Sykes v. New York City Housing Authority

Background

Derry Sykes, representing himself and proceeding without having to pay the filing fee, sued the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). He alleged that NYCHA failed to make necessary repairs to his apartment, including addressing mold, a partially collapsed bathroom ceiling, water leaks, damaged areas, and a possible electrical-fire danger. He asserted claims under the Fair Housing Act, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that allows claims for certain violations of federal rights by state or local actors. He sought immediate repairs.

The court initially determined that the original complaint did not state a claim but allowed Sykes to amend it. After an April 4, 2022 hearing, NYCHA reported that it had begun repairs, including work on the walls, ceilings, toilet, water pressure, and kitchen electrical outlet. NYCHA later reported that most repairs were complete and then stated that the remaining repairs had also been completed. Sykes confirmed that most major repairs were finished but maintained that mold, fungi, or mildew remained. NYCHA had investigated and reported finding no mold.

Court’s Analysis

The court treated Sykes’s amended complaint and an accompanying letter as asserting three groups of claims: disability discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act; failure to provide a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act; and constitutional claims under Section 1983.

For the Fair Housing Act discrimination claims, the court held that Sykes did not allege facts suggesting that his disability motivated NYCHA’s failure to make repairs. For the reasonable-accommodation claim, he did not allege facts showing that he requested a reasonable accommodation, that the accommodation was necessary to give him an equal opportunity to use and enjoy his apartment, or that NYCHA refused such an accommodation. The court also rejected his position that his disability alone entitled his apartment to higher repair priority.

For the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims, the court held that Sykes did not allege that NYCHA denied him the opportunity to participate in or benefit from its services, programs, or activities, or otherwise discriminated against him because of his disability. He also did not allege that NYCHA failed to repair the apartment because of his disability.

For the Section 1983 claims, the court held that there is no federal constitutional right to housing of a particular quality, including safe and sanitary housing. The court also concluded that Sykes did not allege a NYCHA policy, custom, or practice that caused a constitutional violation or deliberately discriminated against people with disabilities. It further stated that disability is not a suspect or quasi-suspect classification for equal-protection purposes.

Disposition

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 court separately stated that the requested repair relief was unavailable because NYCHA represented that the repairs had been completed, making the matter moot, but the conclusion expressly dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.