Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

DAVIS v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY

United States District Court, Southern District of New York


June 20, 2000

PAULINE DAVIS, CYNTHIA WILLIAMS, CORNELIA SIMMONS, AND KIM RIVERA, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS,
V.
THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, DEFENDANT. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF, V. THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sweet, District Judge.

OPINION

This action has been remanded to this Court for supplementation of the record, see Davis v. New York City Hous. Auth., No. 99-6238, 2000 WL 232191 (2d Cir. Feb.23, 2000) (summary order), following the appeal of defendant The New York City Housing Authority ("NYCHA") from this Court's grant of a permanent injunction to plaintiffs Pauline Davis et al. (the "Davis Plaintiffs") enjoining NYCHA from implementing the Working Family Preference ("WFP") at NYCHA housing projects with a disproportionately high rate of white occupancy (the "Disproportionate Projects"), see Davis v. New York City Hous. Auth., 60 F. Supp.2d 220 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). The Court of Appeals has directed further factual development as to three questions: (1) how actual move-out rates in 1998 under the WFP affect the analyses of the expert witnesses; (2) a comparison of how many months it is expected to take to achieve a white occupancy rate below 30% at each of the Disproportionate Projects under the original Tenant Selection and Assignment Plan ("TSAP") versus under the TSAP as modified by the WFP; and (3) whether the tables presented in this Court's prior opinion of August 11, 1999, see Davis v. New York City Hous. Auth., 60 F. Supp.2d 220 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), should be revised to reflect a projected white admissions rate below 9.9%.

The background and prior proceedings in this action have been set forth in previous opinions and will not be recounted here. See Davis v. New York City Hous. Auth., 1992 WL 420923 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.31, 1992) (Davis I); Davis v. New York City Hous. Auth., 1997 WL 407250 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 1997) (Davis II); Davis v. New York City Hous. Auth., 1997 WL 711360 (S.D.N.Y. Nov.13, 1997) (Davis III); Davis v. New York City Hous. Auth., 166 F.3d 432 (2d Cir. 1999) (Davis IV); Davis v. New York City Hous. Auth., 60 F. Supp.2d 220 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (Davis V); Davis v. New York City Hous. Auth., No. 99-6238, 2000 WL 232191 (2d Cir. Feb.23, 2000) (summary order) (Davis VI). Following remand, briefs and affidavits were submitted addressing the questions raised by the Court of Appeals. Oral argument was heard on May 3, 2000.

I. Actual 1998 Move-out Rates and Their Effect on the Experts' Conclusions

The first question raised by the Court of Appeals was "whether and to what extent actual move-outs correspond with projected move-outs and whether and to what extent the actual numbers influence the experts' conclusions." Davis VI, 2000 WL 232191, at 2.

Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Leonard A. Cupingood ("Dr.Cupingood") has set forth the relevant data in Table 1 of his April 13, 2000 Affidavit. NYCHA's expert, Dr. David W. Peterson ("Dr.Peterson") has set forth comparable data in Tables 2a and 2b of his Seventh Affidavit. The 1998 numbers differ slightly between the two sets of data because Dr. Peterson used a methodology to adjust NYCHA's internally inconsistent data, while Dr. Cupingood used the NYCHA data without making the adjustment. (See Peterson Eighth Aff. ¶ 10 n. 3; Cupingood April 28, 2000 Aff. ¶ 19 n. 1.) It is not clear whether the adjusted or the non-adjusted data is better for the comparison made here. (See Cupingood April 28, 2000 Aff. ¶ 19 n. 1.) In any event, as explained below, the experts agree that use of the actual 1998 data does not necessarily increase accuracy nor does it influence their conclusions; thus, differences between the two sets of data are immaterial. For convenience, both Dr. Cupingood's and Dr. Peterson's data are reproduced below in Table 1.

Table 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Overall Rate (%)[fn**] White Rate (%) Non-White Rate (%) ----------------------- ---------------------------- -------------------------------- Project*fn* 1991-94 1998 1991-94 1998 1998 1991-94 1998 1998 (Cup.) (Pet.) (Cup.) (Pet.) ------------------- --------- ---------- ---------- ------ ------ --------- ------- ------- Bay View 6.5 4.9 9.1 7.5 7.7 2.9 3.4 4.5 Berry 6.5 10.0 7.4 10.1 9.4 3.5 9.8 13.7 Cassidy-Lafayette 10.3 12.9 12.9 13.5 14.0 4.5 12.4 14.7 Forest Hills 4.5 2.5 5.8 3.3 7.4 2.5 1.6 0.0 Haber 8.7 8.2 10.0 6.3 7.3 7.4 10.3 12.1 Holmes Towers 8.3 8.1 9.7 10.1 9.5 7.1 7.2 8.6 Independence 1.6 3.7 1.7 3.0 2.5 1.6 4.9 0.8 Isaacs 6.0 6.3 8.0 8.3 6.3 3.4 5.1 6.9 Middletown Plaza 12.0 10.9 10.4 14.7 14.7 15.4 6.3 7.5

 
New Lane 8.7 9.5 9.5 10.6 11.1 4.2 6.8 8.1 Nostrand 7.1 7.0 8.2 8.7 8.9 4.6 5.7 6.8 Pelham Parkway 6.2 6.2 8.0 6.6 6.2 3.9 5.9 8.7 Pomonok 5.5 6.9 6.1 7.5 7.4 4.6 6.4 9.0 Robbins Plaza 11.4 15.3 12.7 20.5 20.5 8.5 9.0 11.9 Sheepshead Bay 7.5 7.4 9.5 9.4 9.1 4.8 6.2 8.1 South Beach 7.4 6.5 8.4 5.7 6.1 5.3 7.4 7.4 Straus 4.4 3.4 8.9 2.5 2.5 1.1 3.8 4.4 Taylor St./Wythe Ave. 2.2 2.7 1.5 1.1 1.1 3.1 4.7 4.7 Todt Hill 6.0 5.8 7.6 6.6 7.1 3.3 5.0 5.8 Williams 2.0 2.2 1.5 2.0 2.3 3.1 2.4 2.4 ______ ______ ________ ______ _____ _______ ______ ______ Overall[fn***] 6.8 7.3 8.6 8.8 4.4 6.5


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.