Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

United States v. East River Hous. Corp.

United States District Court, S.D. New York

March 2, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
EAST RIVER HOUSING CORP., Defendant

Page 119

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 120

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 121

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 122

For United States of America, Plaintiff: Jean-David Barnea, LEAD ATTORNEY, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY (Chambers Street), New York, NY; Elizabeth Tulis, United States Attorney's Office, Southern District Of New York, New York, NY.

For East River Housing Corp., Defendant, Counter Claimant: Bradley Scott Silverbush, LEAD ATTORNEY, Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., New York, NY.

For United States of America, Counter Defendant: Elizabeth Tulis, United States Attorney's Office, Southern District Of New York, New York, NY.

Page 123

OPINION AND ORDER

Edgardo Ramos, United States District Judge.

Defendant, East River Housing Corporation (" East River" or " Defendant" ) is a private 1,672-unit housing cooperative on Manhattan's Lower East Side. Am. Compl. ¶ 7 (Doc. 3). Stephanie Aaron (" Aaron" ), Amy Eisenberg (" Eisenberg" ), and Steven Gilbert (" Gilbert" ) (collectively, " Complainants" ) are proprietary lessees of East River apartments. Id. ¶ ¶ 8, 11, 14. All three are subject to Proprietary Leases and House Rules that prohibit tenants from keeping dogs and other animals in East River buildings without " prior written consent." Id. ¶ ¶ 34, 55, 70. Neither the Proprietary Leases nor the House Rules contain reference to any policies or procedures for granting reasonable accommodations to individuals who require service or emotional support animals because of a disability. Id. ¶ 32.

Complainants suffer from varying forms and degrees of psychiatric illness. Id. ¶ ¶ 33, 54, 69. At different times, all three brought dogs into their apartments--apparently without prior written consent--and found that, as a result, the symptoms of their illnesses were alleviated. Id. ¶ ¶ 36, 56-57, 71. Each complainant, after being told to " cure" the violation of his or her lease by removing the dog from his or her apartment, and being threatened with eviction, requested permission to keep a dog as a reasonable accommodation to his or her disability, which East River in all cases ignored or denied. Id. ¶ ¶ 39-45, 62-68, 74-75, 82-85.

In this action, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (the " Government" ) brings suit against East River under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. § § 3601 et seq. as amended. The Government alleges that East River, by denying Complainants the right to keep service or emotional support animals in their apartments, discriminated against Complainants on account of their disabilities in violation of the FHA. Id.¶ ¶ 86-91; 42 U.S.C. § § 3604(f)(1)(A), (f)(2),

Page 124

(f)(3)(B).[1] The Government also claims that East River retaliated against Gilbert in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3617 by threatening to pursue a claim for attorneys' fees against Gilbert or to consider the cost of those fees " additional rent," and by requesting excessive and intrusive information from Gilbert and his healthcare providers in connection with his request for a reasonable accommodation.[2] Am. Compl. ¶ 93. Finally, in addition to its claims on behalf of Aaron, Eisenberg, and Gilbert, the Government alleges that East River's conduct constitutes a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of rights granted by the FHA, and/or a denial to a group of persons of rights granted by the FHA raising an issue of general public importance, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3614.[3] Id. ¶ ¶ 95-97.

At present, the Court considers three motions: the Government's motion to strike East River's Second Affirmative Defense; East River's motion for partial summary judgment as to the claims pertaining to Stephanie Aaron (the " Aaron claims" ) and to sever the causes of action pertaining to Eisenberg and Gilbert (the " Eisenberg claims" and " Gilbert claims" ); and East River's separate motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment on the Government's Fifth Cause of Action, which alleges a " pattern or practice" violation under § 3614. Docs. 22, 27, 30. For the following reasons, the Government's motion to strike is GRANTED, and both of Defendant's motions are DENIED.

I. Factual Background and Procedural History[4]

A. Stephanie Aaron

Stephanie Aaron has been the proprietary lessee of an East River apartment

Page 125

since at least 2003. Am. Compl. ¶ 8. Aaron suffers from " chronic major depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder [(" PTSD" )]," which have " impacted her ability to socialize, maintain relationships, sleep, and concentrate" and " exacerbate[d] her asthma." Id. ¶ 33. According to the Amended Complaint, she is a person with a disability under the FHA. Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h)).

In August 2012, Aaron experienced a " resurgence of her depression and anxiety symptoms" and " was often physically ill, unable to socialize, and overwhelmed by her circumstances, which included working in a stressful work environment with an uncertain future with her employer." Id. ¶ 35. On or about August 22, 2012, Aaron took in a stray dog and named it " Rosie." Id. ¶ 36. She allegedly noticed an improvement in her mental condition within a few days and therefore decided to keep the dog. Id.

On September 14, 2012, East River sent Aaron a " 10 Day Notice to Cure," stating that she had violated a substantial obligation of her tenancy by keeping an animal in her apartment and demanding that she remove the dog. Id. ¶ 37. After Aaron received the Notice to Cure, her mental condition purportedly worsened, and she paid a visit to Dr. Lori Plutchik (" Dr. Plutchik" ), a psychiatrist she had visited during 2008-2011. Id. ¶ 38. On September 20, 2012, Aaron submitted a " request for reasonable accommodation" accompanied by a letter from Dr. Plutchik asking that Aaron be permitted to keep Rosie as a " service dog and emotional support animal." Id. ¶ 39. East River did not respond to this request and, instead, sent Aaron a " 10 Day Notice of Termination" on October 18, 2012, stating that she would need to vacate her apartment by November 6, 2012. Id. ¶ ¶ 40-41. Aaron submitted a second " request for reasonable accommodation" on October 24, 2012, again attaching Dr. Plutchik's letter. Id. ¶ 42. East River denied this request by letter dated November 5, 2012 " on the ground that Dr. Plutchik's letter did not use the word 'disabled.'" Id. ¶ 43.

On November 11, 2012, Aaron received a " Notice of Petition Holdover" informing her that a " Summary Holdover Proceeding" regarding her eviction would take place on November 29, 2012 in Manhattan Housing Court (" Housing Court" ). Id. ¶ 44. Via her attorney, Karen Copeland, Aaron submitted a third reasonable accommodation request on November 15, 2012, again attaching Dr. Plutchik's letter. Id. ¶ 45. In March 2013, East River moved in Housing Court for summary judgment against Aaron and for entry of a judgment of possession and issuance of a warrant of eviction. Id. ¶ 49. A Housing Court judge granted summary judgment in favor of East River and awarded East River a final judgment of possession on April 30, 2013. Id. ¶ 51.[5]

Meanwhile, on December 11, 2012, Aaron filed a verified complaint with the United

Page 126

States Department of Housing and Urban Development (" HUD" ), alleging that East River had discriminated against her on the basis of disability by refusing to permit her to keep a dog as a reasonable accommodation to her psychiatric disability.[6]Id. ¶ 47; Silverbush Cert. (Doc. 28), Ex. J. By letter dated December 12, 2012, HUD informed Aaron that it had referred her complaint to the New York State Division of Human Rights (" DHR" ) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3610(f).[7]Id., Ex. K. The letter stated that DHR would " take all further action" on Aaron's complaint unless DHR failed to begin processing it within 30 days, in which case HUD would take it up again. Id. Additionally, the letter advised Aaron that, if she did not agree with DHR's final decision, she could ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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