Stone v. 23rd Chelsea Associates, LLC
1:18-cv-03869
S.D.N.Y.Mar 30, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Richard E. Stone, a Black, disabled Section 8 tenant who moved into 535 West 23rd St. in 2003, alleges race-based disparate treatment by his landlord, management, and building staff.
- Core allegations: higher rent than a white tenant, monitoring, siding with white tenants in disputes, hostile comments, and specific incidents involving concierge/employee “Gerard” (identified as Jerod Wiggins), including a December 16, 2016 threat and use of white-tenant complaints to try to evict him on March 17, 2017.
- Stone filed an online HUD complaint in March/April 2017 and a NYSDHR complaint in June 2017; NYSDHR issued a no-probable-cause determination (recorded April 16, 2018).
- Stone sued pro se on April 30, 2018 asserting claims under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1982, Title VI, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, and the FTCA. Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- The court found the FTCA claim inapplicable to private defendants and dismissed it as frivolous; it also held Stone’s discrimination claims were mostly time-barred and, in any event, failed to plausibly plead discriminatory intent. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness (statutes of limitations for FHA, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, Title VI) | Stone relied on a March/April 2017 HUD complaint and argued some conduct continued into the limitations period | Most alleged discriminatory acts occurred years earlier and are outside the relevant limitations periods | Most claims are time-barred; only limited acts fall within the periods but they are insufficient to save the claims |
| Sufficiency of pleading (discriminatory intent / disparate treatment) | Alleged differential rent, monitoring, hostile comments, and selective enforcement showing racial animus | Allegations are vague, conclusory, sporadic, and lack similarly situated comparators or facts supporting discriminatory motive | Facts alleged do not plausibly show discriminatory animus; discrimination claims dismissed for failure to state a claim |
| Continuing-violation tolling | Stone contends incidents form an ongoing discriminatory practice extending into the limitations period | Continuing-violation tolling is disfavored and requires compelling circumstances and a pattern extending into the limitations period | Continuing-violation doctrine does not apply here; untimely incidents cannot be saved by the doctrine |
| FTCA and individual liability under Title VI/FHA | Stone sued under FTCA and sued individuals (management and employees) | FTCA applies only to the United States; Title VI does not provide individual liability and FHA individual liability needs control over rental decisions | FTCA claim dismissed as frivolous; court dismissed other claims on timeliness/pleading grounds (individual liability theory not necessary to decision) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (establishes federal plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading requires more than labels and conclusions)
- Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., 944 F.3d 370 (FHA covers post-acquisition conduct and landlord duties)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for disparate-treatment burden shifting)
- Boykin v. KeyCorp, 521 F.3d 202 (administrative proceedings before HUD toll limitations)
- Liranzo v. United States, 690 F.3d 78 (FTCA is a waiver of sovereign immunity applicable to the United States only)
- Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99 (pro se complaints should be given leave to amend when a valid claim might be stated)
- Favourite v. 55 Halley St., Inc., 381 F. Supp. 3d 266 (continuing-violation doctrine is disfavored and requires compelling circumstances)
- Haber v. ASN 50th St. LLC, 847 F. Supp. 2d 578 (FHA imposes liability on private actors in the housing market)