3. Environmental Justice, Williams College Spring 2018, “Designed In

Oppression- The History of NYC Public Housing Mirrors Current Poor

Conditions, By Liliana Blierer, May 21st, 2016, httpsV/sites.williams.edu/envi322-s-16/mold-in-new-york-city-public-housing-by-lili-bierer/designed-inoppression-the-history-of-nyc-public-housing-mirrors-current-poor-conditions/

Note 4. In Public Housing, A Battle Against Mold And Rising Seas By Lili

Pike, March 25th, 2020, httpsV/undark.org/author/lilrpikr/

Note 5. Guidelines on Assessment And Remediation of Fungi In Door

Environment-New York City Department of Health And Hygiene, November

2008, httpsV/www.nvc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/epi/eprmoldguidelines.pdf

Note 6. Can Mold Cause Eye Irritation & Other Problems?

https-//puremaintenance.com/how-mold-exposure-can-impact-your-eves/

Note 7. Basics of Fungal Keratitis,

www.cdc.gov/contactlenses/fungalikeratitis.html

Note 8. NYCHA Mold Court Deal Faces Do-Over As Judge Moves To Protect

Tenants, By Greg Smith, April 12th, 2021, gsmith@thecitv.nvc

In petitioner writ to the Supreme Court Docket No. 20M30, at page 31, he

alleged the following:

Far Too Often State And Federal Judges Act In The Capacity of Judicial

Whores For The Social, Political, And Economic Government Interest

From Criminal/Civil Liabilities Based On Racial Bias And Financial

Status Usually Disfavoring The Poor Minorities Who Are appearing

Pro Se Before These Courts

Petitioner from recent decay of the ethically moral posture of the State &

especially the Federal Courts have become more convinced of the above

contention of judges betraying their judicial oath of office to do justice

impartially. This erosion and decline in the public trust in the Courts stems

from former President Trump flooding the Federal Courts with unqualified

ring radical judges who most had poor rating by their perspective bar

Associates or deemed any cases to unqualified to serve on the bench.

In recent events you have Justice Thomas under immense scrutiny for civil

and criminal violations which produced the extraordinary measures for

Congress to pursue such action as it pertains to the Sheldon Whitehouse,

Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee On Federal Courts, Oversight,

Agency Action, And Federal Rights, dated April 14, 2023

https-V/www.huff.coni/entrv/, and calls for Chief Justice Roberts to

investigate Justice Thomas httpsV/whitehouse.senat.govnewa/release. by

letter dated April 7th, 2023.

Furthermore, you have valid accusations of sexual crimes committed by

Justice Thomas, pertaining to credible witness Professor Anita Hill, and

Justice Kavanaugh with another credible witness Professor Christine Blasery

Ford, and other allegations from Deborah Ramirez. Plus, Justice enormous

debt that just disappeared in a puff of smoke, httpsV/time.com/5677929/newvork~times-brett-kavanaugh-sexual~misconduct/

The fact that Chief Judge wife has drawn a lot of scrutiny for her legal

lobbying activities it appears Justice Roberts has so far insulated himself

from any appearances of maleficence. It is these issues that Supreme Court’s

cultural acceptance which arrogantly places these tow any other current

sitting Supreme Court Justices above the law that manifesting in the erosion

of public trust and confidence and represents many of the injustices that has

plagues petitioner with the entire judicial system which is too male and pale.

The Only reason the Second Circuit Court rendered a favor decision to

petitioner in Svkes v. Bank Of America, et al. 723 F.3d 399 (2d Cir. 2013)

cert, denied. 136 U.S. 48 (Oct. 5, 2015), is because the violation of pertaining

to unlawful garnishing of petitioner’s SSI benefits was blatant deprivation of

law and would’ve have adversely millions of SSI recipients to unlawful

intrusion. In simple terms the Second Circuit Court had no other alternative

for such a blatant intrusion on petitioner’s civil rights on those issues.

Note 9. EPA - Mold, Moisture, And Your Home, Office of Air & Radiation,

indoor Environmental Division, httpsV/ww.epa.gov/mold/brief-guide-moldmositure~and~vour~home

Note 10. World health Organization (WHO) "Dampness And Mould”Guidelines For Indoor Air Quality-2009, httpsV/www.whoint/publicationsdetail-redirect/9789289041683

The fundamental procedural issue addressed in housing discrimination

cases is that of the “plaintiffs prima facie” The prima facie case and the

plaintiffs burden of production are intimately related. To say that a party

has the burden of production on an issue means. The amount of evidence

sufficiently to satisfy the burden is more than a “scintilla” but it need only be

such that a ’’reasonable person could draw from it the inference of the

existence of the particular fact to be proved.

In housing discrimination cases the burden of production with respect to

racial effect will be placed on the plaintiff who brings the suit and who seeks

to change the present state of affairs. Clearly, it is more efficient to require

the defendant to show presence of a particular justification than require

plaintiff show absence of all possible justifications. (See. Making & Meeting

The Prima Facie Case Under The Fair Housing Act. Alkon Law Review, Vol.

20, Issue 2, Article 4., (1987), By Fredferic S. Schwartz

Note 11. J. Kushner. supra note 9, at 110*111. Indeed, “disparate treatment”

seems to be used as a synonym for racial motive. See, e.g., Id. at section 3.03

Note 12. The Courts have considered the issues are now almost unanimous in

holding that no racial motive need to be shown to establish a violation of the

FHA. See, Bovd v. Lefrak Ore.. 509 F.2d 1110, 1117 (2d Cir. 1972); 517 F.2d

918 (2d. 1975) cert. Denied, 423 U.S. 896 (1975)

Note 13. Eisenberg, Disproportionate Impact And Illicit Motive- Theories of

Constitutional Adjudication. 52 N.Y.U.L. Review, 36, 98*99, 103 (1977)

Note 14. In Robinson v. 12 Lofts Realty. Inc.. 610 F.2d 1031 (1979), the

Second Circuit confused motive and racial effect, apparently finding effect

where there were none, Moreover, the Court’s reasoning implies that is

motive where the essence of a Fair Housing Act violations. Therefore,

plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of housing discrimination absence

legitimate non*racial discrimination

Petitioner urges this Supreme Court to adhere the judicial fiat standards

created by the late Honorable William E. Pauley III, Senior District Court

Judge, of the Southern District of New York, in the Consent Decrees still in

place today in the case of Maribel Baez v. NYCHA. 533 F. Supp. 3d 135

(SDNY 2021), citing that NYCHA can be held liable for failure to make

repairs and mold/lead contaminations as authortive law, and United States of

America v. NYCHA. 18-CV-5213 (SDNY 2018)(WHP), where the U.S. Attorney

Geoffrey S. Berman, cited numerous safety, dangerous, and hazardous

violations of HUD regulations under the FHA at paragraph 67, of the

Complaint it’s quoted, “Nonetheless, the results of NYCHA’s partial 2016

effort at visual assessment demonstrate its overall failure to properly protect

the children from lead poisoning/’

Petitioner appeared before the Late Honorable William E. Pauley III,

against for deprivation of bis civil rights in Svkes v. LAZ Parking System.

and NYCHA, No. 17-cv-6185 (SDNY 2017), in that action petitioner alleged

violation of the FHA and the ADA deprivations which petitioner obtained a

favor settlement.

Petitioner filed yet another action against NYCHA entitles Perry Svkes.

and Elba Malave v. NYCHA. 13-cv 4990 (EDNY 2013), before Judge Gleeson,

the year the Senior Judge retired from the Court and U.S. Magistrate Judge

Bloom, for violation depriving petitioners of their civil rights to have their

NYCHA application placed in a higher priority based on existing disabilities

on grounds that petitioners weren’t entitled to relief under the HUD and

NYCHA application process because we did not reside in the Five Boroughs of

New York City. Petitioners obtained a favor settlement and refilled complaint

alleging NYCHA violated the terms of the original Settlement which led to

plaintiff now residing in Public Housing.

Petitioner also, points out corroborating cases in “Verified Article 78

Petition” entitled The Citv-Wide Council of Residents and At Risk

Community Services Inc., v. NYCHA and Shola Olatove. Chairperson. Index

No. 100283/2018, which highlighted the atrocities and violations of the FHA

regulations NYCHA has been found to have been willful and recklessly

engaged in systematic pattern; Seelah Diamond et al.. v. NYCHA and

Olatove. Chairperson. Index No. 153312/2018.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons this Supreme Court must either vacate, or

remand the petition back to the district courts with instructions to review

these settled issues of law described in this Writ of Certiorari as law so

requires.

Dated: April 25th, 2023.

ipectfiilly Submittei

'JflrUsJ.

Derry Sykes,JPro Se Litigant

70 East 115th Street, Apt. 6H

New York, New York 10029

Phone (813) 471-8241

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.