Noe v. Ray Realty
- Rearden
- 1:19-cv-01455
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Noe v. Ray Realty, Judge Rearden granted four dismissal motions, denied emergency relief, and allowed only specified Fair Housing Act claims to be repleaded.
Carol Noe and the defendants named in the action. Most of Noe’s claims were dismissed with prejudice, while specified Fair Housing Act discrimination and retaliation claims against Ray Realty, Zavisa Zecevic, John Militec, Julia Zecevic, and Dejan Zecevic were dismissed without prejudice and could be repleaded by April 30, 2025.
What happened
In Noe v. Ray Realty, Carol Noe, representing herself, sued Ray Realty and other defendants. She alleged disability discrimination and retaliation based on refusals to provide requested accommodations when repairs were made to her apartment. She also brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and federal civil-rights law.
Four groups of defendants asked the court to dismiss the amended complaint for failing to state a legally sufficient claim. Noe objected to a magistrate judge’s recommended decision and requested emergency relief, an extension, and permission to submit another doctor’s note. The court found that her objections generally repeated earlier arguments rather than identifying specific errors.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden adopted the recommendation, granted the four dismissal motions, and denied emergency relief. The court dismissed all claims with prejudice except the Fair Housing Act discrimination and retaliation claims against Ray Realty, Zavisa Zecevic, John Militec, Julia Zecevic, and Dejan Zecevic, which it dismissed without prejudice and allowed Noe to replead within thirty days.
The detailed version
- Noe v. Ray Realty · No. 1:19-cv-01455
- Rearden
- Mar. 31, 2025
Background
Carol Noe, acting without a lawyer, filed the action in 2019 and amended her complaint in 2020. She sued Ray Realty, Zavisa Zecevic, John Militec, Julia Zecevic, Dejan Zecevic, and numerous other defendants. Her claims included disability discrimination and retaliation under the Fair Housing Act, claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and claims for fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy. The opinion describes the central allegations as involving refusals to provide reasonable accommodations when repairs were made to her apartment.
Four groups of defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky recommended granting the motions and allowing Noe to replead some Fair Housing Act claims. Noe filed a document titled “Notice of Motion for Emergency Relief,” which the district court treated as objections to the recommendation. She also requested more time to submit another doctor’s note and accused the court and Judge Tarnofsky of misconduct.
Review of the Recommendation
The district court explained that specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation receive a fresh review, while general objections or repeated earlier arguments are reviewed only for clear error. The court found that Noe’s objections did not address particular findings in the recommendation and instead repeated some arguments from her amended complaint. The court also relied on the recommendation’s explanation that Noe had already received multiple extensions and had more than five months to respond to the original dismissal motions and more than two months to respond to a later, substantially similar motion.
Ruling
The court overruled Noe’s objections and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. It granted the four motions to dismiss and denied Noe’s Motion for Emergency Relief. The court dismissed all claims with prejudice except as follows:
- The claims against Daejan NY Ltd., Robert Gregor, RRM Realty, TRUE Coffee, TRCU Coffee, 384 Court, Thomas Cummings, Morten Teljum, Labe Twerski, Sam Becker, Adi Nahmani, 1651 Coney Island Avenue 4 11230, 41-25 44th Street Owners Corp., 41-25 44th Street Apt. A7 Queens, and the 34 John and Jane Does were dismissed with prejudice. - The Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims were dismissed with prejudice. - The claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 were dismissed with prejudice. - The fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy claims were dismissed with prejudice. - The Fair Housing Act claims against Ray Realty based on failure to make reasonable accommodations by performing repairs in the manner Noe requested were dismissed with prejudice. - The same type of Fair Housing Act claims against Zavisa Zecevic, John Militec, Julia Zecevic, and Dejan Zecevic were dismissed with prejudice. - The Fair Housing Act discrimination and retaliation claims against Ray Realty, Zavisa Zecevic, John Militec, Julia Zecevic, and Dejan Zecevic were dismissed without prejudice.
What Happens Next
The court allowed Noe, if she wished, to file a second amended complaint by April 30, 2025, repleading the Fair Housing Act discrimination and retaliation claims against the five listed defendants. The second amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the existing amended complaint. If she did not file it, the case would be dismissed without further notice. The clerk was directed to terminate the four dismissal motions and the emergency-relief filing and mail the order to Noe.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.