Clark v. New York City Housing Authority

Background

La’Shaun Clark, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), New York Insulation & Environmental Services (NYIES), JLC Environmental Consultants, Inc. (JLC), and Rockmills Steel Products Corp. The opinion describes the defendants as state and private entities. Clark alleged that she was exposed to asbestos and crystalline silica while living in apartment 1H in NYCHA housing between 2004 and 2012. She alleged that NYIES performed asbestos-abatement work before her tenancy, used a product called Ardex, and that NYCHA failed to disclose the product’s use and the presence of crystalline silica.

The magistrate judge construed Clark’s amended complaint as asserting two claims: a common-law negligence claim for personal injuries against all defendants and a fraudulent-concealment claim against NYCHA. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence presents a genuine factual dispute requiring a trial. Clark filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

Court’s Analysis

The court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. For the personal-injury claim, the court explained that a toxic-substance plaintiff must prove both general causation—the substance’s ability to cause the type of injury alleged—and specific causation—that the substance caused the plaintiff’s particular injuries. The court found that Clark offered no expert testimony or other competent evidence establishing general causation. Her personal opinion was not enough, and the court determined that expert evidence was required because the connection between the alleged exposure and her medical conditions would not be obvious to a layperson.

For fraudulent concealment, the court found that Clark had not presented enough evidence that NYCHA concealed a material fact. The court reasoned that the use of Ardex or the presence of crystalline silica would matter to a reasonable person deciding whether to lease the apartment only if the silica remained present during Clark’s tenancy and was hazardous to health or safety. The record lacked competent evidence about the levels of crystalline silica in the apartment during that period.

The court rejected Clark’s argument that NYCHA’s handling of its answer meant that the allegations against it had to be treated as admitted. NYCHA had filed an amended answer to Clark’s proposed amended complaint, and the court treated that filing as its response. The court also rejected Clark’s request for more time to obtain an expert, finding that she had several opportunities to do so and had not shown the required justification for reopening or extending expert discovery. The court noted that she had contacted at least two potential experts, who declined to take her case.

Rulings and Disposition

Judge Engelmayer accepted and adopted the magistrate judge’s September 14, 2022 report and recommendation in its entirety. The court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, denied Clark’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed Clark’s claims with prejudice. To the extent Clark sought reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order denying additional time for expert discovery and leave to amend, the court denied that motion because another amendment would be futile and her explanation did not justify reopening discovery.

The court also dismissed the claims against Rockmills because Clark had not served that defendant, despite having been warned that the deadline for service had expired and having had nearly two years to seek an extension. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions, dismiss all defendants and pending claims, and close the case.