Fair Housing Justice Center, Inc. v. Lighthouse Living LLC

Background

Fair Housing Justice Center, Inc. alleged that several defendants owned, developed, managed, or designed three apartment properties that contained features inaccessible to wheelchair users. The properties were the Light House in Port Chester, New York; the Wood Works in Harrison, New York; and One Dekalb in White Plains, New York. The alleged problems included inaccessible entrances, mailboxes, environmental controls, rooftop access, and insufficient space in kitchens or bathrooms.

The organization used testers—people who posed as relatives or friends of prospective renters with disabilities—to investigate the properties. It asserted claims under the federal Fair Housing Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. The motions addressed in this opinion were filed by Lighthouse Living Realty LLC and Papp Architects, P.C.

Realty’s Motion

Realty argued that the amended complaint relied on conclusory allegations and that Realty was only a third-party broker with no control over the properties’ design, construction, or modification. Fair Housing Justice Center alleged, on information and belief, that Realty participated in those activities. It pointed to Realty’s shared name and office with other Lighthouse entities, its participation in leasing at One Dekalb, and a Realty representative’s statement to testers that “we” could install accommodations.

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court generally accepts well-supported factual allegations as true and asks whether they plausibly show an entitlement to relief. The court declined to consider facts in private declarations, Realty’s operating agreement, and its organizational chart. It did take judicial notice of public entity-information printouts from the New York State Department of State.

The court held that the allegations, considered together, plausibly suggested that Realty participated in the properties’ development or had authority to remedy inaccessible features. The fact that Realty had a different registered agent from the other Lighthouse entities did not establish at this stage that Realty was completely separate from them or did not participate in the properties’ development. The court therefore denied Realty’s motion to dismiss.

Papp’s Motion

Papp argued that the Fair Housing Act and New York State Human Rights Law claims were untimely. The federal law generally requires an action to be filed within two years after the occurrence or termination of the alleged discriminatory housing practice. Papp argued that a design-and-construction claim accrued when the architect completed its final work or when the final certificate of occupancy was issued.

Fair Housing Justice Center argued that the limitations period did not begin until a person encountered the inaccessible features, or that the continuing-violation doctrine applied. That doctrine can extend the filing period when the plaintiff alleges an unlawful practice that continued into the limitations period.

The court held that the continuing-violation doctrine applied. The amended complaint alleged that Papp provided architectural services for all three properties, that the properties had similar accessibility defects, and that Papp and related entities regularly designed and constructed multifamily housing that did not comply with federal accessibility requirements. The court found that these allegations described a pattern that included conduct within the two-year federal limitations period. It also held that the continuing-violation doctrine applied to the New York claim, which has a three-year limitations period.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman denied Realty’s motion to dismiss and denied Papp’s motion to dismiss. The conclusion states that the motions to dismiss the amended complaint were denied without prejudice. Realty and Papp were directed to answer the amended complaint by October 12, 2021. Because this was a ruling on motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court decided whether the allegations could proceed, not whether the alleged housing violations were ultimately proven.