Monterroso v. City of New York

Background

Cynthia Monterroso proceeded without a lawyer and sued the City of New York and the Mayor’s Office for Housing Recovery Operations. She alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Fair Housing Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Monterroso alleged that Hurricane Sandy destroyed her home and belongings in 2012 and that the defendants later constructed a replacement home through the Build-It-Back Program, using a grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. She alleged that the home had no final certificate of occupancy, that work permits remained open, and that various features—including the yard, driveway, lift, bathtub, toilet, attic access, heating and cooling system, kitchen, and repair-appointment requirements—were incompatible with her disabilities. She also alleged construction, warranty, accommodation, and unequal-treatment problems. The opinion notes that the defendants later reported that a final certificate of occupancy had issued and that Monterroso had moved into the home, but the court evaluated the motion based on the complaint’s allegations.

ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims

The court granted the motion to dismiss these claims. It accepted that Monterroso was a qualified individual with a disability, that the Build-It-Back Program was a public entity’s program, and that the defendants received federal funding. But the court found that the complaint did not allege facts showing that the defendants discriminated against her because of her disability.

The court considered intentional discrimination and failure-to-accommodate theories. It concluded that the allegations described inadequate housing for Monterroso’s disabilities, rather than housing denied or made unavailable because of her disabilities. The court therefore held that the complaint did not state a claim under either the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Rehabilitation Act.

Fair Housing Act and New York State Human Rights Law claims

The court considered a Fair Housing Act reasonable-accommodation claim even though the complaint’s allegations under that statute were limited, because Monterroso was representing herself. It also considered the related New York State Human Rights Law claim. The court dismissed these claims because the complaint did not sufficiently allege that requested accommodations were related to her disabilities, were necessary for equal use and enjoyment of the home, were reasonable, and had been refused.

The court noted that the complaint acknowledged that the defendants had offered repairs, issued temporary certificates of occupancy, and made some disability-related changes, including installing a lift and an accessible kitchen. The court stated that a sufficient amended claim would need to identify each requested accommodation, explain when and how it was requested, show why it was reasonable and necessary, and allege that the defendants denied it or a reasonable alternative.

Fourteenth Amendment claims

The court granted the motion to dismiss the due-process and equal-protection claims. Regarding due process, the court held that the delayed final certificate of occupancy did not establish a constitutional violation because the complaint did not allege that Monterroso was barred from seeking a certificate through the usual administrative process or that her request would inevitably be denied. The temporary certificates of occupancy also undermined the alleged deprivation of property without adequate process.

Regarding equal protection, the court rejected the allegations that Monterroso was treated differently from other program applicants. For a “class of one” claim, a plaintiff must identify specific comparators who are extremely similar, explain the similarities and differences in treatment, and allege that no legitimate government policy could justify the difference. The court found Monterroso’s allegations too conclusory and insufficiently specific.

Punitive damages

The court ruled that punitive damages were unavailable because both defendants were municipal entities and no statute expressly authorized punitive damages against them in this action.

Request to pause or dismiss based on the state case

The defendants asked the court to stay or dismiss the federal case while Monterroso’s related state-court Article 78 proceeding continued. The court denied that request. It found that the state and federal cases were not parallel because the state petition did not assert the federal claims raised in this case and sought different relief. The court added that, even if the proceedings had been parallel, the relevant factors would not have supported declining jurisdiction.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It allowed Monterroso to file, by February 29, 2024, a letter requesting permission to file a second amended complaint and attaching additional facts addressing the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, Fair Housing Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and equal-protection deficiencies. The court denied leave to amend the due-process claim because it found no factual allegations that could provide a legally sufficient basis for that claim. The court stated that the case would be closed if Monterroso did not seek leave to amend.