Hannan v. Torres-Springer

Background

Matthew Hannan, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Amy Rose, Kevin Rodrigues, and Yamile Zarzuela over his removal from an apartment in Henry Hall in Manhattan. The complaint alleged claims under federal, New York State, and New York City law. Hannan alleged that he had paid Jimmie Orr $700 per month to live in the apartment, had keys, registered with building security, and received assistance from building employees when moving in. He claimed that security personnel later restricted his access, refused to let him retrieve his belongings, and threatened to have him arrested.

Hannan’s claims alleged violations of section 1983, federal constitutional rights, the Rehabilitation Act, the Fair Housing Act, Article 1 of the New York Constitution, New York City Administrative Code sections 26-251 and 713, and the Federal Trade Commission Act. The defendants moved to dismiss all claims against them. Hannan filed a document labeled a motion for summary judgment, but the court treated it as his opposition to the motion to dismiss.

Report and Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman recommended granting the motion to dismiss in part and denying it in part. She recommended allowing the Fair Housing Act claim and the New York City Administrative Code section 26-251 claim to proceed. She recommended dismissing the Federal Trade Commission Act claim, section 713 claim, section 1983 claims, and New York State Constitution claim. She also recommended that the Rehabilitation Act claim survive the motion to dismiss.

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the federal case was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which generally prevents a federal district court from reviewing and rejecting a state-court judgment. The court concluded that Hannan’s alleged injury—being removed from the apartment—occurred before the Housing Court issued its order denying his request to regain possession. The alleged eviction therefore was not caused by the state-court judgment.

Fair Housing Act claim

The court adopted the recommendation to deny the motion to dismiss the Fair Housing Act claim. The court held that Hannan plausibly alleged that he was an “aggrieved person,” despite the defendants’ argument that his occupancy was unlawful. The court also concluded that the Fair Housing Act protects against disability discrimination in making a dwelling unavailable or denying it to a renter. Because Hannan alleged that he was evicted because of his disability, the claim could proceed at the pleading stage.

Rehabilitation Act claim

The court dismissed Hannan’s Rehabilitation Act claim against the moving defendants. The court noted that the statute applies to discrimination under a program or activity receiving federal financial assistance and defines that program or activity to include an entire private organization, but not individual employees. Hannan had not alleged that the individual defendants received federal funding. The court also concluded that Hannan could not amend this claim to cure the defect and therefore denied leave to amend it.

New York City Administrative Code section 26-251 claim

The court denied the motion to dismiss Hannan’s claim under New York City Administrative Code section 26-251(a). That provision prohibits certain evictions of an occupant who has lawfully occupied a dwelling for at least 30 consecutive days without a warrant of eviction or other authorized order, including by using or threatening force. The court held that whether Hannan was a lawful licensee depended on facts concerning his rent arrangement with Orr and the defendants’ alleged knowledge of and acquiescence in his occupancy. Dismissal at the motion-to-dismiss stage would therefore be premature.

Section 1983 and New York Constitution claims

The court dismissed Hannan’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the New York State Constitution because the complaint did not plausibly allege that the private defendants were state actors. Government financing of low-income housing, compliance with government regulations, and providing housing were not enough to convert the defendants’ private conduct into state action. Hannan also did not allege facts showing that the defendants and city officials jointly acted to violate his rights.

The court granted Hannan leave to amend these claims, but only to the extent they were based on civil process. He would need to allege facts showing that the defendants and city officials shared an unlawful goal and agreed to deprive him of constitutional rights. The court noted that Hannan could also address in a proposed amended complaint his allegations concerning a later arrest, the identities of Doe defendants, and the organization of his claims, consistent with the court’s instructions.

Section 713 and Federal Trade Commission Act claims

The court dismissed Hannan’s claim under New York City Administrative Code section 713 because the defendants were not required to begin the special proceeding addressed by that provision. It also dismissed the Federal Trade Commission Act claim because there is no private right of action under 15 U.S.C. § 45. The court denied leave to amend both claims, finding that amendment would not cure the defects.

Disposition

The court adopted Judge Freeman’s Report and Recommendation. It granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss as to Hannan’s section 1983 claims, New York State Constitution claims, New York City Administrative Code section 713 claim, Rehabilitation Act claim, and Federal Trade Commission Act claim. It otherwise denied the motion, leaving the Fair Housing Act and section 26-251 claims in the case. Leave to amend was granted for the section 1983 and New York State Constitution claims and otherwise denied. The court also denied Hannan’s request to strike the defendants’ objections as untimely.