Clark v. New York City Housing Authority
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:20-cv-00251
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Clark v. New York City Housing Authority, Judge Engelmayer denied NYCHA’s pleadings motion, finding an earlier state case did not preclude Clark’s asbestos claims.
La’Shaun Clark and the New York City Housing Authority; the court denied NYCHA’s motion to bar Clark’s claim based on the earlier state-court decision.
What happened
Clark v. New York City Housing Authority concerns La’Shaun Clark’s allegation that she suffered injuries after exposure to asbestos particles in an NYCHA apartment that NYCHA failed to remove or warn her about.
NYCHA asked the court to reject Clark’s claim because an earlier state-court lawsuit involving mold, asbestos, and lead in her apartment had already been decided. The court considered whether that earlier decision had actually decided whether asbestos was present in the apartment during the relevant period.
Because the earlier case had not necessarily decided that issue, the court adopted Magistrate Judge Gorenstein’s recommendation and denied NYCHA’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Judge Engelmayer also stated that the parties’ failure to object waived appellate review of the recommendation.
The detailed version
- Clark v. New York City Housing Authority · No. 1:20-cv-00251
- Paul Engelmayer
- Jan. 12, 2021
Background
La’Shaun Clark, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that she was exposed to asbestos particles while living in an apartment operated by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). She alleged that NYCHA failed to remove the asbestos or notify her about it and that the exposure caused personal injuries. The case also named New York Insulation & Environmental Services, Inc., JLC Environmental Consultants, Inc., and Rockmills Steel Products Corp. as defendants.
NYCHA moved for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to dismiss Clark’s claim based on collateral estoppel. Collateral estoppel is a rule that can prevent a party from relitigating an issue that an earlier case actually and necessarily decided. NYCHA relied on an earlier state-court lawsuit by Clark concerning mold, asbestos, and lead in her apartment, in which the state court granted summary judgment against her.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein recommended denying NYCHA’s motion. He concluded that the earlier state-court action did not actually or necessarily decide whether asbestos was present in Clark’s apartment at any relevant time.
No party objected to the recommendation. As a result, the district court reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake apparent from the record. The court found no such error and adopted the recommendation in full.
Ruling
The court denied NYCHA’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The ruling addressed whether the earlier state-court decision precluded Clark’s claim; it did not decide the underlying question of whether asbestos was present or whether Clark proved her alleged injuries. The court also stated that the parties’ failure to file objections waived appellate review of the recommendation. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket 39 and mail a copy of the decision to Clark.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.