JONIOTTING 20,1010 UNIVEbell V

DENTISTRY

WITH SENSIBILITY

AND SENSITIVITY

MARK CRYSTAL

DDS

66 W. 94th St.

New York

(212) 777-2681

By Appointment

TYPE WRITER REPAIR

H.D. FRIEDMAN

250 W. 22nd St. New York City PHONE (212)

691-9761

6 pm-11 pm, Mon-Fri

9 am-12 noon, Sat-Sun

TREAT YOUR BODY NICELY Consult a Dance-Movement Therapist for help with back pains, negative body image, and other physical disabilities. Shortand medium-term treatment (in your home to meet your life needs). AARON COHEN

(212) 673-7286 Messages: (212) 691-7950, ext. 553

MOPEDS

BICYCLES MOTORCYCLES

Sales & Quick Service Open 7 Days a Week Lowest Prices Around

RALPH'S CYCLES LTD.

404 West Street New York NY 10013 243-9634

10

DISCOUNT WITH THIS AD

DISPLAY (212) 929-7720

ADVERTISING

The Catholic Church of the Gay Community

CHURCH

of the

BELOVED DISCIPLE

348 W. 14th St., near 9th Ave., Tel. 242-6616.

Sunday Masses-2:00 P.M., 7:00 P.M. Coffee Hour Follows Each Mass

All Welcome! Eucharistic Catholic Church-1946 Bishop Robert M. Clement

INTEGRITY

MEETING every Tuesday evening at Church of St. Luke in the Fields, Hudson at Grove. 7:30 Service, 8:30 Program-Social Get together.

• SPEAKERS BUREAUwe will speak with your group.

• ACTION COMMITTEE-seeking change through communication and constructive confrontation.

• PEER AND PROFESSIONAL COUNSELING call us.

• SPECIAL EVENT ACTIVITIES as announced.

• NEWSLETTER-published monthly. ALL ARE WELCOME.

INTEGRITY/NY, GPO Box 1549, NY, NY 10001 (212) 989-6653 days until 10 pm

FOR GAY EPISCOPALIANS AND FRIENDS

Why trust your special photos to any old drug store?

Whether it's the photos you took on Fire Island last weekend or the photos you took at the party Linda gave for Susan, give the film to Photographics Unlimited for proof sheets and prints.

And check these special services darkrooms and studios for hourly rental photography workshops. model and actor portfolio photography art and publicity photography.

And get a 10% discount with this ad.

Photographics Unlimited of N.Y., Inc.

43 W. 22nd St., 11th Floor (212) 255-9678

Gaysweek is indispensable. And it keeps getting better.

COMPLIMENTS OF A FRIEND

GAY COMMUNITY MEDICAL CARE

Urologist Treating Venereal Disease. Urological and General Medical Problems.

HARRY S. DAVID, M.D.

•

123 East 83rd Street (212) 988-4374

Discrimination? Perhaps Not. Update

on Henderson v. Victoria Apartments

Williamson Henderson contacted GAYSWEEK last spring about what he claims is a case of discrimination against him in the Victoria Apartments on 14th Street. Investigation into the matter led me to write a detailed article which was printed in GAYSWEEK in the August 28 issue.

ROBERT CHESLEY

W

Williamson called me last week to tell me that Hearing Officer Harriet George handed down an opinion against him on July 29. Officer George decided that Williamson and his roommate must move out of the Victoria Apartments. This, Williamson claimed, was a blow to gay rights; he told me that City Council. President Carol Bellamy and Human Rights Commissioner Robert Livingston were outraged by the news.

Today I received a copy of Harriet George's opinion, and I found it so admirably fair that I would like to print most of it here (the term "petitioner" refers to Rockrose Development Corporation; the term "respondents" refers to Williamson and his roommate/lover):

From all of the credible evidence addressed at trial by witnesses called by petitioner and by respondent there emerged a picture of a building in which for quite a few residents there was no peace or sanctuary. It appears that there was a Tenants Association formed and the respondent was the President and founder of same and various witnesses were in the Association, some even serving as officers. From this organization sprung an animosity which divided one against the other so that now there is great bitterness and rancor. Petitioner seeks to remove respondent for various reasons, ie: harassing and threatening other tenants, damage to property, and of conducting male model business. As

for the damage to property, the Court finds from the testimony given that any damage was not proven sufficiently and even if proven does not in itself in the acts described constitute grounds for re-. moval of a tenant but the remedies lie elsewhere. As for the male model business, the application for the original lease clearly states that the prospective tenant Henderson was a male model and except for the ad in the Advocate newspaper which respondent admits he placed there was no proof offered sufficient to prove that the apartment was being used for other than residential purposes. A photo in ine which a magazine was offered as petition #4 and submitted to the Court with only the head of the person showing, the rest of the body being from the neck down by a covered piece of yellow legal cap returned on the next trial date date to petitioner by the Court as no foundation had been laid to its introduction and in and of itself was insufficient to prove anything except that it was the photograph apparently of respondent according to the face which resembled respondent's face to the Court. The Court did not remove the paper covering the rest of the photo and it did not enter into deliberation on this case and was returned on the second of the reasons given.

The Court therefore was left with the claim of harassment and threats to tenants as the remaining reason for the sought after removal of respondent. There were several witnesses of petitioner and 2 witnesses other than respondent (to) testify for respondent.

For whatever reason the bitterness engendered during the Tenant Association days festered and erupted so that it has taken on great proportions to each side. On the one hand respondent is accused of harassment by telephone, threats, obscenity, physical assaults,

verbal abuse, intimidation and on the other hand petitioner and his agents are accused of harassment and having grudges against respondent and the Tenant Association. In any event the building is an uneasy and unhappy place where police are called, summonses are taken and complaints are made and a malevolent and venomous atmosphere prevails. Who is to blame? Is it respondent? A young, handsome, articulate, well-educated person whose background and upbringing may have made him trifle impatient and intolerant of those who are older, more deliberate, who move slower, and are of a different generation and background.

a

Or is it the petitioner and the various tenants who testified and the manager, all of whom may not be willing to accept change, or direction on orders from one younger than they. The Court can only work with the testimony and the credibility of the various witnesses as they testified at the trial. Perhaps the problem arose because respondent chose not to adjust to a slower pace and the tenants who testified were not able to adjust to a quicker pace. In any event the Court must decide what will happen in this building according to the testimony and evidence addressed at trial.

From all the credible testimony and evidence and applicable rules of law and upon due deliberation the Court feels that the quality and quantity of the testimony by petitioner's witnesses has proven the allegations of petitioner insofar as harassment and intimidation of the tenants who testified as well as the petitioner's employee who testified. It is regrettable that the apparent bitterness engendered here may have had its start in the Tenants Association which was presumably begun as a unifying force. Be that as it may we have a group of older residents, one blind, whose lives have been made miserable by the events testified to. Mr. Henderson presumably can adjust to a new residence and perhaps take heed of the lesson learned here that a slow, patient and tolerant approach may in the long run be the nest course to follow.

Both sides are ordered to leave the other side alone during the period of the stay.

Dis

iscrimination? Well, it should be noted, perhaps, that Rockrose has something of a reputation for being antigay, in that it is they who are converting the Post Office building at Christopher and Greenwich Streets into what will allegedly be family apartments, too big and too expensive for the average ghetto gay person or even couple. But Williamson's case still seems to me to have very little to do with discrimination, unless it is discrimination against him for being such a pill.

I took the occasion of Williamson's call to warn him that my article was not going to be favorable to his case. I explained that the theme of the article was going to be spite, the spite on both sides, and that, in my view, calling people "faggot" was no worse than calling people "the Mad Hatter," "the Weasel," "the Lush," "Applebitch," "Mutt and Jeff," or "Blind Bluff." (And I wonder now whether this last was Williamson's name for the blind older resident mentioned in Harriet George's opinion.)

Williamson, not surprisingly, took umbrage at what I said, and told me it was a great pity that the gay press could not support gay rights; and he told me also that Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund had deserted The Cause as well. He summed it all up by telling me that it was a good thing that there were at least a few people willing to fight for human rights, like him and Martin. Luther King, Jr. ■