273 Lee Ave. Tenants Ass'n v. Steinmetz
330 F. Supp. 3d 778
| E.D.N.Y | 2018Background
- Plaintiffs Cindy Sanchez, Sara Oyola, and the 273 Lee Avenue Tenants Association are long‑term residents of rent‑stabilized units at 273 Lee Avenue, Brooklyn; they allege a pattern of inferior repairs, inadequate heat, and preferential treatment of Hasidic tenants after Defendants (273 Lee Realty and sole member Naftali Steinmetz) acquired the building.
- Multiple municipal housing code violations during Defendants’ ownership were concentrated in the units occupied by Plaintiffs; several management companies were hired and replaced, and Plaintiffs allege differential and substandard repairs for Latino residents.
- Oyola and another tenant (now-dismissed plaintiff Santiago) were subject to owner’s‑use holdover eviction proceedings in Housing Court; the Housing Court found Steinmetz acted in good faith and issued warrants of eviction (later stayed), but stated it lacked jurisdiction to award equitable relief for discrimination.
- Plaintiffs filed this federal suit asserting (1) repair/maintenance discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), New York Human Rights Law (NYHRL), and NYC Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) and (2) claims for refusal to lease vacant units under FHA § 3604(d) and 42 U.S.C. § 1982.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds of preclusion (res judicata/collateral estoppel), statute of limitations, failure to state claims, and lack of genuine disputes of material fact. The court denied preclusion arguments, dismissed vacancy claims, limited surviving repair claims to claims accruing within the statutory windows, and denied summary judgment on remaining repair claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preclusion (res judicata / collateral estoppel) | Plaintiffs say Housing Court proceedings did not resolve federal/state discrimination claims and Tenants Association/Sanchez were not parties to the holdover proceedings | Defendants say the Housing Court decision on good faith bars relitigation of discriminatory intent | Court: res judicata and collateral estoppel do not bar Plaintiffs’ federal/state discrimination claims; Tenants Association/Sanchez not parties/privity; Oyola’s claims also not barred because causes differ |
| Statute of Limitations / Continuing Violation | Plaintiffs argue an ongoing course of discriminatory conduct extends the accrual date | Defendants say most alleged acts are time‑barred | Court: continuing‑violation doctrine not applicable to extend claims back to 2011; FHA claims survive only from Dec. 15, 2014; NYHRL/NYCHRL/§1982 claims survive from Dec. 15, 2013; earlier claims dismissed |
| Vacancy Claims (FHA § 3604(d) and § 1982) | Plaintiffs contend preferential renting to Hasidic tenants harmed their ability to lease and invoke futile‑gesture theory | Defendants contend Plaintiffs never applied for units and cannot show they were denied rentals | Court: Vacancy claims dismissed—Plaintiffs did not demonstrate they sought and were denied specific rentals or reliable notice of discriminatory leasing policy; futile‑gesture theory not established |
| Sufficiency of Repair Claims / Summary Judgment on Merits | Plaintiffs assert discriminatory failure/delay of repairs and services; point to code violations concentrated in their units and evidence defendants knew or suspected tenants’ ethnicity | Defendants argue no evidence of discriminatory intent and rely on Housing Court’s finding of good faith for evictions | Court: Plaintiffs made a minimal prima facie showing; genuine issues of material fact exist as to discriminatory intent and quality/treatment of repairs—summary judgment denied for surviving repair claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Kremer v. Chem. Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461 (1982) (federal courts apply state preclusion rules for prior state judgments)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for summary judgment / genuine issue for trial)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) (continuing violations and standing under fair housing law)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden and failure of proof on essential elements)
- Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., 22 F.3d 1219 (2d Cir. 1994) (intent is often factual and summary judgment is disfavored where intent is at issue)
- Shomo v. City of New York, 579 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2009) (continuing violation doctrine delays accrual until last discriminatory act)