Berk v. The City of New York

Background

Jessica Berk proceeded without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. She sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, alleging that defendants violated her rights by denying rent subsidies under the Senior Citizen Rent Increase Exemption and Disabled Rent Increase Exemption programs. The programs were administered by the New York City Department of Finance and the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development.

In an earlier order, the court dismissed claims against the SCRIE and DRIE programs because it found that those programs and the agencies administering them were not entities that could be sued. The court also found that Berk had not alleged facts showing that the denial of benefits was motivated by discrimination or ill will based on her disability, but allowed her to amend.

In her amended complaint, Berk named the City of New York and ten John and Jane Doe defendants. She alleged that she had a permanent, painful wound, pernicious anemia, and other conditions affecting her life functions. She stated that she and her mother had received SCRIE and DRIE subsidies for a rent-controlled apartment, and that her application to renew or recertify the benefits was denied because she could not produce identification. She also alleged that the denial allowed her former landlord to remove the apartment from rent control and rent it at the market rate.

Disability-discrimination claim

The court dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act claim again. It held that the amended complaint still did not allege facts suggesting that the City denied Berk’s SCRIE and DRIE benefits because of her disability or retaliated against her because of it. Instead, the allegations showed that the denial resulted from her failure to produce identification.

Due-process claim

The court also considered Berk’s claim that the identification requirement deprived her of a property interest without due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court explained that public-assistance benefits can qualify as protected property interests and that due process generally requires an opportunity to be heard before a final deprivation.

The court found, however, that Berk did not allege that she was denied an opportunity to be heard. The court stated that she could appeal the benefit denial through the Department of Finance’s administrative appeal process and then seek review in state court through an Article 78 proceeding. Because those procedures were available, the court held that Berk failed to state a due-process claim.

Disposition

The court declined to allow another amendment because Berk had already been given an opportunity to correct the complaint and the court found that the defects could not be cured by further amendment. The court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The opinion does not describe the dismissal as either with prejudice or without prejudice. Judge Louis L. Stanton also directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Berk, note service on the docket, and terminate the other pending matters.