Sinisgallo v. Town of Islip Housing Authority
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72123
| E.D.N.Y | 2012Background
- Sinisgallo and Tsilimparis are public housing tenants whose tenancy was terminated by the IHA for alleged violent conduct by Tsilimparis.
- The pair allege disability (mental illness) and seek protection under FHA, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act, as well as due process protections under the Fourteenth Amendment and §1983.
- An administrative hearing was held; Levitt issued a decision terminating the tenancy based on the May 26, 2011 incident.
- Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Suffolk County eviction proceedings, arguing failure to reasonably accommodate their disabilities.
- The court addressed Anti-Injunction Act and Younger abstention to determine if it could enjoin the state proceeding, and ultimately granted injunctive relief based on federal disability claims.
- The court separately analyzed whether the Plaintiffs could raise FHA/ADA/Rehabilitation Act claims in federal court and whether collateral estoppel applies to the administrative findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Anti-Injunction Act/Younger abstention bar relief | Sinisgallo argues federal court may enjoin state eviction. | IHA contends AIA/Younger preclude relief or require Article 78 review. | AIA/Younger do not bar relief; plaintiff may seek injunction. |
| Whether the IHA violated due process by lacking an impartial decisionmaker | Levitt was not impartial and erred in applying law and considering accommodations. | Levitt's credibility findings and legal determinations were proper; no bias shown. | Plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success on due process claim. |
| Whether FHA/ADA/Rehabilitation Act claims are likely to succeed | IHA failed to reasonably accommodate Tsilimparis's disability before eviction. | No reasonable accommodation available; no link to disability. | Plaintiffs likely to prevail on FHA/ADA/Rehabilitation Act claims; injunction warranted. |
| Whether collateral estoppel bars FHA/ADA/REHAB claims | Administrative findings should not foreclose federal claims. | Levitt's findings should preclude re-litigation of related issues. | Collateral estoppel does not bar the FHA/ADA/REhabilitation claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 486 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1988) (anti-injunction Act exceptions; preemption concerns)
- Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs, 398 U.S. 281 (U.S. 1970) (exception framework for injunctions against state actions)
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1970) (due process requirements for public housing termination hearings)
- Caulder v. Durham Hous. Auth., 433 F.2d 998 (4th Cir. 1970) (Article 78 context; preliminary injunction considerations)
- Lopez v. Henry Phipps Plaza South, Inc., 498 F.2d 937 (2d Cir. 1974) (due process and public housing rights; supplements §1983 analysis)