Mazzocchi v. Windsor Owners Corp.

Background

Frank Mazzocchi brought the action against Windsor Owners Corp., Tudor Realty Services Corp., Vivienne Gilbert, Maureen Dunphy, James Taylor, Paul Matten, and Nancy Barsotti. He alleges discrimination under Section 3604(f)(2) of the Fair Housing Act. The opinion addresses only the Defendants’ motion to strike Mazzocchi’s jury demand, not the merits of the discrimination allegations.

Mazzocchi signed a proprietary lease on July 31, 1987, after purchasing a cooperative apartment at 5 Tudor City Place, unit 821, in New York City. Section 41 of the lease states that the parties waive a jury trial, to the extent permitted by law, in actions connected with the lease, the use or occupancy of the apartment, or related damage claims. The parties did not dispute that this action arose from Mazzocchi’s use of the apartment and the Defendants’ alleged conduct.

Legal Standard

The Seventh Amendment generally protects the right to a jury trial, but parties may waive that right through a prior written agreement made knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily. Federal law governed whether the lease’s waiver was enforceable because the case was in federal court.

The court considered four factors: whether the lease terms were negotiable and whether the parties discussed the waiver; whether the waiver was conspicuous; the parties’ relative bargaining power; and Mazzocchi’s business experience. The Defendants had the burden of showing that the waiver was knowing and intentional.

Discussion

The court found that the first factor favored the Defendants because Mazzocchi was represented by counsel when he purchased the cooperative shares and signed the lease. The court also found the waiver sufficiently conspicuous. Although it used the same font and typeface as the other lease provisions, it appeared under the capitalized and underlined heading “WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL.”

The Defendants argued that Mazzocchi had substantial business experience as a real estate developer and landlord and had used jury-waiver provisions in leases with his own tenants. The court stated that those later transactions did not establish his bargaining power when he signed the 1987 lease. Even so, the court found those factors less important because Mazzocchi had been represented by counsel. On balance, the court held that the lease’s jury waiver was enforceable.

Mazzocchi also argued that the Defendants had waived enforcement by waiting nearly eleven years to challenge the jury demand. The court explained that a late motion to strike may still be considered unless the opposing party shows both an inexcusable delay and prejudice. Even assuming the delay was inexcusable, the court found no prejudice: no jury had been selected, the Defendants raised the issue in pretrial submissions, and they notified Mazzocchi of the waiver argument about five months before the scheduled trial. The court concluded that requiring a bench trial would not unfairly prejudice him.

Disposition

The court granted the Defendants’ motion to strike the jury demand. It ordered that the trial proceed before the court without a jury, beginning October 24, 2022, as scheduled. The opinion did not resolve whether the Defendants violated the Fair Housing Act.