Floyd v. Glenn Gardens Associates

Background

Betty Floyd, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Glenn Gardens Associates; Grenadier Realty Corp.; Gutman, Mintz, Baker & Sonnenfeldt LLP; and the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development. She alleged violations involving her federal housing subsidy and current residence. Her claims invoked the Fair Housing Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and constitutional due process protections. She also alleged an improper rent increase and an attempted illegal eviction by her landlord.

Floyd had lived for more than 25 years in a two-bedroom apartment with a terrace. She participated in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program and received an enhanced voucher subsidy from the Department of Housing Preservation and Development based on her income. In 2008, the agency determined that she was not entitled to a two-bedroom apartment but that an apartment with a terrace was a reasonable accommodation for a medical condition. In 2014, the agency determined that she was overhoused and had to move to a smaller unit. A New York state court denied her challenge to that determination after finding that she had not provided verification of her alleged disability. After Floyd refused an offer of a smaller unit in the same building, the agency notified her in 2016 that her enhanced voucher would be converted to a regular Section 8 voucher based on a one-bedroom apartment, increasing her share of the rent.

Motions and review of the recommendation

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. They argued that Floyd’s voucher-related claims were time-barred and barred by collateral estoppel, a rule that can prevent relitigation of an issue already decided. They argued that her remaining claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Gutman separately argued that Floyd made no specific allegations against him. Floyd moved for permission to file a second amended complaint.

The court had referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Aaron, who recommended granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss and denying Floyd’s motion for leave to amend. Floyd objected. The district court explained that specific objections require fresh review of the challenged parts of a recommendation, while general or conclusory objections are reviewed for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record. The court found that Floyd’s objections largely repeated her earlier allegations and did not identify specific findings or recommendations or provide supporting legal authority. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error.

Ruling

The court found no clear error and adopted Magistrate Judge Aaron’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Defendants’ motions to dismiss were granted. Floyd’s motion for leave to amend was denied. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

The court also stated that Floyd’s failure to make adequate and specific objections prevented appellate review of the decision. It certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying court fees for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to close the motions and the case.