Robinson v. City of New York
143 A.D.3d 641
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (Ernest Robinson et al.), individually and on behalf of a putative class of African‑American and Hispanic renters in NYC apartment buildings with 11+ units, challenged NYC's real property tax classification system as having a disparate impact on minority residents.
- They sought declaratory and injunctive relief alleging the tax scheme causes higher rents for residents of larger buildings and perpetuates racial disparities.
- Defendants were the City of New York and the State of New York; the action was in Supreme Court, NY County; defendants moved to dismiss and plaintiffs sought leave to amend.
- Supreme Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss and denied leave to amend; plaintiffs appealed.
- On appeal, the First Department unanimously affirmed dismissal, finding plaintiffs lacked standing, failed to state a Fair Housing Act disparate‑impact claim, and failed to show discriminatory intent required for Equal Protection and state‑law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge tax classification | Plaintiffs allege tax scheme raises rents on residents of larger buildings, causing injury | Plaintiffs are renters who do not directly pay property tax; alleged rent injury is speculative and unsupported | Dismissed: plaintiffs lack "injury in fact"; allegations conjectural and insufficient to establish standing |
| FHA disparate‑impact claim | Statistical disparate impact of tax classification on African‑American and Hispanic residents suffices | Tax is citywide classification applied to buildings; plaintiffs do not allege housing was denied or made unavailable or that nonminorities are less affected | Dismissed: plaintiffs failed to allege disparate impact under FHA as required by governing precedent |
| § 1983 / Equal Protection and state constitutional claim | Tax scheme has discriminatory effect and thus violates equal protection | Claim requires proof of racially discriminatory intent, not just disparate effects | Dismissed: no allegation or proof of discriminatory intent; claim fails |
| Leave to amend | Plaintiffs sought leave to cure pleading defects | Defendants opposed amendment as futile | Denied: amendment would not salvage claims given deficiencies in standing, FHA, and intent allegations |
Key Cases Cited
- New York State Assn. of Nurse Anesthetists v. Novello, 2 NY3d 207 (standing requires "injury in fact")
- Society of Plastics Indus. v. County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761 (standing principles)
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 US 252 (discriminatory intent required for equal protection challenge)
- Texas Dept. of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 135 S Ct 2507 (disparate‑impact framework under FHA)
- Housing Justice Campaign v. Koch, 164 AD2d 656 (statistical imbalance alone insufficient for FHA‑type claims)
- Matter of Esler v. Walters, 56 NY2d 306 (intent requirement for constitutional discrimination claims)
- Huntington Branch, N.A.A.C.P. v. Town of Huntington, 844 F2d 926 (discussing disparate impact and proof requirements)