Monterroso v. City of New York

Background

On January 31, 2024, the court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court allowed Plaintiff to seek permission to amend her complaint by adding facts that could address deficiencies identified in her claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Fair Housing Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and the Equal Protection Clause.

On March 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed a letter motion for leave to amend. Although the filing was labeled a Second Amended Complaint on the electronic docket, the court treated it as a motion seeking permission to amend. Plaintiff stated that some issues had been resolved, including the violated variance, liens, and Final Certificate of Occupancy, and that she had moved into the home, although other issues remained. Defendants opposed the motion on March 21, 2024.

Reasons for Denying Amendment

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), a party generally may amend a complaint only with the opposing party’s consent or the court’s permission. The court may deny permission when the proposed amendment would be futile, meaning it would not state a legally sufficient claim.

For the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims, the court said the proposed allegations needed to show discrimination because of Plaintiff’s disability, rather than merely showing that the housing was inadequate in light of her disability. The proposed filing described problems with the home, including gravel in the yard, kitchen and bathroom appliance issues, and a defective heating system. But it did not provide a basis to infer that those defects, or Defendants’ refusal to fix them, resulted from disability-based rules or discrimination. The court also said that the 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act Standards for Accessible Design cited by Plaintiff establish requirements for government facilities, public accommodations, and commercial facilities, not private-home design.

For the Fair Housing Act failure-to-accommodate claim, the court said the proposed allegations needed to identify each requested accommodation and explain when and how it was requested. They also needed to provide facts showing that each accommodation was reasonable, including in comparison with any alternative accommodation Defendants proposed. The proposed amended complaint did not provide those details.

For the equal-protection claim based on a “class of one” theory, the court said Plaintiff needed to identify specific comparison individuals and explain how their circumstances were substantially identical to hers. The proposed filing generally alleged that other applicants received design and appliance choices that Plaintiff did not receive. It did not identify any particular applicant or describe how those applicants were substantially identical to Plaintiff.

Disposition

Judge Lorna Schofield ordered that Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend the complaint is denied as futile. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.