Mhany Mgmt. Inc. v. Inc., 05–CV–2301 (ADS)(WDW).

• Decision Date: 17 March 2014
• Docket Number: No. 05–CV–2301 (ADS)(WDW).,05–CV–2301 (ADS)(WDW).
• Citation: 4 F.Supp.3d 549
• Parties: MHANY MANAGEMENT INC., Plaintiff, and New York Communities for Change, Inc., Intervenor–Plaintiff, v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF GARDEN CITY and Garden City Board of Trustees, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

4 F.Supp.3d 549

MHANY MANAGEMENT INC., Plaintiff,andNew York Communities for Change, Inc., Intervenor–Plaintiff,

v.INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF GARDEN CITY and Garden City Board of Trustees, Defendants.

No. 05–CV–2301 (ADS)(WDW).

United States District Court,

E.D. New York.

Signed March 17, 2014.

Law Offices of Frederick K. Brewington, by: Frederick K. Brewington, Esq., of Counsel, Hempstead, NY, for the Plaintiffs.

Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, by: Joseph D. Rich, Esq., Linda H. Mullenbach, Esq., Abigail E. Shafroth, Esq., of Counsel, Washington, DC, for the Plaintiffs.

Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, by: Stanley J. Brown, Esq., Peter J. Dennin, Esq., Chava Brandriss, Esq., Andrew J. Sein, Esq., Sarah J. Gregory, Esq., Benjamin A. Fleming, Esq., Carol H. Cheng, Esq. of Counsel, New York, NY, for the Plaintiff Mhany Management Inc.

Cullen and Dykman, LLP, by: James G. Ryan, Esq., Ariel E. Ronneburger, Esq., Thomas B. Wassel, Esq., Cynthia Ann Augello, Esq., Douglas J. Bohn, Esq., Jennifer A. McLaughlin, Esq., of Counsel, Garden City, NY, for the Defendants Incorporated Village of Garden City and Garden City Board of Trustees.

Jones Day, by: Michael A. Carvin, Washington, D.C., for the Defendants Incorporated Village of Garden City and Garden City Board of Trustees.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

SPATT, District Judge.

Familiarity with the facts of this case is presumed.

Of relevance here, on December 6, 2013, after an 11–day bench trial commencing on June 17, 2013, this Court concluded that the Plaintiffs established the liability of the Incorporated Village of Garden City (the “Village” or “Garden City”) and the Garden City Board of Trustees (collectively the “Garden City Defendants”) under (1) the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. based on a theory of disparate treatment and disparate impact; (2) 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (3) 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (4) the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. MHANY Mgmt. Inc. v. Inc. Vill. of Garden City, 985 F.Supp.2d 390, 05–CV–2301 (ADS)(WDW), 2013 WL 6334107 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2013) (Spatt, J.). In particular, the Court found that:

Garden City Defendants acted with discriminatory intent when they eliminated R–M [Multi–Family Residential Group] zoning and endorsed R–T [Residential Townhouse] zoning after they received public opposition to the prospect of affordable housing in Garden City. The Court notes that R–T zoning banned the development of multi-family housing on all but a small portion of the Social Services site—the 3.03 acres located on the western side of County Seat Drive—and then only by special permit. The Court also notes the negative remarks by Garden City residents at public hearings and the flyer against multi-family housing on the Social Services Site. Set against the underlying sequence of events and the considerable impact that this zoning decision would have had on minorities in that community, the Court concludes that some of the expressions by Garden City residents of disapproval for affordable housing reflected race-based animus or at least could have been construed as such by the Board.

Furthermore, the Court finds that the adoption of R–T zoning instead of R–M zoning had a disparate impact on minorities in Garden City and tended to perpetuate segregation in that community.

Id. at 430–31, 2013 WL 6334107 at *37.

With respect to remedies, the Court recognized that the FHA authorizes injunctive relief. The Court noted that “at a minimum, prohibitive injunctive relief enjoining future FHA violations is appropriate.” Id. at 429, 2013 WL 6334107 at *36. “However,” the Court reasoned, “because such an injunction merely prohibits what is already prohibited, further relief, perhaps in the form of affirmative relief, appears appropriate.” Id. In that regard, the Court noted that “a directive requiring Garden City to join the Nassau Urban Consortium appears eminently reasonable as a starting point.” Id. The Consortium is a group of municipalities in Nassau County that are eligible to receive federal funding to support affordable housing development.

At the same time, the Court made clear that “there is no constitutional or statutory right for individual citizens to have housing comply with a particular standard, nor is there a concomitant duty on the part of political entities to provide housing.” Id. Ultimately, the Court reserved decision on the issue of remedies and directed the parties to propose remedial plans to be incorporated into the final judgment in this case.

As modified in its reply brief and described in more detail throughout this opinion, the Plaintiffs' proposed remedies for inclusion in the final judgment are as follows: (1) a general injunction prohibiting any discrimination in housing policy in Garden City on the basis of race, color, or national origin; (2) a directive to Garden City to adopt a Fair Housing Resolution to assure equal housing opportunities and nondiscrimination in its zoning and other land use processes; (3) the appointment of a third-party contractor as a Fair Housing Administrator to ensure compliance with the final judgment; (4) rezoning the Social Services Site from R–T zoning to R–M zoning; (5) participation by Garden City in the Nassau County Urban Consortium; (6) promotion of the development of no less than 78 affordable housing units in Garden City; (7) Fair Housing training for Garden City employees whose duties relate to housing or zoning; (8) funding of an Affordable Housing Trust Fund; (9) certain record-keeping requirements; (10) a deadlineto file a motion for attorney's fees and costs; and (11) retention of jurisdiction by this Court over this action until Garden City has fulfilled its obligations under the judgment.

In opposition, without conceding liability, the Garden City Defendants contend that at most the Plaintiffs are entitled to have the Social Services Site rezoned R–M. Alternatively, the Plaintiffs suggests (1) a prohibitory non-discrimination injunction; (2) a requirement that any developer of multi-family property consisting of 5 or more units in the Village offer at least 10% of the units to be reserved for families whose income is 40% to 100% of the Nassau–Suffolk County Area Median Income; (3) Fair Housing training for Village officials whose duties relate to housing or zoning; (4) appointment of a Garden City employee or Trustee as a Fair Housing Compliance Officer to ensure compliance with the final judgment; (5) a deadline for compliance; (6) a deadline to file a motion for attorney's fees and costs; and (7) retention of jurisdiction over this matter by this Court until Garden City has fulfilled its obligations under the judgment.

In this decision, the Court adopts various aspects of the parties' respective proposed judgments, and includes its own changes as well. Within ten days of the date of this order, the Plaintiffs are directed to submit a final judgment in accordance with the terms of this decision. The Defendants shall then have ten days to file objections or an alternative proposed judgment. The Court will subsequently enter a final judgment.

I. DISCUSSION

The FHA expressly authorizes courts to award injunctive relief:

if the court finds that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred ... the court may ... grant as relief, as the court deems appropriate, any permanent or temporary injunction, temporary restraining order, or other order (including an order enjoining the defendant from engaging in such practice or ordering such affirmative action as may be appropriate).

42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(1). “The Court must craft injunctive relief with a view toward the statute's goals of preventing future violations and removing lingering effects of past discrimination. The scope of the injunction is to be determined by the nature and extent of the legal violation.” United States v. Space Hunters, Inc., 2004 WL 2674608, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2004) (citing Rogers v. 66–36 Yellowstone Blvd. Coop. Owners, Inc., 599 F.Supp. 79, 83 (E.D.N.Y.1984)). “[T]he two most common forms of injunctive relief requested under the FHA seek either to prohibit the offending party from engaging in future acts of housing discrimination or to impose upon that party certain affirmative duties to atone for past discrimination and prevent recurrence of such acts.” Ueno v. Napolitano, 2007 WL 1395517, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. May 11, 2007). In determining whether or not to grant a request for injunctive relief, “[t]he critical question ... is whether a sufficiently flagrant violation of the plaintiffs' civil rights—the guidepost for granting FHA injunctive relief—has occurred.” Id. at *4.

In this regard, “[t]he Supreme Court has not required that the ‘least restrictive means of implementation’ be adopted but has ‘recognized that the choice of remedies to redress racial discrimination is ‘a balancing process left, within appropriate constitutional or statutory limits, to the sound discretion of the trial court.’ ' ” United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 837 F.2d 1181, 1236 (2d Cir.1987) (citations omitted).

Here, “[t]o the extent the defendants are concerned that the imposition of anyinjunctive relief is unwarranted, intrusive or burdensome, the court finds such concerns misplaced.” Ueno, 2007 WL 1395517, at *7. The Garden City Defendants did not move for reconsideration of the December 6, 2013 order, and in the absence of such a motion, the Court declines to relitigate liability. In other words, “the law has been broken and the defendants cannot now complain of the ensuing consequences.” Id.

Further, contrary to the contention of the Garden City Defendants, the Plaintiffs have proved that they are likely to suffer future harm from the “continuing, present adverse effects” of the Defendants' illegal conduct, thereby justifying injunctive relief. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). In particular, ...