Vol. 19.1

Explore the complete digital version of Volume 19.1.

Public Interest Practitioners Section (PIPS)

A Sufficieny-of-the-Evidence Exception to the New York Appellate Preservation Rule by Matthew Bova, Staff Attorney at the Center for Appellate Litigation

How Women’s Organizations are Changing the Legal Landscape of Reproductive Rights in Latin America by Fabiola Carrión, Advocacy Program Officer at Planned Parenthood Global

Articles

When Judges Don’t Follow the Law: Research and Recommendations by Michelle Cotton, Assistant Professor in the Division of Legal, Ethical and Historical Studies, University of Baltimore Yale Gordon College of Arts and Sciences

Remarks

RadTalks: What Could Be Possible if the Law Really Stood for Black Lives? a series of talks delivered at the Law for Black Lives Convening, organized by the Bertha Justice Institute at the Center for Constitutional Rights

Notes

Expectations of the Exemplar: An Exploration of the Burdens on Public School Teachers in the Absence of Tenure by Jacqueline A. Meese, J.D. Candidate ’16, City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law

Is it Worthless to be “Worth Less”? Ending the Exemption of People with a Disability from the Federal Minimum Wage Under the Fair Labor Standards Act by Alanna Sakovits, J.D. Candidate ’16, City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law

CUNY Law Review’s Spring Symposium: Reimagining Family Defense

CUNY Law Review’s Spring Symposium: Reimagining Family Defense

FRI, APR 8 AT 12:30 PM

Please join us at our exciting upcoming spring Symposium, Reimagining Family Defense, which will discuss multidisciplinary family defense models and strategies to support families involved in the child welfare system in an effort to gather support for innovative structural and policy changes to child welfare.

The symposium is not limited to the legal community in New York City, for it aims to engage all who are invested in this issue. We strongly welcome the participation of directly-affected community members and practitioners across interrelated disciplines, such as social workers, parent advocates, community organizers, and educators. Additionally, we welcome practitioners working on this issue outside of New York City.

Further details to come!

CUNITY Conversation: A Veil of Anonymity: Preserving Anonymous Sperm Donation While Affording Children Access to Donor-Identifying Information

CUNITY Conversation: A Veil of Anonymity: Preserving Anonymous Sperm Donation While Affording Children Access to Donor-Identifying Information

Please join us for our second CUNITY Conversation of the year, with author Aliya Shain and Professor Ruthann Robson on Wednesday, March 30th at 6:30pm in the Community Room!

The CUNITY Conversation Series features our student
authors, who will have their scholarly articles published
in an upcoming edition of the CUNY Law Review. This event
gives the student body an opportunity to engage with the
student author’s ideas and creates a conversation around
interesting issues in public interest lawyering.

This session will focus on 3L Aliya Shain and her article entitled: A Veil of Anonymity: Preserving Anonymous Sperm Donation While Affording Children Access to Donor-Identifying Information.

Further details to follow!

CUNITY Conversation: Fast Food Sweatshops: Franchisors as Employers Under the FLSA

Screen Shot 2016-02-16 at 10.56.55 PM

 

 

The CUNY Law Review invites the CUNY Law Community to join us at this year’s
first CUNITY Conversation on THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25th at
7:00pm in Room 1-205!

The CUNITY Conversation Series features our student
authors, who will have their scholarly articles published
in an upcoming edition of the CUNY Law Review. This event
gives the student body an opportunity to engage with the
student author’s ideas and creates a conversation around
interesting issues in public interest lawyering.

This CUNITY Conversation will feature our own
Managing Editor, Tom Power, whose article, Fast Food
Sweatshops: Franchisors as Employers Under the FLSA,
will be published in the CUNY Law Review this summer. He
will be joined by Professor Shirley Lung, and they will
facilitate a conversation on the legal issues discussed in
the Note, specifically the challenges that low-wage
workers face when they try to bring lawsuits against their
corporate franchisor employers.

Wine and food will be served!

We look forward to seeing you all there!

Vol. 18.2

Explore the complete digital version of Volume 18.2.

Public Interest Practitioners Section (PIPS)

When the Invisible Hand Wields a Scalpel: Maternity Care in the Market Economy, by Farah Diaz-Tello, Senior Staff Attorney at National Advocates for Pregnant Women

Working on the Outskirts of Hope: One Independent Legal Services Organization’s Struggle to Survive and Serve Rhode Island’s Low Income Communities, by Geoffrey Schoos, Founder and President of the Rhode Island Center for Law and Public Policy

Articles

Toxic Sweatshops: Regulating the Import of Hazardous Electronics, by Allie Robbins, Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs, City University of New York School of Law

Report

Revisiting S.C.P.A. 17-A: Guardianship for People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, A Report of the Mental Health Law Committee and the Disability Law Committee of the New York City Bar Association

Notes

 “I Don’t Really Sleep”: Street-Based Sex Work, Public Housing Rights, and Harm Reduction, by Chelsea Breakstone, City University of New York School of Law, J.D. Class of 2015

Toward a Synthesis: Law as Organizing, by Aaron Samsel,  City University of New York School of Law, J.D. Class of 2015

JUSTICE IN AMERICA: DIVERTING THE MENTALLY ILL

 

Matthew J. D’Emic*

Click here for a recommended citation and to download a paginated PDF version of this article.

Introduction

It has been a rough year for the criminal justice system in America. Racially charged confrontations in various jurisdictions have caused citizens to question both the substantive and procedural fairness of our justice system. Calls for reform of the grand jury process, court transparency, and other facets of the criminal justice system sound far and wide. Protestations of “no justice, no peace”—an accusation of systemic injustice—echo across the country.[1]

Legal scholars decry the shortcomings of judges and judging. One claims “misjudging is more common, more systematic, and more harmful than the legal system has fully realized.”[2] Yet another presumes “judges generally are prone to error because of . . . informational, cognitive, and attitudinal blinders,” concluding, “I do not think that the vast majority of trial judges are good . . . .”[3]

Continue reading

THE ISSUE IS NOT THE ISSUE

Sara AbiBoutros*

Click here for a recommended citation and to download a paginated PDF version of this article.

The use of public space to peacefully assemble is essential to the success of any social movement fighting for social justice. Without a space for people to come together, it would be impossible to engage with one another, to plan, and to make our civil disobedience visible to the public. The convergence of public and private institutions to curtail the use of space to quash free speech is evident through the repression of the Free Speech Movement (“FSM”) in the 1960s and Occupy Wall Street (“OWS”) in 2011. At their core, the FSM and OWS were both protesting the socio-political landscape and the power structure. Both movements used symptoms of this larger issue, such as limiting free speech and the use of public space, to create such tension that society could no longer ignore injustice. Through this approach they were able to gain political concessions; but more importantly, they radicalized previously non-politically active individuals and changed the way people think.

The FSM was able to galvanize support through confrontations with a university’s administration,[1] while OWS attempted to create the world in which it envisioned. Different ideologies of civil disobedience played a part in shaping the movements and the tactics they chose to utilize. Off-shoots of OWS, such as Occupy Sandy and Strike Debt, show that the principles of the movement could be used as a model to achieve tangible successes in multiple arenas.

Continue reading

THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS OF THE 2003 IRAQ WAR: A MORAL OBLIGATION OR A MANDATORY MEASURE UNDER INTERNATIONAL TREATIES

Ramy A. Ibrahim*

Click here for a recommended citation and to download a paginated PDF version of this article.

The 2003 Iraq War has left a long-lasting detrimental impact on the lives of Iraqis. Aside from the highly destructive sectarian divide, political instability, and stunted economic development, both the United States and the Iraqi Governments have failed to address the environmental contamination that resulted from the military munitions used during the war.[1] This article focuses on the effects of that contamination, the reaction both governmental systems have taken, how these actions constitute violations of various international treaties, and also calls for action.

Studies have linked the highly radioactive environmental contaminates left behind by the war to dramatically increasing rates of cancer, birth defects, and other illnesses—including respiratory and neurological ones—in all affected areas.[2] Iraqi women and children continue to live in these hazardous conditions and are constantly exposed to these left-over toxic munitions and carcinogenic waste.[3] The failure of the U.S. and Iraqi Governments to take sufficient measures to decontaminate the affected areas, and to provide healthcare services for affected persons constitutes a blatant violation of a number of international treaties, including, but not limited to: the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW),[4] the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD),[5] and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.[6]

Continue reading

From Stoop to Storefront: The Fight for Housing Justice in New York City

From Stoop to Storefront: The Fight for Housing Justice in New York City

12246819_993770927313003_4567014926774384239_n

CUNY Law Review hosted its fall premier event From Stoop to Storefront: The Fight for Housing Justice in New York City on November 10, 2015 at CUNY School of Law.

12208427_993771013979661_1315121057437366460_n

This event featured panelists (from left to right): Andrea McArdle, Moderator and CUNY Law Professor; Victor Bach, Community Service Society of New York; Hyun-Jung Kim, Community Action for Safe Apts. (CASA); and Greg Jost, Longtime Housing Advocate in the Bronx.

CUNY Law Review hosted this event because the demand for affordable, decent housing is at the heart of economic and racial justice in New York City.

CUNY Law Review constructed this event to reflect on the historic roots of the housing crisis, highlight strategies by which tenants are organizing against soaring rents, harassment, and creeping gentrification, and to discuss the role that the legal community can play in supporting New York’s housing rights movement.

The panel was followed by three breakout-style workshop sessions.

STS_3

Housing Court 101 and Tenant’s Rights was facilitated by Hyun-Jung Kim and Jean Stevens, CAMBA Legal Services.

Administrative Law as Informal Advocacy to Increase Access to Housing was facilitated by Doug Seidman of The Legal Aid Society.

Organizing Against Displacement: Tenant-Led Campaigns for Justice was facilitated by Greg Jost; James Rodriguez, Good Old Lower East Side (GOLES); and Tania Mattos, Queens Neighborhoods United.

CUNY Law Review thanks all of the speakers and participants for coming out to discuss these important topics and take concrete steps toward addressing housing injustice in New York City.

E-DISCOVERY IN CRIMINAL DEFENSE: CHALLENGES OF PRETRIAL DETAINEE ACCESS

Emilee A. Sahli*

Click here for a recommended citation and to download a paginated PDF version of this article.

Introduction

Imagine that you are a criminal defense attorney and your client is being charged with a felony, denied bail, and held in pretrial detention on federal drug charges. It could be years before your client has an opportunity for trial. In the rare event that your client decides to hold out against pressures to accept a plea agreement, your client’s ability to participate in their own defense is extremely limited by the conditions of their confinement. Any reasonable penological explanation for restricting their access to calls or meeting with you to review evidence in the law library and otherwise participate in the investigation process will be constructively unchallengeable in court.

Continue reading