Haber v. ASN 50th St. LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34363

Haber, an African American tenant, leased a rent-stabilized unit in the Building; ASN bought the Building in 2006 and became Haber’s landlord.
Haber pays a portion of rent with Section 8 subsidizing 70%; Haber pays the remainder to ASN under the lease.
The Building participates in the 80/20 Program, reserving 20% of units for low-income residents with rents at affordable rates.
ASN’s collection practices involve monthly delinquency notices, late fees, and formal Rent Demands followed by Petitions of Non-Payment when rent remains unpaid.
From 2007–2010 Haber engaged in multiple disputes over rent; stipulations of settlement were reached in 2008 and 2009 for back rent.
In 2010 Haber filed suit alleging racially-m motivated harassment and related conduct, later adding a claim about an unpermitted contractor entry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Haber states a prima facie FHA claim	Haber argues racial discrimination in housing actions.	Defendants contend no discriminatory motive is shown and legitimate reasons exist.	No prima facie discrimination shown; summary judgment for defendants.
Whether the 2010 Petition constitutes discriminatory harassment	Petition was racially motivated harassment.	Petition supported by delinquency and lease provisions; not motivated by race.	Not proven; legitimate non-discriminatory reason suffices; pretext not shown.
Whether the uninvited contractor entry supports a FHA claim	Contractor entry without Haber’s consent was racially motivated harassment.	No evidence of race-based unequal treatment; entry occurred like other tenants.	No discrimination shown; no FHA violation.
Whether §1982, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL claims survive	Discrimination claims extend to federal and state/local statutes.	Standards align with FHA; since FHA claims fail, these fail too.	Dismissed; claims fail for lack of discrimination showing.
Whether Haber can state a viable civil conspiracy claim	Haller and Early conspired to discriminate and harass Haber.	No underlying tort established; no agreement or overt acts proving conspiracy.	Conspiracy claim dismissed; no valid underlying discriminatory tort established.

Mitchell v. Shane, 350 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2003) (McDonnell Douglas framework for FHA discrimination claims)
Robinson v. 12 Lofts Realty, Inc., 610 F.2d 1032 (2d Cir. 1979) (prima facie elements of housing discrimination claims)
Wentworth v. Hedson, 493 F. Supp. 2d 559 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (timing and pretext in discriminatory harassment claims)
Schnabel v. Abramson, 232 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2000) (pretext analysis in discrimination cases)
Dister v. Continental Group, Inc., 859 F.2d 1108 (2d Cir. 1988) (summary judgment standard and burden shifting)
Puglisi v. Underhill Park Taxpayer Ass’n, 947 F. Supp. 673 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (post-acquisition harassment and FHA scope considerations)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (burden of production and credibility not required at the initial stage)