The opinion of the court was delivered by: Block, U.S. District Judge.
Plaintiffs, thirty-one occupants of fifteen apartments at Robert
Clemente Plaza ("Clemente Plaza"), brought suit advancing in their
complaint eleven claims for violations of federal, state and municipal
law alleging on various theories that defendants seek to wrongfully
abrogate plaintiffs' leases, and have targeted them for eviction because
they are Jewish. Specifically, the First, Second, Third and Fourth claims
allege that defendants' administrative review of plaintiffs' leases
violates their federal constitutional right to due process. The Fifth
claim alleges that defendants targeted Jewish residents for review of
their leases in violation of their federal constitutional right to equal
protection. Plaintiffs' due process and equal protection claims are also
the underlying bases for their Ninth and Tenth claims, which respectively
allege violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("§ 1983")*fn1 and
42 U.S.C. § 2000d.*fn2 The Sixth, Seventh and Eighth
claims respectively allege violations of N.Y. Civ. Rights Law §§ 18-a,
18-c, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, and N.Y. City Admin. Code title 8.*fn3
Plaintiffs' Eleventh Claim alleges state common law detrimental reliance
and estoppel. Plaintiffs' seek permanent injunctive and declaratory
relief barring defendants from reviewing plaintiffs' leases, monetary
damages, costs and attorneys' fees.
All plaintiffs have brought on a motion seeking a preliminary
injunction prohibiting defendants from pursuing administrative review of
plaintiffs' leases.*fn4 Plaintiffs Menacham and Goldie Feuerstein (the
"Feuersteins") have brought a separate motion seeking preliminary
injunctive relief requiring defendants to transfer the Feuersteins to a
larger apartment in Clemente Village. Defendants New York City Department
of Housing Preservation and Development ("HPD"), HPD commissioner Richard
T. Roberts ("Roberts"), HPD assistant commissioners Robin Weinstein
("Weinstein") and Julie C. Walpert ("Walpert") (collectively the
"Municipal Defendants"), Kent Village Housing Co., Inc. ("Kent Village")
and Kent Village assistant secretary Robert E. Paul ("Paul") have opposed
both applications for preliminary injunctions, and have cross-moved for
summary judgment on all claims.*fn5
The Court heard oral argument on all the motions on October 24, 2000.
Following oral argument, and for the reasons stated on the record in open
court on that date, the Court granted summary judgment dismissing without
prejudice plaintiffs' due process claims (the First, Second, Third, Fourth
and relevant portions of the Ninth and Tenth claims) on the
jurisdictional ground that they were unripe for review. See Marchi v.
Board of Cooperative Educ. Servs., 173 F.3d 469, 478 (2d Cir.) ("ripeness
is a constitutional prerequisite to exercise of jurisdiction by federal
courts" (quotation omitted)), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 869, 120 S.Ct. 169,
145 L.Ed.2d 143 (1999); see also Tr.*fn6 at 24-31. The Court reached
this conclusion because plaintiffs had yet to suffer concrete harm since
plaintiffs might well prevail in the administrative review process.*fn7
In addition,
the Court relied on the strength of the representations by defendants
that they would not attempt to remove plaintiffs from Clemente Plaza
while administrative proceedings were pending, and that plaintiffs would
be accorded full due process rights — namely, the right to be heard
in a meaningful and timely fashion by presenting evidence, including
calling and cross-examining witnesses, before an impartial hearing
officer. See Tr. at 23, 30.
The Court's oral rulings consequently permitted defendants to proceed
with administrative review of plaintiffs' leases. At the same time, the
Court also denied the Feuerstein's application for preliminary injunctive
relief for failure to show likely success on the merits, and on the
representation by defendants that the Feuersteins would not be removed
from their place on the Clemente Plaza apartment-transfer eligibility
list, if at all, before administrative proceedings in respect to their
lease were completed.
At oral argument, the Court reserved judgment on defendants' summary
judgment motion regarding plaintiffs' equal protection (Fifth) claim and
those parts of the § 1983 (Ninth) and Title VI (Tenth) claims
predicated thereon. Implicitly, the Court reserved judgment on plaintiffs'
state and municipal law claims (the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Eleventh
claims). The Court now grants defendants' motion for summary judgment and
dismisses with prejudice plaintiffs' equal protection claim (the Fifth
Claim), and their § 1983 and Title VI claims (the Ninth and Tenth
claims), insofar as they are based on this equal protection claim. In its
discretion, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
plaintiffs' state and municipal law claims.
The following facts are drawn from the Municipal Defendants' Statement
Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 ("Defs.' 56.1 Stmt."), Plaintiffs' Statement
in Opposition Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 ("Pls.' 56.1 Stmt."),
Plaintiffs' Order to Show Cause, affidavits, declarations and exhibits
attached to the foregoing, and the Verified Complaint. Except as
otherwise noted, they are undisputed: Clemente Plaza is a Mitchell-Lama
housing development in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, owned by Kent Village and
subject to HPD supervision for management, financial and occupancy
issues. Between 1990 and 1998, each plaintiff family entered into
leases, counter-signed by Kent Village, for apartments in Clemente
Plaza. In the summer of 1998, defendants received from Kent Village
notices seeking evidence verifying that their tenancies were in
compliance with applicable regulations. The letters stated that failure
to comply would result in referral of the matter to Kent Village's
attorney for further action. By correspondence of July 31, 1998, August
5, 1998, and later dates, defendant Paul sent another letter to
plaintiffs denying their applications for successor tenancies to the
apartments they occupied and advising plaintiffs of their rights to appeal
to HPD for documentary review. HPD later sent to plaintiffs another
notice demanding final submission of any further documentation to
substantiate their appeal. The letters sent to plaintiffs were the result
of an audit, or review, of apartment occupancy at Clemente Plaza
conducted by HPD.
Plaintiffs also dispute defendants' assertion that HPD's audit,
occurring in February 1998, found twenty-three instances in which tenant
files contained no claim that a successor tenant was a family member or
was within the definition of family member as required by HPD's rules,
and three other instances in which documentation was missing for
apartments. HPD also found that Kent Village violated applicable
regulations by failing to submit tenant succession applications to HPD
for approval. On July 1, 1998, Kent Village identified ten other units
with questionable successor tenancies and forwarded additional
documentation to HPD. In sum, of the thirty-six apartments with
suspicious changes, twenty-nine were found to raise questionable
successor tenancies, three successor tenancies were approved, and four
presented no issue. Of the twenty-nine apartments with questionable
successor tenancies, HPD asserts that at least six are occupied by
persons whose surnames may be of African-American or Hispanic origin.*fn8
There is no dispute, however, on the three facts that plaintiffs rely
upon for equal protection claim. First, plaintiffs argue, and defendants
agree, that the review of apartment occupancy conducted by HPD occurred
in two phases. The first phase was conducted by HPD and was described by
HPD as "a 100% recertification audit." Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 44; see
Pls.' 56.1 Stmt., Declaration of David M. Berger, Esq. ("Berger Decl.")
¶ 7. This phase identified twenty-six apartments as having raised
questionable successor leases. All of the occupants of the apartments
identified therein were Jewish. Later, despite the putative plenary
coverage of the first phase audit, a second phase of auditing conducted
by Kent Village occurred. HPD ordered this second phase in a letter dated
June 23, 1998, instructing Kent Village to investigate and provide
additional documentation on the twenty-three apartments identified and
the three apartments with missing files, and "to provide the tenant files
for any other apartments in which there was a successor tenancy." Defs.'
56.1 Stmt. ¶ 54; see Pls.' 56.1 Stmt., Berger Decl. ¶ 7. This
second audit identified ten additional apartments with questionable
successor tenancies. Six of these contained those occupants with possibly
African-American or Hispanic surnames.
Second, there is agreement that a HPD-prepared memorandum dated June
19, 1998, concerning its first phase audit activities, expressly
mentioned that successor occupants in certain apartments have Jewish
surnames. See Pls.' 56.1 Stmt., Berger Decl. ¶ 10 & Ex. A; Defs.'
56.1 Stmt. ¶ 52 & Affidavit of Elaine Smith ("Smith Aff.") Ex. C. The
memorandum states, in pertinent part, as follows:
In 13 situations, [HPD] identified questionable
succession practices in which a person (or persons)
who appeared to be unrelated to the primary tenant
resident was added to the recertification for two
years. . . . In some cases, the original tenant has a
Hispanic surname and in some cases a Jewish surname.
However, in all cases, the second person who succeeded
as the primary resident has a Jewish surname.
In 6 situations [HPD] identified improper succession
practices in which a person (or persons) who appeared
to be unrelated to the primary tenant was added to the
recertification for less than two years. . . . In some
of these cases, the original tenant has a Hispanic
surname and in some cases a Jewish surname. However,
in ...