Baez v. New York City Housing Authority

Background

This class action concerns mold and excessive moisture in New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) apartments. The certified class consists of current and future NYCHA residents who have asthma that substantially limits a major life activity and who have mold or excessive moisture in their NYCHA housing. The plaintiffs brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Fair Housing Amendments Act, and Article 15 of the New York State Executive Law.

The parties entered into an original consent decree in 2014. After NYCHA fell out of compliance, the court granted a motion to enforce that decree in 2015 and appointed a special master. The parties later developed a “Mold Busters” program and negotiated a revised consent decree, which the court approved in November 2018. The revised decree incorporated a standard procedure describing how NYCHA was to remediate mold and excessive moisture.

The PACT housing issue

NYCHA’s PACT program converts publicly operated, Section 9-funded developments into Section 8-funded developments that remain owned by NYCHA but are leased to private developers. Those developers renovate the properties and manage day-to-day operations. The incorporated standard procedure states that it applies to Section 9 developments operated by NYCHA and does not apply to privately managed developments, including PACT developments.

The revised consent decree does not expressly mention PACT, RAD, or Section 8-funded housing. It defines “NYCHA public housing developments” as developments receiving Section 9 subsidies and operated by NYCHA. The decree also requires NYCHA to implement the standard procedure across NYCHA’s public housing developments and to inspect and repair roof fans in those developments.

The plaintiffs argued that the decree’s references to “NYCHA’s public housing developments” included PACT housing because NYCHA continued to own those properties. They also argued that the decree’s silence about PACT housing and its other provisions showed that PACT developments were included except where the decree specifically referred to the standard procedure or roof fans. NYCHA argued that the decree excluded PACT developments.

Court’s analysis

The court treated the consent decree as both a contract and a court order and applied ordinary contract-interpretation principles. It emphasized that the incorporated standard procedure was the core remedy for which the parties had bargained. Because that procedure expressly excluded PACT developments, the court concluded that the revised consent decree did not cover Section 8-funded PACT housing.

The court also rejected the argument that the apostrophe in “NYCHA’s public housing developments” created a different meaning from the defined term “NYCHA public housing developments.” Reading the decree as a whole, the court concluded that the terms should be interpreted consistently. It further stated that the drafting history suggested the apostrophe was a drafting error and that the parties intended the provision to conform to the defined term and the standard procedure’s Section 9 limitation.

The court found that the plaintiffs’ interpretation was not reasonable because it would create a gap: PACT housing would supposedly be covered by some obligations but would not be subject to the standard procedure or roof-fan requirements. The court also noted that the parties had not created a separate mold-remediation procedure for PACT developments.

Ruling and remaining issue

The court held that the revised consent decree unambiguously excludes PACT tenants and denied the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the decree. The court did not decide a motion to modify the decree because no such motion was before it and full briefing would be required.

The court nevertheless identified a problem with the decree. PACT tenants remain members of the certified class because they are still NYCHA residents, even though their units were later transferred to PACT. Thus, the decree does not provide injunctive relief to the entire certified class. The parties were directed to meet and submit a joint letter memorandum addressing whether they would propose another revised consent decree covering all class members or submit a schedule for litigating the action.