Logan v. Matveevskii
57 F. Supp. 3d 234
| S.D.N.Y. | 2014Background
- Logan, disabled and a THA tenant, pursued claims against THA and HUD defendants for disability-based housing discrimination.
- THA personnel (Matveevskii, Zucker-man, Kamensky) and THA as an entity allegedly failed to provide reasonable accommodations.
- Logan repeatedly requested a ground-floor or low-step unit due to mobility impairment; THA offered various first-floor or ADA-compliant options over time.
- THA offered 12 Washington Street (first floor) and later 4 Union Place and 31 Midland Place options; Logan repeatedly rejected offers preferring 31 or 25 Midland Place due to fewer steps.
- HUD-related claims were pursued as FTCA tort theories against HUD; THA summary judgment disposed of FHA/ADA/Rehabilitation Act claims; HUD’s FTCA motion dismissed for lack of exhaustion and substitution issues.
- Court allowed Logan to file a Second Amended Complaint within 30 days, but dismissed federal claims with prejudice as to the THA/HUD defendants; state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonable accommodation under FHA/ADA/RA | Logan claims THA failed to accommodate his disability | THA offered accommodations and engaged in interactive process | THA satisfied its reasonable-accommodation obligation; no genuine issue of denial. |
| Constructive denial through delay | THA stonewalled and delayed accommodating Logan | THA acted in good faith and engaged in interactive process | No evidence of discriminatory intent; no constructive denial established. |
| Private right to enforce 24 C.F.R. § 8.22 | THA violated HUD accessibility percentages under § 8.22 | There is no private right of action to enforce HUD regulations | No private right of action; claims dismissed. |
| Privacy Act claims against THA/Zuckerman | THA/THA officials violated Privacy Act | Privacy Act applies only to federal agencies; THA not federal | Privacy Act claims against THA/Zuckerman dismissed. |
| FTCA exhaustion and jurisdiction | HUD negligent hiring/investigation claims | FTCA exhaustion and substitution required; not satisfied | United States substituted; claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to lack of exhaustion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sinisgallo v. Town of Islip Hous. Auth., 865 F.Supp.2d 307 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (reasonable-accommodation analysis under FHA/ADA/RA)
- Taylor v. Housing Authority of New Haven, 645 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2011) (constructive denial and reasonable accommodation under FHA/RA/ADA)
- McElwee v. County of Orange, 700 F.3d 635 (2d Cir. 2012) (guidance for Title II reasonable-modifications; interplay with ADA)
- Astralis Condo. Ass’n v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 620 F.3d 62 (1st Cir. 2010) (constructive denial and interactive process guidance)
- Groome Res. Ltd. L.L.C. v. Parish of Jefferson, 234 F.3d 192 (5th Cir. 2000) (delay as denial in FHA/RA/ADA context (interactive process))