204 F.Supp.3d 583
S.D.N.Y.2016Background
- Frank Mazzocchi owned/co-oped Apt. 821 at 5 Tudor City Place; his long-term partner, Jane Doe, lived there from 1991 to 2010 and remained an occupant after he moved out.
- Building management (Tudor) and Windsor Owners Corp. (Board) received complaints about Doe's conduct (yelling, alleged delusions, feeding pigeons, incidents with a dog); Board held a May 4, 2011 hearing and voted to terminate Mazzocchi's proprietary lease for "undesirable and illegal tenancy."
- Doe was involuntarily hospitalized in January 2009 and prescribed medications commonly used for bipolar disorder; she refused participation in this lawsuit and did not consent to be a co-plaintiff.
- Mazzocchi sued alleging disability discrimination under §3604(f)(2) of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and a §1985(3) conspiracy claim; Defendants moved to strike an expert psychiatric report and for summary judgment.
- Court struck plaintiff's expert report (Dr. Fieve) as unreliable under Rule 702 because it relied only on the May 4, 2011 transcript and lacked the necessary psychiatric methodology.
- Court dismissed claims brought on behalf of Doe for lack of third-party standing (no adequate evidence of a "hindrance" preventing Doe from protecting her own interests) but denied summary judgment as to plaintiff's own FHA disparate-treatment claim against Windsor and certain Board members based on the "regarded as" theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Dr. Fieve's report under Fed. R. Evid. 702 | Report supports that Doe's behavior is consistent with bipolar disorder based on DSM descriptors in the May 4 transcript | Report is unreliable because expert did not examine Doe or review records; methodology insufficient | Struck: report inadmissible (insufficient reliable data/methodology) |
| Third-party standing to assert Doe's FHA rights | Mazzocchi claims Doe is mentally ill and in denial; stigma/incapacity hinders her ability to sue, so he may assert her rights | Doe is able and unwilling to participate; plaintiff failed to show specific facts of hindrance | Denied: plaintiff lacks third-party standing (no specific evidentiary showing of hindrance) |
| Viability of post-acquisition FHA claim under §3604(f)(2) | FHA proscribes discrimination in "terms, conditions, privileges" including post-acquisition conduct; HUD/DOJ interpretation supports coverage | Some circuits limit §3604 to acquisition-only; post-acquisition claims improper absent eviction-level conduct | Court holds §3604(f)(2) can reach post-acquisition discrimination; plaintiff may proceed on post-acquisition theory |
| Plaintiff's own FHA disparate-treatment claim against Windsor/Board | Board regarded Doe as mentally impaired and terminated lease at least in part for that reason; circumstantial evidence and potential pretext support inference of discrimination | Actions were nondiscriminatory responses to lease violations and safety concerns; Tudor did not make the lease decision | Against Tudor: dismissed (no evidence Tudor made termination decision). Against Windsor/Board: summary judgment denied — triable issues exist under the "regarded as" test and mixed-motive analysis |
| §1985(3) conspiracy claim | Board and agents conspired to deprive rights (coordination, attorney involvement, prepared testimony) | No proof of an invidiously motivated conspiracy or overt acts for class-based discrimination | Dismissed: plaintiff failed to raise genuine dispute as to a §1985(3) conspiracy |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (trial court gatekeeping on expert admissibility under Rule 702)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Daubert standards apply to non-scientific expert testimony)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (standard for genuine dispute at summary judgment)
- Rodriguez v. Village Green Realty, Inc., 788 F.3d 31 (2d Cir.) (FHA disability tests: actually disabled, record of, regarded as)
- MHANY Mgmt., Inc. v. County of Nassau, 819 F.3d 581 (2d Cir.) (mixed-motives and FHA disparate-treatment analysis)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (mixed-motives analysis)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (voluntary cessation and mootness)
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (mitigating measures and ADA/FHA disability analysis)
- Toyota Motor Mfg. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (substantially limits major life activities standard prior to ADAAA)
- Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205 (FHA to be construed broadly)