Temple v. Hudson View Owners Corp.
222 F. Supp. 3d 318
S.D.N.Y.2016Background
- Plaintiffs Hildred Temple and Diana Brown-Temple are disabled, over 65, and for ~13 years used two parking spaces at their Hudson View co-op in Yonkers with Board permission.
- In January–May 2016 the co-op (Defendants) told Plaintiffs they must surrender one space (#265) and ordered removal of personal items from storage adjacent to the remaining space.
- Plaintiffs (pro se) sued under the ADA and FHA seeking injunctive relief to retain two parking spaces and sought emergency relief; the court denied the temporary relief request.
- Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c); the parties disputed whether Plaintiffs’ requested accommodation (two spaces) was "necessary" to afford meaningful access.
- The court treated Plaintiffs’ filings with pro se solicitude, considered their written accommodation requests, and limited review to the pleadings and those attachments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether providing two parking spaces is a "necessary" reasonable accommodation under the ADA/FHA | Two spaces are a necessity (not mere convenience) to permit independent mobility and access to medical care | Only one space is necessary; Plaintiffs fail to show a link between a second space and amelioration of disabilities | Denied: Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege a second space was necessary for meaningful access; one space was facially reasonable |
| Whether Plaintiffs should get leave to amend | Plaintiffs did not move to amend but are pro se and may be able to cure defects | Defendants opposed | Court gave limited, discretionary leave: pro se plaintiffs may move to amend by a set deadline (Dec. 22, 2016); otherwise dismissal stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: plausible claim required)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state plausible entitlement to relief)
- Patel v. Contemporary Classics of Beverly Hills, 259 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2001) (Rule 12(c) standard same as Rule 12(b)(6))
- McElwee v. County of Orange, 700 F.3d 635 (2d Cir. 2012) (reasonable accommodation must provide meaningful access)
- Noll v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., 787 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2015) (ADA does not require a perfect or plaintiff’s preferred accommodation)
- Shapiro v. Cadman Towers, Inc., 51 F.3d 328 (2d Cir. 1995) (parking space can be a reasonable accommodation)
- Jankowski Lee & Assocs. v. Cisneros, 91 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 1996) (recognizing parking space as reasonable accommodation)