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.

Byrd v. Dunn Towers I

United States District Court, W.D. New York

January 16, 2018

VICKIE DIANNE BYRD, Plaintiff,
v.
DUNN TOWERS I, APT'S, PHILLIPONE REALTY, INC., DUNN TOWERS I APARTMENTS, Defendants.

          DECISION AND ORDER

          HON. MICHAEL A. TELESCA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. Background

         Proceeding pro se, Vickie Dianne Byrd (“Plaintiff”) instituted this action against defendants “Dunn Towers I, Apt's” and “Dunn Towers I Apartments” (collectively, “Dunn Towers I”) and Phillipone Realty, Inc. (“Phillipone”) by filing a complaint (Dkt #1) dated December 1, 2016, alleging that defendants violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. (“FHA”) and generally discriminated against her on the basis of disability. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

         By Decision and Order dated November 15, 2017, the Court converted Dunn Towers I's pre-answer Motion to Dismiss into a Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 56”). Also in the November 15thDecision and Order, the Court converted Phillipone's Answer with its attached exhibits into a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff was served with a copy of the Western District of New York's Rule 56 Notice to Pro Se Litigants, in accordance with Western District of New York Local Rule 56(b) and Irby v. N.Y. City Transit Auth., 262 F.3d 412, 414 (2d Cir. 2001).

         Plaintiff filed her own Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgment, to which Dunn Towers I submitted a Reply. Phillipone has not filed any additional papers subsequent to the Court's November 15thDecision and Order. The motions are fully submitted and ready for decision.

         II. Rule 56 Standard

         “Summary judgment is required where ‘the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'” Rodriguez v. Vill. Green Realty, Inc., 788 F.3d 31, 39-40 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a)). “In assessing the record to determine whether there is a genuine issue to be tried as to any material fact, the court is required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Stone v. City of Mount Vernon, 118 F.3d 92, 99 (2d Cir. 1997). “A fact is ‘material' for these purposes if it ‘might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.'” Rodriguez, 78 F.3d at 39 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). “A dispute of fact is ‘genuine' if ‘the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'” Id. (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248).

         III. Discussion

         A. Overview of Plaintiff's Claims and the Parties

         While Plaintiff's pleadings are rather difficult to decipher, the gist of her Complaint alleges that her rental application was unlawfully denied by Dunn Towers I on the basis of discrimination.

         According to its website, Dunn Towers I provides “housing for seniors 62 years of age or over, disabled veterans who submit satisfactory proof of physical and/or mobility eligibility according to the Civil Service Law ‘Section 85: Definition of Disabled Veteran', and anyone 18 years of age and older with a physical or mobility disability.”[1] Dunn Towers I also denominates itself an Equal Housing Opportunity by its use of the official logo sanctioned by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) under the terms of the FHA.[2] Dunn Towers I is managed by Phillipone.

         B. Discriminatory Practices Prohibited Under the FHA

         The FHA prohibits discrimination across a spectrum of housing-related activities, including the provision of brokerage services, real estate transactions, and housing sales and rentals. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604-3606. Subject to certain exceptions not applicable here, the FHA makes it “unlawful-

(a) To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.
(b) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, ...

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.