Ayala v. Saw Mill Lofts, LLC

Background

Jessica Ayala, individually and as guardian for Victor Rios, and Westchester Residential Opportunities, Inc. sued Saw Mill Lofts, LLC and Ginsburg Development Companies, LLC. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants failed to design and construct the Saw Mill Lofts apartment buildings in compliance with accessibility requirements under the federal Fair Housing Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the Westchester County Fair Housing Law.

The discovery dispute concerned plaintiffs’ request for leases and lease renewals for all residential apartments at Saw Mill Lofts over a seven-year period. Plaintiffs argued that the records could identify apartments occupied when a 2016 consent order required Ginsburg Development Companies to retain a reviewer to assess Fair Housing Act compliance. They also relied on testimony that accessibility modifications could not have been completed sooner because many units were continuously occupied.

At a May 12, 2023 conference, the court denied plaintiffs’ request to compel the records. The court reasoned that leases would show whether units were occupied, but would not show whether the units complied with accessibility laws. The court said more targeted records might be relevant if a tester had identified a specific apartment with a problem and defendants claimed that apartment was unavailable for modification until a particular date.

Motion for Reconsideration

Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available only when the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters that could reasonably change its decision. A party may not use the motion simply to repeat earlier arguments or present evidence that could have been obtained through due diligence.

Plaintiffs did not contend that the court had overlooked controlling legal authority. Instead, they largely repeated their prior arguments about the relevance of the requested discovery. The court therefore declined to reconsider its earlier ruling on that basis.

Plaintiffs also argued that temporary certificates of occupancy obtained after the May 12 conference showed that defendants’ testimony about apartment occupancy at the time of the 2016 consent order was inaccurate. The court found that the certificates were not newly available evidence. Plaintiffs had learned about them at an April 19, 2023 deposition, had requested them at that deposition, and did not show that they followed up before the discovery hearing. The court also noted that the certificates were publicly available.

Ruling

The court further held that, even if the certificates were treated as newly available, they would not change the earlier decision. The court already knew that at least one certificate had been issued after the 2016 consent order, and plaintiffs still had not shown how leases for 66 units over seven years would lead to evidence about accessibility compliance without information about the units’ earlier conditions.

Judge Judith C. McCarthy denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion. The opinion ruled on the discovery request and did not resolve the merits of plaintiffs’ accessibility claims.