Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.MixedFiled Aug. 23, 2023

Leslie v. The Corcoran Group

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:21-cv-05414
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil RightsSummary JudgmentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Leslie v. The Corcoran Group: Judge Oetken granted summary judgment on federal discrimination claims and dismissed state and city claims without prejudice to refiling in state court.

Who this affects

Gayle Leslie and Michael Jackson lost their federal race-discrimination claims against Craig Hollander and The Corcoran Group. Their New York City and New York State income-discrimination claims were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.

What happened

In Leslie v. The Corcoran Group, Gayle Leslie and Michael Jackson said Craig Hollander and The Corcoran Group discriminated against them based on race and income during an apartment lease application.

The court granted the defendants summary judgment on the federal race-discrimination claims under the Fair Housing Act and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982. The court dismissed the New York City and New York State income-discrimination claims without prejudice to refiling in state court after declining to decide those claims.

Judge James Oetken closed the case after issuing these rulings.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Leslie v. The Corcoran Group · No. 1:21-cv-05414
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Aug. 23, 2023

Background

Gayle Leslie and Michael Jackson sued Craig Hollander and The Corcoran Group over alleged discrimination connected to their application to lease an apartment. The amended complaint asserted federal race-discrimination claims under the Fair Housing Act and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981–1982, along with income-discrimination claims under the New York City Human Rights Law and New York State Human Rights Law.

The defendants jointly moved for summary judgment on all claims. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the record shows that no genuine dispute requiring a trial remains. The defendants argued that the federal race-discrimination claims failed under the legal framework used to evaluate discrimination claims. The plaintiffs did not respond to those arguments or the supporting evidence; they addressed only their state and city income-discrimination claims.

Ruling

The court held that the plaintiffs had abandoned their federal race-discrimination claims. It treated the defendants’ supported statements and arguments that the plaintiffs did not dispute at the summary-judgment stage as admitted. The court therefore granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the Fair Housing Act claim and the claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982.

After resolving the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to decide related state-law claims in the same case, over the remaining New York City and New York State claims. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. The Clerk was directed to close the motion docket entry and the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.