Logan v. Matveevskii

• Decision Date: 30 March 2016
• Docket Number: Case No. 10-CV-9247 (KMK)
• Citation: 175 F.Supp.3d 209
• Parties: Thomas Logan, Plaintiff, v. Irina Matveevskii, Tuckahoe Housing Authority, Tuckahoe Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, Mark Kamensky, Jeff Zuckerman, Adolpho Orriol, and Mirza Orriol, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

175 F.Supp.3d 209

Thomas Logan, Plaintiff,

v.Irina Matveevskii, Tuckahoe Housing Authority, Tuckahoe Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, Mark Kamensky, Jeff Zuckerman, Adolpho Orriol, and Mirza Orriol, Defendants.

Case No. 10-CV-9247 (KMK)

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed March 30, 2016

Thomas Logan, Tuckahoe, NY, Pro Se.

Joan M. Gilbride, Esq., Kaufman, Borgeest & Ryan, LLP, New York, NY, Counsel for Defendants Irena Matveevskii, Tuckahoe Housing Authority, Jeff Zuckerman, and Mark Kamensky.¹

OPINION & ORDER

KENNETH M. KARAS

, District Judge:

Pro se plaintiff Thomas Logan (“Plaintiff”) brings the instant lawsuit alleging various causes of action against defendants Irina Matveevskii (“Matveevskii”), Tuckahoe Housing Authority (“THA”), Tuckahoe Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, Mark Kamensky (“Kamensky”), and Jeff Zuckerman (“Zuckerman”) (collectively, “Defendants”).² Defendants have moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' Motion is granted.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

The following facts are taken from Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint and, for purposes of this Motion, are accepted as true. Plaintiff currently resides at 31 Midland Place, Apartment 3D, in Tuckahoe, New York. (Third Am. Compl. (“TAC”) ¶ 1 (Dkt. No. 104).) The THA, which was incorporated in 1938 as a not-for-profit public corporation, and is charged with providing affordable housing for low-income families, owns and operates a four-building complex called Sanford Gardens, as well as a single-building complex called Jefferson Gardens. (Id , at unnumbered 1 ¶ 2.) In addition, THA administers 175 Section 8 housing choice vouchers, and receives funding under the “capital fund” program. (Id. , at unnumbered 1 ¶ 2.)³ According to Plaintiff, he contracted with the THA to reside in his current apartment on October 1, 1981, although the Parties had earlier signed a contract stating the terms of the rental agreement lease under the Section 8 housing program in March 1981. (Id. , at unnumbered 1 ¶¶ 3–4; see also id. , at unnumbered 8 ¶¶ 1–2.)⁴

1. Plaintiff's Quest for Reasonable Accommodations

According to Plaintiff, on March 27, 1996, Plaintiff made a written request for a larger apartment to the THA's then-acting Executive Director. (See id. , at unnumbered 2 ¶ 5.) The THA responded that Plaintiff's family composition did not warrant a two-bedroom unit like the one that he currently lived in, but that he would be relocated to the first one-bedroom unit to accommodate his family status. (Id. ) Roughly a year and a half later, on October 30, 1997, Plaintiff received a letter from the Social Security Administration indicating that he was disabled. (Id. , at unnumbered 2 ¶ 6.)

Additionally, on approximately June 19, 2008, according to Plaintiff, the THA was reported to Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) for non-compliance for failing to adequately administer its low-rent program. (See id. , at unnumbered 2 ¶ 7; id. , at unnumbered 8 ¶ 4.) “Within ... this complaint[,] it was found that THA was cited with noncompliance with the Regulations at 24 [C.F.R.] Part 8[,] implementing the provisions of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 that require[ ] that Public Housing maintain a minimum number of units as handicap[ ] accessible.” (Id. , at unnumbered 2 ¶ 7; see also id. , at unnumbered 8–9 ¶ 4) In addition, the THA was “noted to be in non-compliance with the admission policy under HUD regulations 24 CFR 960.206

[ ](b)(2)[ ] that requires that applicants for low-rent housing units be given working family preference if the head of household and spouse or sole member is age 62 or older or is a person with disabilities.” (Id. , at unnumbered 2 ¶ 7; id. , at unnumbered 8–9 ¶ 4.) Despite such regulations, according to Plaintiff, the THA did not extend this preference to disabled persons, giving preference instead to working, non-disabled applicants. (Id. , at unnumbered 2 ¶ 7; see also id. , at unnumbered 9 ¶ 4.)

On or about August 7, 2008, Plaintiff emailed Matveevskii, “describing [his] needs and concerns” as a disabled tenant with a heart condition and a third-floor apartment, to ask for a “reasonable accommodation” for a first-floor apartment at either 31 Midland Place or 25 Midland Place. (Id. , at unnumbered 2 ¶ 8.) Plaintiff's request allegedly went “unanswered and ignored.” (Id. )

On or about March 3, 2010, Plaintiff received a letter from the THA indicating that his rent would be increased from $473 to $527. (Id. , at unnumbered 3 ¶ 9.) Around the same time, Plaintiff “requested reasonable accommodations under the Fair Housing Act” to be moved to a lower floor apartment at either 31 Midland Place or 25 Midland Place. (Id. , at unnumbered 3 ¶ 10.) Additionally, Plaintiff requested a formal hearing to “discuss the delay in providing his reasonable accommodation request,” (id. ), a request apparently acknowledged on July 30, 2014, (see id ., at unnumbered 7 ¶ 32).⁵ The request for a reasonable accommodation was again ignored. (See id. , at unnumbered 3 ¶ 10.) Approximately two weeks later, Plaintiff sent a letter to the THA “Board of Commissioners” and Matveevskii reiterating his earlier requests and asking why he had been overlooked when an apartment in one of the units he requested became available. (Id. , at unnumbered 3 ¶ 11.)

On approximately May 12, 2010, Plaintiff learned that the certified letters he sent to the “Board of [D]irectors” had “never [been] forwarded to them,” despite having signed receipts indicating they were delivered. (Id. , at unnumbered 3 ¶ 12.) Accordingly, as apparently described in a police report, he “slapped ... down” the letters on the table, and Matveevskii, concerned for her safety, called the Tuckahoe Police Department, which was dispatched to 4 Union Place as a result. (See id. (internal quotation marks omitted).)

Throughout the coming months, Plaintiff's submissions relating to his desire to be relocated to a new apartment continued: On October 25, 2010, Plaintiff's orthopedic doctor, Dr. Rozbruch, sent a letter to the THA requesting a “reasonable accommodation,” which was allegedly ignored. (Id. , at unnumbered 3 ¶ 13 (internal quotation marks omitted).) On approximately December 2, 2010, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Matveevskii and the THA. (Id. , at unnumbered 4 ¶ 14.) On April 2, 2011, Plaintiff “requested a FOIA to the Tuckahoe Police Department for a copy of the Police Report where [,] during a [t]enants['] meeting[,] Ms. Matveevskii called 911 to report that Plaintiff was attending the THA tenants meetings with a 'gang' of people coming at her.” (Id. , at unnumbered 4 ¶ 15.)

On approximately July 14, 2011, the THA proposed two offers of what it felt would be “an appropriate accommodation to show a 'good faith' offer for a 'reasonable accommodation,”' but which were inappropriate as “the unit locations [would] place [Plaintiff's] disabled mother and [Plaintiff] in further physical harm,” and, as a result, Plaintiff declined the offers based on concern for their physical safety. (Id. , at unnumbered 5 ¶ 18.) That request was followed up by a “fraudulent offer” for a unit in 31 Midland Place that was not available for immediate occupancy. (Id. , at unnumbered 5 ¶ 19.)

2. The THA's Alleged Acts of Aggression Towards Plaintiff

On approximately May 10, 2011, Defendants allegedly reported Plaintiff to the “Department of Housing,” indicating that “Plaintiff was housing a pedophile.” (Id. , at unnumbered 4 ¶ 16.) As a result, three HUD officers entered Plaintiff's apartment “on the pretense that a pedophile had been living at [his] address for the past 15 years.” (Id. ) Plaintiff gave the officers—who had their guns drawn—permission to search the apartment, and the officers showed Plaintiff and his mother a picture of the person for whom they were looking. (Id. ) Neither Plaintiff nor his mother recognized the person. (Id. ) After the officers finished their search, Plaintiff asked how they came to believe that a pedophile was living at the address. (Id. ) The officers told Plaintiff that someone had called the HUD office from the THA and informed them so. (Id. ) Plaintiff also called Chief Constanza at the Tuckahoe Police Department, who confirmed for Plaintiff that the call came from the THA. (Id. ) At the time the call was placed, Plaintiff and Matveevskii were “in a law[ ]suit ... with the Human Rights Commissioner of Westchester ... regarding violations of Tenants rights.” (Id .)

Approximately a week later, on or about May 18, 2011, Zuckerman, the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners for the THA, wrote a letter to Plaintiff's sister, the substance of which seemed to be that Zuckerman was pressured by others to seek her resignation from some organization affiliated with the THA in light of the perception that Plaintiff's family had been “stealing extraordinary sums of money.”⁶ (Id. , at unnumbered 4–5 ¶ 17.)

3. Lease Terminations and Plaintiff's Search for a New Apartment

On November 4, 2011, THA, or its representatives, “terminated [Plaintiff's] lease without 'good cause,”' and, the same day, refused a request that Plaintiff's brother, John Gunther, be permitted to reside in Plaintiff's apartment to look after John Gunther's 83-year-old disabled mother, Anne Gunther, who lived in the unit, while Plaintiff was “going to be in the hospital for an undisclosed period of time.” (Id. , at unnumbered 5 ¶¶ 20–21.)⁷ Two months later, Plaintiff was served “an affidavit for [e]viction” by Matveevskii and Zuckerman, albeit in a manner that Plaintiff considers to be out of accord with certain legal requirements. (See id. , at unnumbered 5 ¶ 22.) “On or about January 4, 2012[,] Mr. Zuckerman admitted on the affidavit that he had been stalking ... Plaintiff[']s brother John Gunther the entire year of 2011 for the purpose of the affidavit of eviction.” (Id. , at unnumbered 6 ¶ 23.)

In spring 2012, Plaintiff apparently corresponded...