Berk v. The City of New York

Background

Jessica Berk, representing herself, brought an action under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She initially named the Senior Citizen Rent Increase Exemption program (SCRIE) and the Disabled Rent Increase Exemption program (DRIE) as defendants. She alleged that she and her mother qualified for those programs, that both were disabled, and that she was denied benefits because she lacked identification. Berk also alleged that Advocates for Justice helped her and her mother remain in their apartment, that her mother died, and that she became homeless. She sought an injunction concerning identification, acceptance of her SCRIE and DRIE applications, and a refund of money allegedly taken from them.

The court had previously allowed Berk to proceed without paying filing fees. It therefore reviewed the complaint under the federal statute requiring dismissal of an action proceeding without prepayment of fees if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it must dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, while reading a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally.

Claims Against SCRIE and DRIE

The court explained that SCRIE and DRIE are programs administered by the New York City Department of Finance and the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development. Under New York law, municipal agencies generally cannot be sued separately. Because Berk was representing herself and clearly intended to sue the City of New York, the court treated the complaint as asserting claims against the City and directed the clerk to replace SCRIE and DRIE with the City of New York in the case caption.

ADA Claim

The court treated Berk’s allegations as potentially involving Title II of the ADA, which prohibits a public entity from denying a qualified person with a disability access to its services, programs, or activities because of that disability. A Title II claim requires allegations that the plaintiff has a qualifying disability, that the defendant is covered by the statute, and that the plaintiff was denied access to a covered service, program, or activity because of the disability. The court also noted that the Rehabilitation Act might be implicated, although it did not decide a Rehabilitation Act claim.

The court held that, even reading Berk’s allegations liberally, the complaint did not state an ADA claim. Berk identified herself as disabled but did not describe the nature of her disability. More importantly, she did not allege facts suggesting that the City discriminated or retaliated against her because of her disability. The complaint instead specifically stated that she was denied SCRIE and DRIE benefits because she lacked identification. The court therefore concluded that the complaint did not provide factual allegations showing disability-based discrimination.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Because the court could not determine that amendment would be futile, it granted Berk leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must identify the people allegedly involved, provide relevant facts about what each person did or failed to do, and include available information about when and where the events occurred, how the conduct violated Berk’s rights, her injuries, and the relief sought. The amended complaint will replace the original complaint rather than supplement it.

Judge Louis L. Stanton’s order dismisses SCRIE and DRIE as defendants, directs the clerk to substitute the City of New York, and grants Berk 60 days from the order’s date to submit an amended complaint. The order states that no summons will issue at that time and that, if Berk does not comply without showing good cause, the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.