City delays homeless hotel amid LES suit
The city has agreed not to move any homeless men into the Lower East Side Blue Moon Hotel before Feb. 9 — which will allow locals more time to pursue their lawsuit blocking the shelter, new court papers show.
A group of landlords, residents and a restaurant on Monday filed suit to block the city from moving 70 homeless men into the hotel, arguing that the facility would be overcrowded and could spark a coronavirus outbreak.
The locals wanted a judge to hold an emergency hearing since the city’s lease with the Blue Moon Hotel was allegedly set for Jan. 1, the suit said.
But Thursday, the city said it “will not place any client occupants at the proposed shelter before February 9,” according to a court stipulation in the case.
Because of the one-month pause on the shelter opening, the locals withdrew their request for the temporary restraining order and are now asking the judge to hold a hearing in early February.
The 22-room converted former tenement building would force at least three unrelated men to stay in rooms together which could potentially cause COVID-19 to “spread like wildfire,” the suit alleged.
The hotel is located in a neighborhood packed with bars, clubs and restaurants that allegedly cause drug and alcohol use problems in the area, the suit claimed.
All of these factors could exacerbate the spread of COVID-19 and contribute to crime, loitering and overcrowding that already exists in the neighborhood, the lawsuit alleged.
The suit claimed that the locals only discovered the city’s plan for the 100 Orchard St. building through word of mouth.
The city was allegedly trying to bypass the normally required public-review process by opening the shelter under pandemic rules and claiming the shelter would be temporary under a six-month lease, the court papers alleged.
Meanwhile, the lease can be renewed monthly for up to nine years, the court papers said citing the lease. A community-board hearing was held Thursday for the city to present their plan on the shelter.
A local source told The Post that the city representative at the community-board meeting provided very little information on the shelter.
“Folks were frustrated that we were having a meeting to talk about a rather important thing in the community . . . and then they came to a community consultation with really no information,” the source said.
A lawyer representing the locals declined to comment.
The city and the city Law Department did not immediately return a request for comment.