Ahmad v. River Point Towers Cooperative, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:24-cv-06926
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Ahmad v. River Point Towers, Judge Cronan dismissed Ahmad’s federal contract-discrimination claims against moving defendants and sought briefing on Sandler’s claim.
Mohamad Ahmad; the six Moving Defendants—River Point Towers Cooperative, Inc., Vanessa Ortiz, Ilana Serot, Albert Burgunder, Ari Steinberg, and Carl Reinlib; and Martin Sandler, whose Section 1981 claim remains under consideration.
What happened
Ahmad v. River Point Towers Cooperative, Inc. concerns Mohamad Ahmad’s allegations that the defendants discriminated against him because of his ethnicity and national origin, harassed him, and interfered with repair and renovation work. He brought claims under the federal contract-discrimination statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The court dismissed Ahmad’s Section 1981 claims against River Point Towers Cooperative, Inc., Vanessa Ortiz, Ilana Serot, Albert Burgunder, Ari Steinberg, and Carl Reinlib. It held that the contracts were with Ahmad’s company, Painting Corp., or with Painting Corp.’s customers—not with Ahmad personally. The court did not yet rule on the New York City Human Rights Law claims or the remaining parts of the motion. It gave Ahmad fourteen days to explain why his Section 1981 claim against Martin Sandler should not also be dismissed and to address whether the court should keep the state-law claims against Sandler.
Judge John P. Cronan held the remainder of the moving defendants’ dismissal motion in abeyance, meaning he postponed ruling on it, pending Ahmad’s submission. Sandler’s Section 1981 claim was not dismissed in this Opinion and Order.
The detailed version
- Ahmad v. River Point Towers Cooperative, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-06926
- John Cronan
- Aug. 4, 2025
Background
Mohamad Ahmad sued River Point Towers Cooperative, Inc. (RPT), Vanessa Ortiz, Ilana Serot, Albert Burgunder, Ari Steinberg, Carl Reinlib, and Martin Sandler. He alleged discriminatory conduct based on his ethnicity and national origin, including harassment, threats, interference with his work, and support for Sandler’s allegedly discriminatory conduct. Ahmad asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the New York City Human Rights Law.
Ahmad alleged that his company, M.A. Painting Corp., had a contract with RPT for building repairs from 1994 through 2022. He also alleged that Painting Corp. was hired by individual RPT shareholders for private renovation and repair work. Ahmad alleged that the defendants interfered with both types of work and caused him emotional distress and economic loss.
Motion and issues before the court
RPT, Ortiz, Serot, Burgunder, Steinberg, and Reinlib—the “Moving Defendants”—asked the court to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). That rule permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim for relief.
The Moving Defendants argued, among other things, that Ahmad could not bring a claim under Section 1981 because he did not identify a contract under which he personally had rights. The court addressed that argument and did not address the Moving Defendants’ other arguments concerning the New York City Human Rights Law, national-origin discrimination under Section 1981, or the alleged participation of Reinlib and Steinberg.
Court’s reasoning
Section 1981 protects the right to make and enforce contracts. The court explained that a person bringing a Section 1981 claim must identify an existing or proposed contract under which that person has rights and must allege injuries arising from a racially motivated breach of that person’s own contractual relationship.
The court found that Ahmad’s allegations did not satisfy that requirement. For the building-repair work, the alleged contract was between RPT and Painting Corp., not between RPT and Ahmad. Although Ahmad owned Painting Corp., the court relied on the rule that a corporation’s shareholder or contracting officer does not thereby acquire rights under the corporation’s contracts.
The court reached the same conclusion concerning the private renovation work. Ahmad alleged that individual residents hired Painting Corp., rather than Ahmad personally. The complaint therefore did not identify an existing or proposed contract with those residents under which Ahmad had rights.
The court also rejected Ahmad’s argument that his personal injuries—such as emotional distress, reputational harm, and financial harm—were enough to support a Section 1981 claim. The court held that such injuries do not establish a Section 1981 claim without an impaired contractual relationship belonging to Ahmad. It concluded that the Supreme Court’s decision in Domino’s Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald controlled the issue.
Disposition
The court dismissed Ahmad’s First Cause of Action, his Section 1981 claim, against the Moving Defendants. The court did not dismiss the Section 1981 claim against Sandler at this stage. Instead, it notified Ahmad that it intended to consider dismissing that claim for the same reason and ordered him, within fourteen days, to explain why dismissal would not be appropriate. Ahmad was also ordered to present any further arguments about whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction—meaning jurisdiction over related state-law claims—over his New York City Human Rights Law claims as they concerned Sandler.
Judge John P. Cronan held the remainder of the Moving Defendants’ motion to dismiss in abeyance pending Ahmad’s submission. The Opinion and Order did not resolve the New York City Human Rights Law claims.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.