Miranda v. Yorkhill Housing Inc.

Background

Evan Miranda and Evelyn Perez brought claims under the Fair Housing Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and state law against Yorkhill Housing Inc., First Service Residential, and the New York City Department of Housing, Preservation, and Development. The opinion identifies Yorkhill as the plaintiffs’ landlord and First Service as Yorkhill’s building-management agent.

The plaintiffs allege that defendants denied requests for reasonable accommodations, including a request to transfer Perez to another apartment because of her disabilities. They also allege retaliation after filing a complaint with the New York Commission on Human Rights and identify architectural barriers at Yorkhill. Miranda states that he is Perez’s full-time caretaker, that Perez has used a wheelchair since a 2019 fall, and that he has mobility, depression, and cancer-related disabilities.

Capacity Concern

Miranda informed the court that Perez might be unable to represent her own interests because of the onset of dementia. Under Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may need to consider appointing a guardian ad litem—a person who protects the interests of a party who cannot adequately do so personally.

The court first requested medical records and related information about Perez’s diagnoses, decision-making capacity, ability to understand legal proceedings, and any existing guardian or conservator. The plaintiffs’ initial response did not provide enough information. The court gave them another opportunity to submit medical evidence.

The plaintiffs later submitted documentation under seal. The court found that it still could not determine Perez’s competency. Although the assessment suggested that Perez might lack the mental and physical capacity to pursue the case herself, the document did not clearly identify who conducted it, whether that person was a medical professional, or what testing and procedures supported its conclusions.

Ruling

The court determined that a hearing on Perez’s mental capacity was necessary. It authorized seeking volunteer counsel to represent Perez in connection with that hearing. The court explained that, in civil cases, it may request—not compel—the volunteer services of a lawyer for a person unable to afford counsel, and that courts do not have funds to pay lawyers in these matters.

The representation is limited. Any volunteer lawyer will represent Perez alone, not Miranda, and only regarding the competency issues raised by the Rule 17(c) proceeding. The court will wait to schedule the capacity hearing until the volunteer lawyer enters an appearance. The order did not decide whether Perez is competent, whether a guardian ad litem will ultimately be required, or the merits of the plaintiffs’ housing claims.