Q&A
Critique of Mastro's legal career and representation of controversial clients
6:43:29
·
159 sec
Council Member Sanchez presents a critique of Randy Mastro's legal career, focusing on his representation of clients in cases that challenged public interest policies.
- Sanchez argues that Mastro has used his legal skills to stymie causes he claims to champion
- She contends that Mastro had a choice in the cases he litigated, even in private practice
- Sanchez cites examples such as Mastro's work on the Lucerne case, the eviction moratorium, and cases involving source of income discrimination
- She questions the distinction Mastro tries to draw between his actions in private practice and his public service commitments
Pierina Ana Sanchez
6:43:29
Thank you, Mister Castro.
6:43:30
So just just in in closing here and and to touch on because my colleagues have asked and you've had excellent exchanges with with them regarding some of your history on on housing cases.
6:43:41
In response to Cheer Power's earlier line of questioning this morning, very, very first line of questioning that I believe, regarding client motivations and congestion pricing and other lawsuits, you responded that you couldn't speak to the motivations of the governor in in the New Jersey case.
6:43:57
But you're too smart for that.
6:43:59
You're you're too smart for that.
6:44:01
Throughout your career, you have represented a roster of clients in litigation where the end goal was to void critical laws and policies and initiatives and that protect the public interests and the vulnerable.
6:44:13
Said differently, you've been willing to allow the legal your legal prowess as an attorney to be used to stymie the very causes that you are in some of the very same sentences claiming that you are a believer and champion of.
6:44:26
Even if you are in private practice, a professional of your caliber has choice in the cases that you litigate and especially so in more recent times.
6:44:36
And the weapon that is the skill that is your skill and your talent, how that is wielded to me has been problematic, saying that out loud here.
6:44:44
And I'm sure many of my colleagues share.
6:44:47
And so to me, the distinction that you've tried to draw between your actions in private practice and others is not truly a real one.
6:44:54
Your actions against policies meant to protect the vulnerable speak to your boundaries and your character.
6:45:00
And that applies to your exchange with deputy speaker Ayala on the Lucerne.
6:45:05
Your work on the eviction moratorium, something that hasn't been discussed today.
6:45:09
You're you're defending Le Frac Realty against source of income victims, source of income discrimination victims of persons living with HIV and AIDS.
6:45:19
And despite what you have claimed about defending the small landlord in the GMAX case regarding the HSTPA, in the very first paragraph of the scotus In the very first paragraph of your petition to scotus in the GMAX case, you characterized the housing stability and Center Protection Act of 2019 as a permanent expropriation of vast swaths of private real estate.
6:45:41
So this is my closing, and then you can have whatever time the chair allocates to you.
6:45:47
Do you believe that rent regulation is essential to preserving housing affordability and preventing homelessness for low income families?
6:45:53
Are you committed to defending rent laws?
6:45:55
If we if we have to, as a city, against future challenges.
6:45:59
And do you believe that the city and state can and should take emergency measures to prevent mass evictions during health and economic crises?
6:46:06
Thank you, chair for the time.