Gambaro v. 1917 ACP Owner LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-07855
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Gambaro v. 1917 ACP Owner LLC: Judge Abrams lifted the stay and dismissed the Fair Housing Act case without prejudice.
Jeanette Gambaro and Joseph Gambaro must obtain permission to sue Bruce Lederman before restarting the federal action; the case was closed, and the dismissal was without prejudice.
What happened
In Gambaro v. 1917 ACP Owner LLC, Jeanette Gambaro and Joseph Gambaro sued over alleged failures to reasonably accommodate them while their apartment building’s only elevator was not working.
The defendants argued that the case could not continue because the plaintiffs had not obtained permission from the New York state court that appointed Bruce Lederman as the property’s temporary receiver. That court later denied the plaintiffs’ request for permission to sue Lederman and certain related defendants. The plaintiffs asked the federal court to keep the case paused while they pursued further proceedings in state court.
Judge Ronnie Abrams lifted the stay and dismissed the case without prejudice to restarting it if the plaintiffs obtain permission to sue Lederman. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Gambaro v. 1917 ACP Owner LLC · No. 1:22-cv-07855
- Ronnie Abrams
- Jan. 19, 2024
Background
Jeanette Gambaro and Joseph Gambaro brought a Fair Housing Act action against 1917 ACP Owner LLC, Bruce Lederman, Sharp Management Corp., and The Clearstone Group Inc. They alleged that the defendants failed to reasonably accommodate them while the sole elevator in their apartment building was inoperable. The defendants had moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.
Lederman had been appointed temporary receiver of the property by the New York Supreme Court for New York County on May 11, 2021. The defendants argued that the federal case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs had not obtained permission from that appointing court to sue Lederman. The federal court had stayed the action while the plaintiffs pursued permission in state court.
State-Court Decision and Request to Continue the Stay
The New York Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ request for leave to sue Lederman, Sharp Management Corp., and The Clearstone Group Inc. on December 1, 2023. The plaintiffs said they planned to seek reargument and, if unsuccessful, appeal. They asked the federal court to keep the stay in place while those state-court proceedings continued.
The federal court explained that, when a plaintiff has not obtained permission from the court that appointed a receiver, a court may allow the case to continue subject to the appointing court’s later decision, stay the case while the plaintiff seeks permission, or dismiss the case without prejudice to restarting it after permission is obtained. The court also applied the four-factor test for staying a case while a related appeal is pending: likelihood of success, irreparable injury without a stay, harm to other parties, and the public interest.
Ruling
The court found that the plaintiffs had not made the required strong showing that they were likely to succeed in challenging the state-court decision. Their statement that the state-court decision was not based on well-settled law and facts was conclusory and insufficient. The court also found that the plaintiffs would not suffer irreparable injury because the federal action would be dismissed without prejudice.
Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the defendants’ application to lift the stay. The case was dismissed without prejudice to recommencement if the plaintiffs obtain leave to sue Lederman. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The opinion did not decide the underlying Fair Housing Act allegations.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.