Suarez v. Park Lane Management Corporation

Background

Susan Suarez, Delailah Perez, and Andre Rojas proceeded without lawyers and filed the case under federal-question jurisdiction. Their allegations concerned conditions in their apartment and proceedings in the Civil Court of the City of New York, Housing Part. They named the Housing Court, several Housing Court judges, Housing Court Attorney Staci Coble, Park Lane Management Corporation, Kahen Properties, Majid Kahen, and Michael Himy.

The plaintiffs alleged that Majid Kahen and men he sent harassed, assaulted, and terrorized them during supposed repair work. Suarez also alleged that her request to reschedule a housing inspection because of her medical condition was ignored. She claimed that Park Lane, Kahen Properties, Kahen, and Himy violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. The plaintiffs separately challenged actions taken by Housing Court judges and staff, including decisions in their repair cases, courtroom conduct, and a hearing held by video.

The plaintiffs asked the federal court to stop or invalidate their Housing Court matter and sought damages. Earlier, the court allowed them to proceed without paying the filing fee but denied their request for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.

Rulings

Claims against Housing Court judges. The court dismissed the claims against Judges Evon Asforis, Frances Ortiz, Yekaterina Blinova, Daniele Chinea, Jack Stoller, and Norma Jennings. It held that judicial immunity—an absolute protection for judges from damages claims based on actions taken as part of their judicial responsibilities—covered the alleged conduct. The plaintiffs did not allege facts showing that the judges acted outside their judicial responsibilities or without jurisdiction. The court also held that immunity covered Judge Asforis’s alleged disability-related decision to conduct a hearing by video and Judge Blinova’s alleged failure to intervene in courtroom conduct.

Claim against Housing Court Attorney Coble. The court dismissed the claims against Staci Coble under the same immunity principle because the claims concerned her role as a Housing Court attorney and sought monetary relief. The order states that the claims against the Housing Court judges and Coble were dismissed without leave to replead.

Request to intervene in the Housing Court case. The court declined to intervene under the Younger doctrine, which generally limits federal-court interference with certain ongoing state-court proceedings. The court said the plaintiffs had not pleaded facts showing a federal claim concerning the Housing Court matter and that the Housing Court had an interest in enforcing its own orders. The court also explained that, if the plaintiffs were asking the federal court to review a final Housing Court judgment, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine would bar that review. The order stated that any appeal of a Housing Court decision could be pursued within the state-court system.

Americans with Disabilities Act claims. The court dismissed Suarez’s ADA claims against Park Lane, Kahen Properties, Kahen, and Himy for failure to state a claim. It reasoned that the private landlords, management companies, and individuals described in the complaint were not entities covered by the ADA provisions Suarez invoked.

Fair Housing Act claims. The court also dismissed Suarez’s FHA claims for failure to state a claim. Although the court assumed for purposes of the order that her disability placed her within a protected FHA category, it found that she had not alleged facts showing adverse treatment or discrimination because of her disability.

Leave to amend and final disposition

The court granted Suarez 30 days to amend the FHA claim because she might be able to allege additional facts supporting a valid claim. The plaintiffs could also add other claims arising from apartment conditions. The permission to amend did not extend to claims against the Housing Court judges or Housing Court Attorney Coble.

The court dismissed the complaint under the screening statute for cases filed without the filing fee, declined under the Younger doctrine to intervene in the Housing Court matter, and granted the plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The clerk was directed to keep the case open until a civil judgment was entered.