Press Room

"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.

Thirty days after Mayor Eric Adams signed a last-minute, shameful executive order to block the implementation of the law banning the prolonged isolation of solitary confinement in city jails, Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams, who sponsored the law, is questioning whether the administration has taken any steps to address that purported emergency and implement the law as required. This comes after another incarcerated New Yorker lost their life on Rikers last week, part of a dangerous status quo that the administration is intent on preserving. 

The mayor’s executive order, originally set for 30 days, is required to be constantly renewed in order to continue to fail to enforce the law. Recent reporting has suggested that the administration never had any intention to follow the law, and a stream of misinformation from the mayor suggests he has not even read it.

“The fact that a month has passed without any clear evidence of urgency or action from the administration on this issue reveals this state of emergency for what it always was – a political ploy that undermines the rule of law and the trust of New Yorkers,” said Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams. “The ‘law-and-order’ administration should know that their opposition to a law doesn’t make it optional, and while they continue to stretch this executive order without end, they extend the suffering of people in isolation on Rikers Island. I would hope that they are at least implementing the remainder of the law, and working toward faithfully executing it, but I have seen no evidence of either – I hope they prove me wrong.”

In a letter to the mayor and Department of Correction commissioner on August 12,  the Public Advocate asked whether the administration was at least taking any steps to alleviate the emergency which ostensibly prevents parts of the law from being enforced, and demanded transparency about whether the administration had implemented the rest of the law as mandated.

Local Law 42 (LL42) was passed in December of 2023 before being vetoed by Mayor Adams at the last moment. The Council then overrode that veto by more votes than the bill was originally passed. Despite this, the administration has continued to spread false information about the bill. 

Among the questions the Public Advocate asked of the administration are:  

• What unique circumstances have materialized since the passage of LL42 to spur the declaration of a local state of emergency?
• Of those provisions of LL42 untouched by your EO, which are being implemented as mandated? THE CITY recently reported that Rikers’ de-escalation unit is not in use. Is there another area/facility DOC is using for de-escalation? Does the DOC plan to use these units for their intended purpose?
• As LL42 does not prohibit the use of restraints when transporting incarcerated people between facilities or to and from court, what does the DOC object to in this section of the law? What does this EO change?
• Are officers (or aides) regularly rounding to assess conditions of those held in de-escalation confinement and/or restrictive housing? How often?
• How many people are in each unit of restrictive or enhanced supervision housing at this time? Are those held in restrictive housing units receiving their mandated out-of-cell time, group programming, showers, and medical care? If not, what corrective measures have been taken to ensure they do in the future?

While the mayor’s order suspends the most central elements of the law, other aspects should remain in place despite it – including a ban on shower cages and some limits on extended ‘de-escalation confinement.’ However, given the administration’s consistent opposition to and apparent lack of preparation for the law’s effective date, it is unclear whether the DOC is complying with these provisions.

In his questioning, the Public Advocate states that “The administration’s ongoing use of misinformation about the law is alarming. It suggests the Department of Correction does not have a proper understanding of LL42, or alternatively, that there is an intentional effort underway by the administration to mislead the public. Irrespective of the reason, it is unacceptable… Given the administration’s continued  lack of transparency about  Rikers’ internal operations, as well as repeated reports of an inability to follow regulations in place, the public is owed an explanation which provisions of LL42  are currently being followed, as well as the preparations underway for the full implementation of the law.”

Read the full letter below. To date, the administration has not substantively responded to the Public Advocate’s inquiry. 

Dear Mayor Adams and Commissioner Maginley-Liddie:

I write to you today concerning Emergency Executive Order (“EO”) 624, which, in effect, keeps incarcerated people subject to the prolonged isolation of solitary confinement and is in violation of Local Law 42 (“LL42”), which was to be implemented on July 28th, six months after it wasenacted.

As your executive order declared a state of emergency to justify suspending certain aspects of the law, I expect that urgent steps are being taken to alleviate that emergency. In the interim, I also expect that the administration will implement those provisions left untouched by EO 624, as mandated by a duly passed local law.

This law is designed to make New York City jails safer for both staff and detainees. As of this year, four people have died in custody. Correction officers themselves have communicated through various channels that they do not feel safe. Solitary confinement itself leads to increased death and violence in jails, endangering those incarcerated, as well as staff. Yet this order, in effect, maintains that status quo.

The administration’s ongoing use of misinformation about the law is alarming. It suggests the Department of Correction (“DOC”) does not have a proper understanding of LL42, or alternatively, that there is an intentional effort underway by the administration to mislead the public. Irrespective of the reason, it is unacceptable.

Given the administration’s continued lack of transparency about Rikers’ internal operations, as well as repeated reports of an inability to follow regulations in place, the public is owed an explanation which provisions of LL42 are currently being followed, as well as the preparations underway for the full implementation of the law.

To best serve our constituents, I pose the following preliminary questions: ● What unique circumstances have materialized since the passage of LL42 to spur the declaration of a local state of emergency? ● Of those provisions of LL42 untouched by your EO, which are being implemented as mandated? THE CITY recently reported that Rikers’ de-escalation unit is not in use. Is there another area/facility DOC is using for de-escalation? Does the DOC plan to use these units for their intended purpose? ● As LL42 does not prohibit the use of restraints when transporting incarcerated people between facilities or to and from court, what does the DOC object to in this section of the law? What does this EO change? ● Are officers (or aides) regularly rounding to assess conditions of those held in de-escalation confinement and/or restrictive housing? How often? ● How many people are in each unit of restrictive or enhanced supervision housing at this time? Are those held in restrictive housing units receiving their mandated out-of-cell time, group programming, showers, and medical care? If not, what corrective measures have been taken to ensure they do in the future?

I hope that we can move forward honestly and transparently to implement the law the City Council has approved twice and the administration is required to enforce. For further discussion, contact Chief Deputy Public Advocate for Policy Veronica Aveis at vaveis@advocate.nyc.gov and Deputy Public Advocate Jeffrey Severe at jsevere@advocate.nyc.gov. Thank you for your time and your attention.

Sincerely,

Jumaane D. Williams Public Advocate for the City of New York

"Another New Yorker lost their life in city custody today, the fifth of the year and 33rd under this administration. This is the status quo on Rikers the mayor was so desperate to preserve that he refused to enforce the law banning solitary and the use of prolonged isolation, declaring a state of emergency to block it. There has long been a crisis on Rikers, as today’s tragic loss shows, but the administration is relying on keeping that emergency in place, rather than acting to address it.”

"This harmful ruling will only deepen the longstanding housing and homelessness crisis in our city. The CityFHEPS voucher program has been vital to helping people most in need find and stay in their homes, and the City Council's expansion of the service was invaluable as rents continue to rise. I support their decision to pursue an appeal.

"The Adams administration’s cold, callous refusal to implement yet another law approved twice by the Council, their choice to take this case to court instead of helping people access homes, will leave many New Yorkers without options. This mayor professes to care about affordability, but has once again failed to prioritize the needs of the city over his personal politics."