Press Room

Amid new reporting on widespread sexual abuse within city jails, New York City Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams this week called for an independent investigation of the allegations and ultimately, accountability and change to prevent future harm. At a public meeting of the Board of Correction on Tuesday, he highlighted the conduct – allegations of harassment, sexual assault, and rape – the culture that allows for such abuse, and the failure of the city to act on reported cases. He emphasized the danger that this status quo perpetuates for everyone within our jails. 

“The fact that the mayor has not unequivocally called for an investigation, or no one in this administration has that I’m aware of, into the allegations made against currently employed officers is extremely troubling….” testified Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams.”...Sexual assault is never part of a person’s sentence, and we have a legal and moral obligation to protect people in custody from abuse.”

An analysis published recently found that almost 60% of the lawsuits filed under the Adult Survivors Act were filed against the NYC Department of Correction, suggesting the rampant abuse within the department. Such allegations spanned for nearly fifty years, and continued until as recently as last year. Under the current administration alone, about 30 of the individuals who filed lawsuits said they were sexually abused at Rikers within the past five years. At least five guards have been named in lawsuits alleging sexual abuse and assault who are still currently employed by DOC, and none of the guards have faced any disciplinary actions. 

“This is unacceptable, unconscionable, and the city must take swift action to ensure that nobody experiences sexual harassment or assault or rape, in our jails,” the Public Advocate stated at the public meeting. 

He emphasized the importance of independence in any investigation, noting that “In many cases, the DOC is tasked with investigating their own wrongdoing. It is unreasonable to  expect people who have experienced abuse to trust that the agency abusing them can effectively police itself, especially when reports of retaliation for filing complaints are so widespread. Incarcerated people have reported that they fear speaking up about abuse they experience because officers control every part of their lives, and can easily block their visits with family, extend their jail time, or respond with further violence. This makes it even more important that a thorough and independent investigation is conducted.”

Among the potential actions the city could take, the Public Advocate proposed that the mayor could convene a task force, hire an independent attorney or investigative firm, or ask for help from state and federal partners to further investigate.

The Public Advocate closed by stating the need to move swiftly in these matters, saying “The administration’s lack of urgency in addressing this, or any other problem impacting incarcerated New Yorkers is deeply concerning. We must continue speaking loudly about the culture of abuse on Rikers and not allow the mayor and DOC to sweep this under the rug.”  

The Public Advocate's full prepared testimony on this topic at the Board’s public meeting is below.

STATEMENT OF PUBLIC ADVOCATE JUMAANE D. WILLIAMS TO THE NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION SEPTEMBER 10, 2024  

Good afternoon, 

My name is Jumaane D. Williams, and I am the Public Advocate for the City of New York. Thank you to the Board of Correction for holding this meeting today and allowing me to speak about a serious and deeply troubling problem in our jails.

Before that, I cannot speak today without acknowledging the deaths of Anthony Jordan and Charizma Jones. Ms. Jones, who at only 23 years old, would have been eligible to be released this past week if she had survived her time in our city’s care. It’s critical the department does everything possible to ensure no one spends a moment longer than necessary in New York City jails. It’s up to all of this, including this Board to ensure they do so. 

In March of this year, an analysis published by Gothamist found that, of the 1,256 lawsuits filed under the Adult Survivors Act, 719—or almost 60 percent—were filed against the NYC Department of Correction. The allegations span decades, from 1976 to just last year, and are appalling, shocking, but, sadly, unsurprising. Not only do the suits detail allegations including harassment, sexual assault, and rape, but also that the department knew about the abuse and failed to act, thereby tacitly encouraging it to continue. And while the administration may shirk responsibility by pointing out that some of these alleged assaults occurred many years ago, roughly 30 of the people who filed lawsuits said they were sexually abused at Rikers within the past five years. Though much of this history precedes the current administration, not rooting out and addressing this known culture encourages this abuse and does nothing to prevent it in the future, endangering everyone in the city’s custody. This is unacceptable, unconscionable, and the city must take swift action to ensure that nobody experiences sexual harassment or assault in our jails.

The mayor is quick to point out that the majority of the incidents alleged in the recently filed lawsuits did not occur under his administration, and this is true. However, at least five guards named in lawsuits alleging sexual abuse and assault are currently employed by DOC, some of whom continue to work in the women’s jail. None of the guards have faced discipline for sexual misconduct. Mayor Adams and his administration has a responsibility to investigate these claims, and not just a moral one—federal guidelines laid out in the Prison Rape Elimination Act requires that allegations of sexual assault be immediately investigated. The fact that the mayor has not unequivocally called for an investigation into the allegations made against currently employed officers is extremely troubling. Further, the Eighth Amendment protects people from cruel and unusual punishment. Sexual assault is never part of a person’s sentence, and we have a legal and moral obligation to protect people in custody from abuse

In many cases, the DOC is tasked with investigating their own wrongdoing. It is unreasonable to  expect people who have experienced abuse to trust that the agency abusing them can effectively police itself, especially when reports of retaliation for filing complaints are so widespread. Incarcerated people have reported that they fear speaking up about abuse they experience because officers control every part of their lives, and can easily block their visits with family, extend their jail time, or respond with further violence. This makes it even more important that a thorough and independent investigation is conducted. It is not enough for the Law Department to investigate the claims as part of its duty to evaluate lawsuits against the city—and it is unclear if that is even happening. The mayor could convene a task force, hire an independent attorney or investigative firm, or ask for help from state and federal partners.

The administration’s lack of urgency in addressing this, or any other problem impacting incarcerated New Yorkers is deeply concerning. We must continue speaking loudly about the culture of abuse on Rikers and not allow the mayor and DOC to sweep this under the rug. Everybody is less safe when we allow people to be mistreated.

Thank you.

"I’m saddened and angered that this is the place our city is in, and hope this step is one in a series toward restoring confidence. This resignation is a correct decision, from an array of options at a moment I wish we weren’t in – one when New Yorkers have little trust in the administration, and little information from the mayor to help restore it. 

"The next police commissioner will need to meet the same qualifications as any other should – to have the trust of both the department and the city, to be legitimately committed to transparency and accountability, and to understand the roles law enforcement should and should not play in producing public safety. Too many actions under the current administration have undercut those aims.”

"Beyond this impending appointment, the mayor still urgently needs to provide real transparency into this moment of confusion for city leadership. New Yorkers have to be able to have faith in public service and in public servants, and no ego or agenda can get in the way of that obligation."

The New York City Council voted today to pass legislation from Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams which would require the city to place a historical marker at the site of the city’s first slave market, located at what is today the intersection of Wall and Pearl Streets in lower Manhattan. This recognition, and the ways in which it would inform New Yorkers about the history of suffering and oppression inflicted on enslaved people, is part of an ongoing effort to educate people about the injustices in our city’s past and inform the pursuit of equity in the future.

The legislation was part of a package of other bills from the Council related to New York City’s history with the slave trade, including ones from Council Member Crystal Hudson to establish a Truth, Healing, and Reconciliation process, from Council Member Farah Louis to study a potential reparations framework, and from Council Member Nantasha Williams to establish a ‘freedom trail’ in the city and specifically in Lower Manhattan. Together, these bills are vital in ensuring that the city does not erase or sanitize its history, and that it will continue a commitment to the essential work of advancing racial justice efforts

“As so many places across the country are choosing to ignore or suppress our history rather than teach it, it’s vital that New York City grapple with and learn from the parts of our past we too often try not to think about,” said Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams. “The wealth of Wall Street banks was built on the backs of the human beings sold on that very spot, and we have a moral obligation to accurately acknowledge this slave market’s tragic history, the pain of enslaved people in our city, and the role slavery had in New York’s economy, one which has echoed painfully across generations. I thank my colleagues on the Council for ensuring that we do this the right way, helping inform New Yorkers as we still struggle with the impact of damage done across centuries."

The Public Advocate's legislation, Int 0833-A, will ensure that the city places a sign at Pearl and Wall Street, which is the correct location of where the first slave trade took place in 1711. The sign will also include an inscription that describes the role of the slave market in the city’s economy; the role of the city’s government in establishing the market; and the use of the market in the sale of African and Indigenous persons.

Slavery was introduced to Manhattan in 1626, and in 1711, a market that auctioned enslaved people of African ancestry was established by a Common Council law on November 30, 1711. This slave market was in use until 1762, when roughly one in five people in New York City was enslaved and nearly half of Manhattan households included an enslaved person. Even after New York State abolished slavery in 1827, the use of slave labor elsewhere to produce materials for New York’s economy continued

The Public Advocate initially began this effort as a Council Member, with the de Blasio administration agreeing to place a marker without a legislative requirement. However, the site of that signage is not accurate to the specific historical location of the slave market. This legislation clarifies the site and provides guidance on the information to be shared on the marker itself.

"Twenty-three years may seem a lifetime away, but for so many of us in this city, the tragedy of September 11th still feels immediate. Today I mourn the lifetimes cut short – the New Yorkers we lost on that morning, and all who have since suffered the lasting harm that stemmed from their heroism on that day. We have a moral obligation to support the families and lift the memories of all who were killed, and provide the resources needed to aid the people still in physical, mental, and emotional pain.

"That unimaginable tragedy showed our unimaginable capacity to care – that from common pain, we can draw common purpose. I pray today that we might summon that purpose to better support all New Yorkers facing danger and hardship, to bring the spirit of our brave, selfless first responders to the tragedies of today."

Three days after his City Council hearing, Mayor Adams’ nominee to serve as Corporation Counsel has yet to provide a single instance, current or historical, in which he believes that the law department should support another city entity – such as the City Council or Public Advocate – rather than the mayor. While questioning nominee Randy Mastro, New York City Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams offered until Friday night, 72 hours after the hearing, to provide an example when Mastro was unable to provide one at the time. Video of the exchange is available here.

“After an 11 hour hearing, three days of waiting, and many months since the mayor’s appointment was first floated, we have not yet heard a single example of an instance when the Corporation Counsel – the lawyer for all of city government – would side with anyone other than the mayor who appointed him,” said Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams on Friday. “From responses in the hearing and a lack of responses afterward, it seems clear that for whatever reason, the mayor nominated someone for this role willing to defend the executive in court at all costs, and at the expense of New Yorkers. We cannot have a Corporation Counsel who would stand by and provide legal defense for an administration’s efforts to flout the law. I urge the mayor to finally relent – to listen to not only his fellow elected officials, but the brave testimony we heard on Tuesday – and withdraw this nomination.”

The Public Advocate’s questioning regarding independence from the mayor comes as Mayor Adams is actively refusing to implement several city laws because of his personal and political opposition to the measures, including through legal action. During Tuesday's hearing, Public Advocate Williams pressed Mastro on whether these tactics were appropriate or defensible. Watch the exchange here.

In the months since Mastro was first mentioned for the role and the weeks since his formal nomination, the Public Advocate and others have highlighted extensive concerns with the appointment. Despite these vocal and well-founded concerns, Mayor Adams has continued to push forward the nomination without the support of sufficient partners in government.

The Public Advocate questioned the motivations of the mayor in pushing forward this particular appointment during the Council hearing, saying that “My most cynical concern is that this administration has a record of obfuscation – including around the costs and awarding of contracts, and seeming unpreparedness that has caused real harm at times. As Public Advocate I have to question whether the intended appointment of someone with a history of theatrics and ethically questionable practice of law is a symptom of the same problem.”

Read the Public Advocate’s opening statement at the hearing here, and watch his full exchange with Mastro here.   

At today’s City Council oversight hearing on Randy Mastro, Mayor Adams’ nominee for Corporation Counsel, New York City Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams will question Mastro on both his past tactics and current controversies related to his ability to serve the people of New York and represent their interests. In the months since Mastro was first mentioned for the role and the weeks since his formal nomination, the Public Advocate and others have highlighted extensive concerns with the appointment. Watch the Public Advocate questioning the nominee live here. 

“New York City’s top lawyer should promote public confidence in our City and in the legal profession. The people of New York City deserve an independent attorney who will protect the City and its people, defend the interests of all New Yorkers, and ensure the primacy of the public interest. I have concerns about moving forward with his nomination as Corp Counsel,” said Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams in his statement. ”My most cynical concern is that this administration has a record of obfuscation – including around the costs and awarding of contracts, and seeming unpreparedness that has caused real harm at times. As Public Advocate I have to question whether the intended appointment of someone with a history of theatrics and ethically questionable practice of law is a symptom of the same problem.”

The Public Advocate’s opening statement as prepared is below, and his questioning of Mr. Mastro will begin shortly. Watch it live here.

STATEMENT OF PUBLIC ADVOCATE JUMAANE D. WILLIAMS TO THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON  RULES, PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS  August 27 2024

Good morning, my name is Jumaane D. Williams, and I am the Public Advocate for the City of New York. I thank Chair Powers and the members of the Committee on Rules, Privileges and Elections for holding this hearing today and giving me the opportunity to testify. 

In 2019, the New York City Charter was amended by a public referendum to, among other things, require the advice and consent of the City Council for the appointment of the City’s top lawyer, the Corporation Counsel. New York City’s Corporation Counsel has significant and unique responsibilities – they serve as both attorney and counsel for the City. As emphasized in our Charter, Corporation Counsel is “to be attorney and counsel for the City and every agency thereof and shall have charge and conduct of all the law business of the city and its agencies and in which the city is interested.” They are the sole person authorized to represent New York City in court. As chief legal officer of the City, they are charged with interpreting municipal law and providing independent analysis to the Mayor, City agencies and even independent City offices. These duties should serve all New Yorkers – our constituents – in an ethical, balanced and fair manner. I have concerns that Mr. Mastro would impartially advance these goals without bias, but I look forward to hearing anything further that would allay these concerns.

Although everyone is entitled to legal representation in our system, the cases a lawyer argues and the strategies they employ to win may speak to their character. For much of his career, Mr. Mastro has seldom represented the interests of the people of New York. He represented fast food owners in attempting to block a minimum wage increase for their workers. He represented a group of landlords, which led to partially blocking the eviction moratorium during a global pandemic. He has represented landlords in attempting to block a rent stabilization law. He also represented property owners to oppose enforcement of Local Law 97 to create more sustainable buildings. 

In addition, he represented restaurants against enforcement of a polystyrene container ban. And, in an ongoing case, he is arguing that Madison Square Garden should be allowed to continue using facial recognition software to block entry to lawyers litigating against the company that owns it. Finally, it is troubling that Mr. Mastro is involved in New Jersey’s litigation against NYC’s congestion pricing plan, which could pose a significant conflict of interest should he become New York City’s top lawyer. 

In addition to the cases he’s chosen to represent, many against the interests of the City of New York, his tactics are also a cause for concern. For example, in representing plaintiffs in a case to remove 283 homeless men staying at the Lucerne hotel, Mr. Mastro hired private investigators to spy on activists advocating for basic shelter for some of the most marginalized New Yorkers. As has been widely reported, Mr. Mastro oversaw the “Bridgegate” scandal of former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. The federal judge overseeing the Bridgegate investigation harshly criticized Mastro’s tactic of deliberately ensuring investigation notes were unavailable in the future – a serious ethics concern. As the judge noted, “The taxpayers of the State of New Jersey paid… millions of dollars to conduct a transparent and thorough investigation. What they got instead was opacity and gamesmanship. They deserve better. So do New Yorkers.

Similarly, the council should be concerned about instances in his history does not espouse appropriate professionalism. For instance, during his tenure with the Guiliani administration, he was instrumental in dismantling the rights and privileges of many groups, including by removing necessary funding to a social services organization in the midst of the HIV/AIDS pandemic within NYC. It has been said by others that his past career should be reviewed beyond the surface. As a deputy Mayor under the Guiliani administration, he was with Guiliani as the former Mayor went overboard many times to defend the police when Black and Brown individuals were murdered by NYPD. How do you treat the former, and now disgraced, mayor as a role model?

New York City’s top lawyer should promote public confidence in our City and in the legal profession. The people of New York City deserve an independent attorney who will protect the City and its people, defend the interests of all New Yorkers, and ensure the primacy of the public interest. I have concerns about moving forward with his nomination as Corp Counsel. 

My most cynical concern is that this administration has a record of obfuscation – including around the costs and awarding of contracts, and seeming unpreparedness that has caused real harm at times. As Public Advocate I have to question whether the intended appointment of someone with a history of theatrics and ethically questionable practice of law is a symptom of the same problem. As Public Advocate I have to question whether the intended appointment of someone with a history of theatrics and ethically questionable practice of law is a symptom of the same problem. Are you here today as a favor from an administration and/or as the preferred choice of a mayor who would like every council hearing to be an exercise in futility in order to prevent the people of New York City from getting real answers from the public agencies entrusted to provide services and keep our city running?

Thank you again.