Johnson v. Levy
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106258
E.D.N.Y2011Background
- Plaintiffs Ennis Johnson (HIV-positive) and Sharon Johnson (his wife) sought FHA, ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and NYHRL relief, plus state claims, challenging a rental transaction at 51 Smith Street, Merrick, NY.
- Defendants include 51 Smith Street L.L.C. and Jay Levy; Diane Levy and Sue Campbell were initially named but later dismissed from the case.
- Plaintiffs alleged the landlord’s requirements and communications conditioned a one-year lease on a government guarantee for ongoing rent and security, allegedly excluding DSS/SSI recipients.
- Offer Letters formed the alleged basis for leasing conditions, including a government guarantee for rent; the DSS determined eligibility guided unit availability (C-3 vs B-2).
- Court reviewed Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal standards and considered extrinsic documents (Offer Letters) incorporated by reference; other documents were not considered at this stage.
- Court ultimately dismissed Counts I–VI (housing discrimination, etc.) and Counts IX–X (state law SLAPP/breach) with leave to amend for housing claims; Diane Levy was dismissed; amendments allowed within 20 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were plaintiffs plausibly qualified for Unit C-3 under FHA/ADA/RA/NYHRL? | Johnsons were objectively qualified via government guarantee; DSS funding supported qualification. | No ongoing rent guarantee evidence; only initial payment guaranteed. | Plaintiffs failed to plead they could guarantee ongoing rent; claims dismissed. |
| Are the Offer Letters integral and unambiguous enough to support housing claims on a motion to dismiss? | Offer Letters set forth conditions; language supports qualification. | Offer is ambiguous or misinterpreted; only ongoing guarantee matters. | Offer Letters deemed incorporated by reference and interpreted; ambiguity resolved in favor of defendant; claims dismissed. |
| Is Diane Levy properly subject to liability given lack of specific misconduct allegations? | Diane Levy’s ownership asserted in operating agreement; potential veil-piercing. | No direct misconduct alleged; no piercing facts. | Diane Levy dismissed from the action. |
| Should the court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims? | State claims arise from same nucleus of facts; timely to proceed. | Federal claims predominate; discretion to decline. | Court declined supplemental jurisdiction; state claims dismissed without prejudice to amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility and factual pleading requirements)
- Kopec v. Coughlin, 922 F.2d 152 (2d Cir. 1991) (extrinsic materials on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and incorporation rule)
- Global Network Communications, Inc. v. City of New York, 458 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2006) (rejection of relying on extrinsic deposition testimony at dismissal stage)
- Del. Nat’l Bank & Tr. Co. v. Nomura Asset Cap. Corp., 424 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. 2005) (contract interpretation and ambiguity assessment in NY law)