Judge Tosses Lawsuit Trying to Block East Village Homeless Shelter
The city wants to move all intake services for adult men to a preexisting shelter, which drew a lawsuit from a few local residents. It was tossed by a judge on June 10.
| 12 Jun 2026 | 04:04
A judge has tossed a lawsuit filed by a few local residents, that sought to prevent the expansion of homeless shelter services at an East Third Street facility after the city closes the dilapidated Bellevue shelter. (
)
The city wants to move intake services to the shelter after shuttering the “Bellevue” shelter (pictured above) this spring. (
)
A judge tossed a suit attempting to block the planned expansion of a homeless shelter on East Third Street, which could become the intake shelter for all homeless men entering the city system, pending an expected appeal.
The East Village shelter currently contains 175 beds and is run by Project Renewal.
Mayor Zohran Mamdani wants the E. 3rd St. shelter to take over intake duties from the “Bellevue” shelter on East 30th Street, which his administration shuttered in April due to concerns about severely degraded conditions for residents and staff.
The latter shelter was named for its close proximity to Bellevue Hospital (it once served as its psychiatric wing), with a Gothamist report from April revealing that it was suffering from a state of disrepair that included sunken floors and corroded beams.
Judge Sabrina Kraus had previously put a temporary restraining order on the new shelter plans in March, in order to review the suit, which was filed by a group of local residents under the banner of “V.O.I.C.E.” (Village Organization for the Integrity of Community Engagement).
The plaintiffs have received legal support from Randy Mastro, a former deputy mayor under the Eric Adams administration, who has indicated that he plans to appeal the latest ruling.
In tossing the suit on June 10, Judge Kraus wrote that the city had a “rational basis” for moving intake services to E. 3rd Street, and were not doing so in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner. She would not, she added, be able to substitute her judgment on whether the shelter was necessary for the judgment of city officials.
However, she also stated her belief that residents who make up V.O.I.C.E. had a “lack of opportunity to be heard on an issue that may indeed change the character of their block and neighborhood.”
V.O.I.C.E. had argued that the city was bypassing certain regulatory processes, such as a Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), which is the primary approval for the city to determine how land is used.
In a statement issued on the day of the ruling, V.O.I.C.E. plaintiff Trisha Goff thanked Kraus for this acknowledgment, while adding that they were “deeply disappointed with today’s ruling” overall.
“We are outraged that the City has chosen to hide behind legal technicalities rather than face the community and decided to relocate the intake of Bellevue in a neighborhood that already has two shelters within one block and two more within five blocks,” Goff said.
Critics of V.O.I.C.E., such as the Coalition for the Homeless, have slammed the suit as a transparent form of “NIMBYism” that they say will keep homeless people living on the street. V.O.I.C.E. had denied that any of its members adhere to “Not In My Backyard” beliefs, otherwise associated with anti-development protest.
Mayor Mamdani, meanwhile, praised the judge’s ruling in a statement: “For years, conditions at Bellevue had been allowed to deteriorate, making this transition both necessary and urgent. Past administrations discussed closing this facility but failed to get it done. This administration followed through.”