Logan v. Matveevskii

• Decision Date: 29 September 2014
• Docket Number: Case No. 10–CV–9247 KMK.
• Citation: 57 F.Supp.3d 234
• Parties: Thomas LOGAN, Plaintiff, v. Irina MATVEEVSKII, Jeff Zuckerman, Mark Kamensky, Tuckahoe Housing Authority, Adolfo Carrión, and Mirza Orriols, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

57 F.Supp.3d 234

Thomas LOGAN, Plaintiff

v.Irina MATVEEVSKII, Jeff Zuckerman, Mark Kamensky, Tuckahoe Housing Authority, Adolfo Carrión, and Mirza Orriols, Defendants.

Case No. 10–CV–9247 KMK.

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

Signed Sept. 29, 2014.

Thomas Logan, Tuckahoe, NY, pro se.

Joan M. Gilbride, Esq., Kaufman, Borgeest & Ryan, L.L.P., New York, NY, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge:

Plaintiff Thomas Logan (“Logan”), proceeding pro se, brings this Action against Defendants Irina Matveevskii (“Matveevskii”), Jeff Zuckerman (“Zuckerman”), Mark Kamensky (“Kamensky”), Tuckahoe Housing Authority (“THA”), Adolfo Carrión (“Carrión”), and Mirza Orriols (“Orriols”).¹ Matveevskii, Zuckerman, Kamensky, and THA (collectively, “the THA Defendants”) move for summary judgment, while Carrión and Morales (collectively, “the HUD Defendants”) move to dismiss the claims asserted against them. For the following reasons, the THA Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, as is the HUD Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Plaintiff is a resident of 31 Midland Place in Tuckahoe, New York, where he has lived for “[a]pproximately 27 to 30 years.” (Thomas Logan Dep. Tr. 8, Apr. 22, 2013 (“Logan Dep. Tr.”); see also THA Defs.' Statement of Material Facts Pursuant to Local R. 56.1 (“THA Defs.' Rule 56.1 Statement”) ¶ 1 (“Plaintiff ... has been a resident of 31 Midland Place ... for approximately twenty-seven to thirty years.”).) Plaintiff lives in a third-floor apartment at 31 Midland Place with his mother, Anne Gunther, and his brother, John Gunther. (THA Defs.' Rule 56.1 Statement ¶¶ 1–2.) 31 Midland Place is one of “nine residential buildings containing approximately 149 units” that THA “owns and operates” as “federal subsidized housing for the Tuckahoe community.” (THA Defs.' Rule 56.1 Statement ¶ 3; see also Logan Dep. Tr. 18 (“Q: And you're familiar with Tuckahoe Housing Authority? A: Yes. Q: And can you explain what it is? A: It's a low to middle income housing development, HUD.”).) Matveevskii is THA's Executive Director, which position she assumed on January 1, 2008, while Zuckerman is Chairman of the THA Board of Commissioners. (See THA Defs.' Rule 56.1 Statement ¶¶ 4–6.) Kamensky is THA's General Counsel, and Adalgisa Jones (“Jones”), not named as a defendant in this Action, is a THA Office Assistant. (See id. ¶¶ 7–8, 10.)

Plaintiff claims that he has been diagnosed with multiple disabilities, the first of which relates to a heart condition for which he underwent quadruple bypass surgery. (Logan Dep. Tr. 17.) At some point, he also “fell down a flight of stairs,” which accident required him to undergo a knee-replacement operation. (Id. ) “The combination of [these] two things left [Plaintiff] very disabled.” (Id. ) For the purposes of their Motions, Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff is currently disabled, nor do they dispute that Plaintiff was disabled at all times relevant to the instant Action.

In his deposition, Plaintiff stated that at some point, in order to accommodate his disabilities, he “request[ed] a lower floor apartment” in correspondence with Eric De Esso (“De Esso”), who preceded Matveevskii as THA Executive Director. (Id. at 20.) Plaintiff included this correspondence in his Amended Complaint. In a March 27, 1996 letter to Plaintiff, De Esso wrote that, “[i]n review of [Plaintiff's] file and current family composition, [Plaintiff's] family require[d] a one bedroom apartment unit,” but at the time that the letter was written, Plaintiff's family “occup[ied] a two bedroom apartment unit.” (Pl.'s Ex. 7, at 5.)² Because “Federal Regulations for Public Housing provide that Family Composition must be commensurate with size of dwelling unit,” De Esso “advised [Plaintiff] that [he] [would] be relocated to the first available one bedroom apartment unit to accommodate [his] family status.” (Id. )

Plaintiff appears to have responded on the same day, in a letter in which he referenced the fall that led to his knee injury

, and the existence of a civil suit against THA based on that fall. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff then wrote the following:

Under the tenants' right guide, Landlord are required to provide reasonable accommodation for tenants with a disabilities so they may enjoy equal access to and use of housing accommodations. Under the disability Act of 1987; 24 C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations), part 8 relating to public housing authority responsibility to make facilities handicapped accessible. I am putting your office on notices at THA.

Last and far from less my senior mother is come to live with me and her name will be add to my lease. If there any problems please feel free to contact me, and then our lawyers can go in front of a federal Judge to discuss the matter at hand.

(Id. )

In his deposition, Plaintiff characterized this letter as follows:

I had sent documentations ... requesting a lower floor apartment with the prior director, Mr. De Esso. He informed me that I needed ... a one-bedroom apartment, and I informed him that just prior to that, I added my mother to the lease, so we kept the two-bedroom, but because of my disability, I asked him, requested for a lower floor apartment. And I was the next person on the list.

(Logan Dep. Tr. 20.)

The next document in Plaintiff's submissions that could potentially be construed as a communication between Plaintiff and THA is what appears to be a letter from Plaintiff addressed to Matveevskii and dated August 7, 2008, more than 12 years after Plaintiff's communication with De Esso:

Please be advised that I writing you about my concerns of being a disable tenant with a heart condition and about to have a left knee replacement in this month, which came about from a fall in your hallway somewhere between the late 80's and the early 90's and my MOTHER, who is now 83 years old and is using a walker after she had her total knee replacement

and we are living on the 3rd floor of 31 Midland Place.

Since 1997 in my file you have many letter copies of my SSD and SSI information on my disability and copies of my Coronary Artery bypass grafts

. The total my mother knee replacement and mines soon come these stairs will become too much for us ... I should be placed on the first floor apartments. In 31 Midland and 25 Midland, for these two building have the fewest amount of steps of all the Housing building. In view of the facts that whenever an apartment becomes available in one of these building we are never asked if we would like a lower floor apartment. Effective January 26, 1992, Title II of the ADA required PHAs to have a minimum of 5 percent of the total dwelling units, or at least one unit (whichever is greater), must be made accessible for persons with mobility impairments. And I am wondering why THA has not tried to give us Reasonable Accommodations.

(Pl.'s Ex. 7, at 22 (alteration in original).)

Plaintiff submitted a similar document addressed to Matveevskii dated March 7, 2010:

Please be notify that a letter was written back in March 27, 1996 by Mr. De Esso the formal director of THA and my response was that I was putting THA on notices that I would be needing apartment for the disable.

Effective 1–26–1992, the federal court has mandated that a minimum of the total dwelling unit at THA. There have been at least 4 first floor apartments between 31 Midland Place and 25 Midland Place. I writing to asked you why has my request for a lower apartment on this side; which has the fewest steps than all other building units in THA.

I have submitted Doctor notes that go back to the late 80's to the present time that should be in my files, which states my heart condition, to 5 knee operation and finally a total left knee replacement.

(Pl.'s Ex. 8, at 1.)

Plaintiff further submitted another such letter, also dated March 7, 2010, but this time addressed to the “THA Broad [sic] of Commissioner,” in which he repeated much of what he wrote in the preceding documents:

Please be advised that I writing you and the Broad of Commissioners about my concerns of being a disable tenant with a heart condition and a replace left knee, which came about from a follow in your hallway and my MOTHER, who is now 84 years old and is using a walker living on the 3rd floor of 31 Midland Place.

Since 1997 in my file you have many letter copies of my SSD and SSI information on my disability and Now that my mother has had a total knee replacement

like myself these stairs are become too much for us ... If needed Ms. Irina Matveevskii, I will get another note from my Doctor stating that I should be placed on the first floor. Since 31 Midland and 32 Midland are the only two building with the fewest amount of steps ... In view of the facts that whenever an apartment becomes available in one of these buildings we are never asked if we would like a lower floor apartment.

So I am now requesting a form hearing to discuss with you and the broad of commissions what seems to be the problem ... Because under the APPLICABILITY: This Notice applies to all public housing programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance either directly or indirectly from the Office of Public and Indian Housing. Federal financial assistance and programs or activities are both defined very broadly. See 24 C.F.R. § 8.3 for the regulatory definitions.

Effective January 26, 1992, Title II of the ADA required PHAs to conduct a self-evaluation of their current services, policies and practices. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.105 and 35.150(d). It is time for another evaluation by FHEO look at THA Policies New Construction [see 24 C.F.R. § 8.22(a) and (b) ]. A minimum of 5 percent of the total dwelling units, or at least one unit (whichever is greater), must be made accessible for persons with mobility impairments. And additional minimum of 2 percent of the units, or at least one unit (whichever is greater) must be made accessible for persons with hearing or vision impairments. In circumstances

...