United States v. 111 East 88th Partners

Background

The United States sued 111 East 88th Partners under the Fair Housing Act, a federal law that prohibits housing discrimination. The Government alleged that the landlord violated the Act by denying reasonable accommodations for Gregory Reich’s disabilities—specifically, permission to keep an emotional support dog—and by interfering with Reich’s exercise of his housing rights through coercion, intimidation, and threats.

Reich had lived in the apartment his entire life. His lease required written permission to keep a dog, but he had kept dogs there since 1997. After an earlier state-court case concerning his dog was dismissed in the landlord’s favor, Reich made new accommodation requests in 2015 and 2017. Those requests were supported by letters from his therapist and medical providers. The letters described his depression, end-stage kidney disease, dialysis treatments, and the claimed importance of a dog to his emotional and physical health.

In response, the landlord requested extensive medical and therapy records, medical testing information, and possible examinations and sworn testimony. In 2017, after receiving additional medical records through discovery, the landlord again requested extensive medical information and served Reich with a notice requiring removal of his new dog or facing termination of the tenancy.

Motions and defenses

Both sides moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows that no genuine dispute over an important fact requires a trial and that the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

The landlord argued that the case was barred by res judicata, also called claim preclusion, which can prevent later litigation of claims that were or could have been resolved in an earlier case. It also invoked collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, which can prevent relitigation of an issue actually decided in an earlier proceeding. The landlord further relied on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which generally prevents a federal district court from functioning as an appeal court reviewing a state-court judgment. Finally, the landlord argued that it had not denied Reich’s accommodation requests.

The Government sought summary judgment on the landlord’s claim-preclusion and issue-preclusion defenses.

Preclusion defenses

The court granted the Government’s motion on the res judicata and collateral estoppel defenses. It held that the federal government was not in privity with the New York State Division of Human Rights in the earlier state-court litigation. Although the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development had referred Reich’s earlier complaint to that state agency, the evidence showed that the state agency was responsible for filing and prosecuting the state case and that HUD did not participate in the litigation, the motion that led to dismissal, or the decision not to appeal.

The court also gave an independent reason for rejecting the defenses: the earlier state case did not involve the same issues and facts. Reich’s end-stage kidney disease and dialysis regimen arose after that case was dismissed, and the current claims also concerned the landlord’s later demands for medical information and potential examinations. The court therefore concluded that the earlier state judgment did not bar the Government’s claims.

The court denied the landlord’s Rooker-Feldman defense. The Government had not lost in the earlier state case because it was not a party to that case, and the Government was not asking the federal court to review and reject the state judgment. Instead, the federal case involved later accommodation requests and an independent claim that the landlord interfered with Reich’s rights by demanding extensive medical information.

Constructive denial

The Fair Housing Act requires a plaintiff claiming failure to provide a reasonable accommodation to show, among other things, that the person has a qualifying disability, the defendant knew or should have known about it, the accommodation may be necessary for equal use and enjoyment of the dwelling, and the defendant refused the accommodation. A refusal can be actual or constructive. A constructive denial occurs when a defendant’s conduct effectively rejects a request without expressly saying no.

The court held that the evidence created a genuine factual dispute over whether the landlord constructively denied Reich’s 2015 and 2017 requests. The landlord had demanded therapist notes, medical records, medical tests, possible psychiatric examination, and sworn testimony. The court also considered evidence that the landlord may have intended to reject the requests regardless of the additional information and that it pursued eviction-related action while seeking the information.

Because a reasonable jury could determine that these actions amounted to constructive denials, the court denied the landlord’s summary-judgment motion on the accommodation claims. The court did not determine that the landlord ultimately violated the Fair Housing Act; it determined that the claims presented factual issues requiring trial.

Disposition

The court denied 111 East 88th Partners’ motion for summary judgment in its entirety. It granted the Government’s motion for summary judgment on the landlord’s res judicata and collateral estoppel defenses. The court stated that the case would proceed to trial.