A semi-win: Stepping Forward Produced IG Investigation of Corruption of A.H.

[Sharing Lights]

p 29-30

5. Employees Disproportionately Residing in Mitchell-Lama Housing

On December 21, 2005, Mark Marcucilli, assistant director of DHCR’s Housing Management Bureau, was arrested on charges that he defrauded DHCR by providing false information regarding his residency at Southbridge Towers, a Mitchell-Lama complex in lower Manhattan.

Following a joint investigation by the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, the New York State Attorney General’s Office, and the Inspector General, Marcucilli was accused of obtaining and maintaining an apartment at Southbridge, which he used periodically as his own residence, by falsely representing that his father resided with him there. Marcucilli’s income was too high for him to qualify for this apartment as the sole occupant. Instead, he commenced the application process for the apartment in the names of his parents. Marcucilli was also accused of helping a personal friend to obtain and maintain an apartment at Southbridge, which the friend illegally sublet; and assisting an effort by Jody Wolfson, another DHCR employee and Southbridge resident, to illegally sell her apartment to another by falsely representing to DHCR that she lived with the person to whom she intended to transfer the apartment. The U.S. Attorney’s Office also prosecuted Jody Wolfson, charging her with conspiracy and mail fraud in connection with the scheme to illegally sell her Southbridge
29
apartment, as well as a second scheme to defraud relating to a separate Southbridge apartment owned by Wolfson’s mother. It was alleged that with the assistance of Mark Marcucilli, Wolfson falsely represented to DHCR that her nephew resided with her mother, in an effort to obtain succession rights for her nephew to her mother’s apartment.
Marcucilli pled guilty in United State District Court for the Southern District of New York on September 28, 2006 to mail fraud; theft of United States government funds; and conspiracy to commit mail fraud and theft of United State government funds. On March 29, 2007, he was sentenced to one year and one day in federal prison. As part of his plea, he agreed to forfeit all rights to his Southbridge residence. On April 4, 2006, Wolfson pled guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and mail fraud. As of the writing of this report, Wolfson has not been sentenced.
The Marcucilli and Wolfson prosecutions raise concerns as to whether DHCR has in place adequate controls to prevent potential abuses or conflicts of interest that may arise when DHCR employees reside in Mitchell-Lama complexes.

DHCR did not require agency employees to report their residency in projects under DHCR oversight, and a DHCR official told us he didn’t think this situation was a “big deal.”

In fact, our review identified such a situation, involving a DHCR employee who reviewed tenant applications for the Mitchell-Lama complex where she resided. DHCR knew, or should have known, of this conflict, as it had approved the employee’s application for an apartment in the complex.

30

[Sharing Lights]

p 33

2. Manipulation of Waiting Lists

Our investigation uncovered numerous violations of regulations regarding waiting lists at two of the three developments examined.

SL: Examine them all - you may be shocked!

DHCR failed in its oversight role to uncover these violations in its field examinations or to make any effort to correct the violations. As described below, our investigation uncovered violations of each of the following areas:

• Assignment of new applicants to waiting lists;
• Assignment of tenants requesting transfers to waiting lists;
• Recording of changes to the waiting lists and the justifications for those changes; and
• Procedures for converting from written waiting lists to the automated waiting list.

..............

[Sharing Lights]

p 34-35

Example:

a. Towers of Bayridge

When we examined the logbooks at Bayridge, an 811-unit cooperative apartment complex in Brooklyn, we found serious violations of the DHCR regulations governing
18 9 NYCRR § 1727-1.3(g)
19 9 NYCRR §§ 1727-2.3, 2.6.
20 9 NYCRR § 1727-5.3(a)(9).
33
external waiting lists. 9 NYCRR §1727-1.3(b) requires that prospective tenants’ applications be entered in the log in the order they were received. At Bayridge, this principle was turned on its head.

Six applications, which should have appeared far down the external list, were placed virtually at the top.


Employees of Bayridge’s management agent accomplished this by inserting these applications immediately after applicant 201 on the list (the next applicant due to be offered an apartment) and giving them the irregular designations 201A-201F.

Overall, we found 59 instances where applications were improperly inserted in the Bayridge external waiting list in the period 2002 to 2004.

SL: Inserted and that's it?

Why IG do you think they were inserted to begin with?

Well, they had to split a percentage with their "runners" but
not bad day at work at all, ahh?

Why you, IG, refuse to call things as they are?

Or you "sincerely" believe that the inserts are for pure sportsmanship only?

In violation of 9 NYCRR §1727-1.3(b)(3), we also found 12 instances at Bayridge in which the waiting list number assigned to individuals who had been removed from the external waiting list or inactivated for various stated reasons (refusal of apartment offered, etc.) were reassigned to persons who were either not on any list or who had been on the internal lists for tenants seeking to transfer apartments. New applications should have been placed at the end of the external waiting list,21 and applications for transfer should not have been placed on the external list at all.22 Many of these improper revisions were made by “whiting out” the correct log book entry, which violates the DHCR rule stating that when log book information is superseded, it “should be lined out, not whited out.”23
With respect to the 59 improper insertions and other irregularities in the external waiting list, a representative of J.A.L. Diversified Management Corporation (JAL), Bayridge’s managing agent at the time,24 acknowledged that

the logs have “too many insertions, notes, cross-outs, write-overs.”

However, the JAL representative attempted to blame DHCR, in part, for the practice, stating: “The whole process of recordkeeping was made extremely complicated by the sanctioning of insertions into the waiting lists, which has gone on for over 15 years.”

SL: Oh, sure, sure, sure....

The JAL representative appeared to refer to an April 11, 2002 letter from JAL to a DHCR senior housing management representative requesting permission to make such insertions to the list. Copies of the letter were attached to the

21 9 NYCRR § 1727-1.3(a)(3).
22 9 NYCRR § 1727-1.3(a)(1).
23 Apartment Application Review Procedure, Item B.2.b.
24 JAL’s management contract was not renewed after June 30, 2005.

34
logs where insertions were made. Despite JAL’s apparent reliance on this letter, no evidence was provided to show that DHCR ever approved the request, either in writing or orally. The DHCR senior representative to whom the letter was addressed told the Inspector General that DHCR did not formally respond to JAL’s request, and that she verbally informed JAL that the request was denied.

SL: Oral communications again, almost -
Billy Clinton style and also,
"I didn't do it!..."

Of course, nobody did...

[Sharing Lights]

p 35

SL: or almost humor

DHCR Oversight

The DHCR representative with direct responsibility for monitoring Bayridge failed to note the numerous insertions and white-outs in the logbooks ─ clear violations of DHCR regulations ─ in either his field reports or his evaluation of JAL. Indeed, despite the numerous and obvious irregularities in the logbooks,

When we questioned the representative about the irregularities, he claimed that he had not noticed them, insisting that he had told Bayridge staff that new applications must be added at the end of the list.

SL: They congratulate top bribe producers, unbelivable...

.....................

[Sharing Lights]

p 36

SL: This response is in a class by itself:

b. Cathedral Parkway Towers

At Cathedral Parkway Towers, a 309-unit rental complex in Manhattan, we found that regulations for both the internal and external waiting lists had been violated, often flagrantly. In March and April 2006,

Cathedral Parkway granted apartments to three individuals
who were not on any waiting list,
bypassing at least six applicants
who had been waiting for an apartment
since 1999.

When we asked

the manager of the complex

for an explanation, she said,

“they just walked in and
filled out applications and
we gave them apartments.”

SL: You go, girl....

__________________________________________________ ______________________________-
PS

SL: My family waited over 10 years,
while walk in(s) "just happened" to pass by
and,

by hard-earned, honest work...

Is it not special?

.................

[Sharing Lights]

p 36-37

In another egregious instance, a Cathedral Parkway

This employee was not on the waiting list, but occupied the apartment even before his
application was sent to DHCR.

In yet another serious oversight by DHCR, we found that

when Cathedral Parkway converted from logbooks to the automated waiting list.

Because the logbooks lacked the annotations that are required by regulation, it was not possible to determine if the deletions from the list were proper.

When interviewed, the Cathedral Parkway manager said she could not explain
the lack of annotations because the staff person who handled the conversion
no longer worked for the housing company.


In violation of 9 NYCRR §1727-1.3(a)(1), Cathedral Parkway failed to maintain an internal waiting list of tenants wishing to transfer to a different apartment. Despite the absence of an internal waiting list, Cathedral Parkway management had allowed at least 27 tenants to transfer to other apartments. Without a list or other documentation concerning the transfers, we could not determine whether the first-come, first-served rule had been followed or whether different-sized apartments had been properly allocated according to household composition. 36


We also found that Cathedral Parkway failed to properly implement a separate internal transfer plan
requested by DHCR intended to move certain tenants into smaller apartments so that they could continue to be eligible for federal housing subsidies. DHCR had provided Cathedral Parkway with a list of these “downsize transfers” and directed that they be given priority over any other internal transfer. When we compared the list with actual transfers, we found that

DHCR was unaware of this situation because it failed to conduct a follow-up review of the
“downsize transfer” plan.

....................

[Sharing Lights]

The point has been made.

Lack of accountability and certain immunity,
whether judges or any, employees are the breading
ground for corruption and abuse.

Only those who follow the Principles would act accordingly,
but, how many of those are trying to secure the
positions at discussion?

I have not pursued one issue when it was unjust and
have not made prediction which,
sooner or later, was not
substantiated by some evidence.

The road is not easy and much danger is ahead;
yet, trading security of decaying life, clinging to
"leave me alone - I would leave you alone too" and
"may you steal, abuse, ruining lives of others" -
is not my path.

It is better to burn brightly and with a purpose,
than decay in safety of some warmth produced,
evolving nowhere.

I sincerely believe that the management which has
devastated so many people, how many deprived of due to them apartments,
evicted, and discriminated vs. so
many, only fulfilling its filthy pockets by dirty money,
would be dethroned.


These thugs are watching me, let them watch.

I pursue the Higher Justice only - not greed or vengeance.

I have not accused any one of anything not
done by that individual; for, I respect the Ten Commandments!

May the Great Laws of Karma unveil!

The thugs also took upon a student of
Aivanhov's Esoteric school and Kabbalah,
let them experiment with the opening Gates of Geburah
if they are choosing to walk into them.

It is disgusting that I was banned by the imitators of Sovereignty
for, simply,
speaking up my mind, when fight
with the management where I reside is brutal,
but,
I perform under any pressure and
would not cater to those impostors no matter what.

I would, still, find the way to protect every Poster's
on-line to access to his/her Postings.

May life decide who pursues Justice or deception and
under which Principles or pretexts.

Fight chosen is a Spartan stand:
a fair warning and, then, inflicting enough casualties
for the aggressor to retreat or be defeated.

Amen!