Baltazar v. Goldfarb Properties

Background

Mynor Federico Nunez Baltazar, appearing without a lawyer, sued Goldfarb Properties, Inc.; Pelican Management, Inc.; Rockaway One Company, LLC; Christopher Miller; Lindsay Heineman (Heck); Michael Koenig; Hal Weiner; Sophia Biraglia; Bettina Equities Company, LLC; and Bettina Equities Management, LLC. He brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA).

Baltazar alleged that medical providers, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Public Housing Authority approved a housing accommodation request and issued him a move voucher. He alleged that the request sought an emergency move to Manhattan or the Bronx to address isolation and segregation that were worsening his medical condition. He claimed that the defendants refused to move him and that his first Section 8 move voucher expired. He also described a second accommodation request, an August 19, 2022 telephone call stating that the request had been approved, and an expected new voucher. He sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and $500,000 in damages.

Court’s Review

Because Baltazar had permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to review the complaint and dismiss it, or any part of it, if it was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, sought relief from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that although it must read a self-represented litigant’s allegations generously, the complaint still had to provide enough factual detail to make a legally viable claim plausible.

Fair Housing Act

The court explained that the FHA prohibits disability discrimination in housing and requires reasonable accommodations when they are necessary to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. A reasonable-accommodation claim generally requires facts showing a disability, the defendant’s knowledge of it, the likely necessity of the accommodation, the accommodation’s reasonableness, and the defendant’s refusal to provide it.

The court assumed, without deciding, that Baltazar had a disability covered by the FHA. It nevertheless found that he had not alleged enough facts showing that the requested accommodation was likely necessary for an equal opportunity to enjoy the dwelling, that it was reasonable, or that a defendant refused to provide it. The court also found no facts showing that his disability was a motivating factor in an adverse action or that, without the accommodation, he had been denied an equal opportunity to enjoy his apartment.

Americans with Disabilities Act

The court discussed Title II of the ADA, which prohibits disability discrimination by public entities, and Title III, which concerns access to public accommodations. It found that, even assuming Baltazar was a qualified individual with a disability protected by Title II, he had not alleged facts showing that the defendants denied him the opportunity to participate in or benefit from their services, programs, or activities, or otherwise discriminated against him because of his disability. The court granted him leave to amend to allege facts supporting a Title II ADA claim.

Preliminary Injunction

Baltazar requested a preliminary injunction, which is an early court order requiring or prohibiting conduct before final judgment. The court held that he had not shown either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious legal questions combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships. The court therefore denied the request for injunctive relief without prejudice to renewal at a later date.

Disposition and Amendment Instructions

The court granted Baltazar 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to identify the relevant people and their actions or failures to act, provide approximate dates and locations, describe his injuries, and state the relief sought. The court explained that the amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so any facts or claims Baltazar wanted to retain had to be repeated.

The court did not issue summonses at that time. It warned that if Baltazar failed to file the amended complaint within the permitted period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order on February 22, 2023.