Mancuso v. Douglas Elliman, LLC
808 F. Supp. 2d 606
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Plaintiffs allege FHA, NYSHRL, and NYC Admin Code violations arising from two rental attempts at 15 Broad Street, NYC, linked to disability (M.M. in a wheelchair with a service dog) and familial status.
- Plaintiffs are Joseph Mancuso, Karla Mancuso, their two children (including M.M.), and CEO Clubs International, Inc.
- M.M. has a disability and uses a motorized wheelchair and service dog; Mancuso seeks corporate leasing via CEO Clubs.
- Apartment 1520 (owned by Stimmel) and Apartment 2020 (owned by Maidan, later sold to Talel) were the two rental targets involved in the alleged discrimination.
- Defendants include Douglas Elliman LLC (DE) with agents Voight and Kouperman, and owners Stimmel, Maidan, and Talel; Mancuso sought to rent in corporate name and to use the apartments as office/residence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie FHA discrimination for Apartment 2020 | Mancuso qualified financially; bad credit is not a fixed disqualifier given owner criteria. | No objective, pre-announced financial standard; income and credit issues disqualify Mancuso. | Plaintiffs established a prima facie case for Apartment 2020. |
| Pretext for Apartment 2020 denial | Disparate treatment evidenced by timing, conflicting accounts, and unequal documentation demands. | Creditor-related reasons (bad credit) are legitimate and non-discriminatory. | No triable issue; Court finds no pretext; defendants granted summary judgment on discrimination for Apartment 2020. |
| Prima facie FHA discrimination for Apartment 1520 | Plaintiffs met owner-established criteria and could afford tenancy; corporate lease viable. | Stimmel questioned Mancuso’s stated income and corporate leasing; concerns about electrician needs. | Plaintiffs satisfied prima facie case for Apartment 1520. |
| Pretext for Apartment 1520 denial | Voight/Stimmel comments and recordings show discriminatory motive related to wheelchair/dog. | Statements are contextual and not clearly discriminatory; credibility and context for summary judgment. | Triable issues remain; summary judgment on pretext denied for Apartment 1520. |
| Section 3604(c) claims | Recorded statements show impermissible preference based on disability/familial status. | Context negates facial discrimination; intent ambiguous; expert context required. | Apartment 2020 3604(c) claim granted to defendants (no violation shown); Apartment 1520 3604(c) claim denied as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Shane, 350 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2003) (McDonnell Douglas framework in FHA discrimination)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Soules v. HUD, 967 F.2d 817 (2d Cir. 1992) (ordinary listener standard for 3604(c) analysis)
- Shumway v. United Parcel Service, 118 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 1997) (similarly situated disparate treatment analysis for pretext)
- Jiminez v. Southridge Co-op., Section I, Inc., 626 F. Supp. 732 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (employment/stability criteria as part of qualification)
- Cabrera v. Jakabovitz, 24 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. 1994) (agency liability and control concepts in FHA)
- Wight v. BankAmerica Corp., 219 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2000) (adverse interest exception limits on agency imputation)
- Soules v. HUD, 967 F.2d 817 (2d Cir. 1992) (see above)
- In re Mediators, Inc., 105 F.3d 822 (2d Cir. 1997) (narrow adverse interest concepts)
- Vichare v. AMBAC Inc., 106 F.3d 457 (2d Cir. 1996) (consideration of after-acquired evidence in related contexts)