Brooklyn Supreme Court Decides in Favor of Witnesses

THE preaching activity of Jehovah’s witnesses world wide has expanded rapidly in recent years. This has required additional facilities for printing Bibles and Bible study aids.

As part of this expansion, an apartment building located at 1 Clark Street in Brooklyn, New York, was purchased seven years ago. This was to be renovated to house additional members of the headquarters staff who work at the Watchtower Society’s printing facilities nearby.

Years were allowed for the tenants of this building to relocate. They were assisted in many ways, including free labor and trucking. In time, thirty out of the forty-two apartments in the building were vacated. Then, after the needed permits had been obtained, renovation began.

However, the city’s Department of Rent and Housing Maintenance sought a permanent injunction from Brooklyn’s Supreme Court to prevent the completing of the work. It was charged that the work constituted ‘harassment’ of the remaining tenants. This legal action was instituted in March of 1971.

During the court proceedings, the presiding judge, Justice Charles J. Beckinella, continually penetrated to the heart of the matter. When counsel for the plaintiff strayed from the issues, the judge forcefully brought him back: “Let’s get on with this case . . . you just want to waste time.” When the lawyer questioned the overseer of the construction work regarding his education, Justice Beckinella told him to desist. However, when he continued to press the point, the judge stopped him and said: “How much education did Moses have? How much education did Christ have?” He showed that the overseer’s education had no bearing on the case. Other irrelevant matters were similarly handled.

In his final decision, rendered early in May, Justice Beckinella stated: “No evidence was adduced even suggesting that in altering and renovating the building the defendants have committed any illegal act. The proof at the trial showed that all the requirements of the municipal agency having jurisdiction over such matters have been met to that agency’s satisfaction.” He also noted that, had the tenants let work continue, it would have been finished by now and any inconvenience ended. Thus, the complaint was dismissed and renovation ought to be able to proceed.