Mhany Management Inc. v. County of Nassau
843 F. Supp. 2d 287
E.D.N.Y2012Background
- Plaintiffs allege Garden City and Nassau County discriminated in rezoning the 25-acre Social Services site from P-zone to RT to thwart affordable housing.
- Lawsuit asserts FHA, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a), and related 1981/1982/1983/2000d claims; later NYCC seeks to amend to include § 1983/Equal Protection.
- County-backed process: BFJ proposed RM zoning; Village eventually adopted RT zoning to maximize sale price, amid concerns about traffic, schools, and demographics.
- Garden City rezoned in 2004, limiting multi-family housing to a small portion by special permit; RM would have allowed up to 311 units, RT caps units much lower and restricts by permit.
- RFPs for sale in 2004-2005 with bids ranging from about $31M to $56.8M; NYAHC proposed a mixed-income leasing plan but did not conform to RFP requirements.
- HUD funds and ‘affirmatively further fair housing’ obligations are at issue; plaintiffs contend county-level and village actions perpetuated segregation, while defendants emphasize non-discriminatory planning and lack of override authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FHA disparate treatment claim against Garden City | Garden City acted with race-based bias in adopting RT. | No discriminatory animus; legitimate planning concerns. | GARDEN CITY: genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment. |
| FHA disparate treatment claim against Nassau County | County’s conduct contributed to discriminatory zoning. | County lacked power to override Garden City zoning; not liable. | COUNTY: granted summary judgment for dismissal of disparate treatment claims. |
| FHA disparate impact claim against Garden City | RT zoning disproportionately reduces minority-accessible housing vis-a-vis RM. | R-T reflects legitimate planning concerns and alternatives exist. | GARDEN CITY: issues of fact survive; trial needed on disparate impact. |
| FHA disparate impact claim against Nassau County | County’s actions related to sale of site under RT had discriminatory impact. | No viable disparate impact theory against County since it lacked authority over RT zoning. | COUNTY: dismissed disparate impact claim. |
| Section 3608 claim against County (affirmatively furthering fair housing) | County failed to affirmatively further fair housing in HUD-funded programs. | No private right of action and HUD duties cannot be enforced via § 1983 against a county. | SECTION 3608: no private right of action; § 1983 claim dismissed against County. |
Key Cases Cited
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (discriminatory intent required to sustain zoning-based claims)
- Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976) (racial impact evidence can support discrimination claims)
- Huntington Branch, NAACP v. Town of Huntington, 844 F.2d 926 (2d Cir. 1988) (disparate impact and intent considerations in FHA claims)
- LeBlanc-Sternberg v. Fletcher, 67 F.3d 412 (2d Cir. 1995) (contextual factors in discriminatory intent analyses (Arlington Heights framework))
- United States v. Yonkers Board of Education, 837 F.2d 1181 (2d Cir. 1987) (consideration of systemic discrimination and sequence of events in zoning cases)
- Wentworth v. Hedson, 493 F. Supp. 2d 559 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (pretext evidence survives summary judgment in discrimination cases)
- Town of Framingham, 200 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D. Mass. 2002) (section 3608 private rights and remedies discourse (cited by Court))