Mhany Mgmt. v. Cnty. of Nassau

• Decision Date: 22 February 2022
• Docket Number: CV 05-2301 (GRB)(ARL)
• Parties: MHANY MANAGEMENT INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

MHANY MANAGEMENT INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, et al., Defendants.

No. CV 05-2301 (GRB)(ARL)

United States District Court, E.D. New York

February 22, 2022

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ARLENE R. LINDSAY United States Magistrate Judge

Presently before the Court, on referral District Judge Brown, is a motion (1) to enforce the April 22, 2014 Final Judgment and Order (“Final Order”), ECF No. 431, as amended at the June 17, 2016 conference before District Judge Spatt, (2) to compel Defendants, the Incorporated Village of Garden City (“Garden City”) and the Garden City Board of Trustees (together with Garden City “Defendants”) to comply the Final Order and (3) to direct that the duration of Defendants' obligations under certain sections of the Final Order be extended. The motion was filed by Mhany Management Inc. (“Mhany”) and New York Communities for Change Inc. (“NYCC”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”). For the reasons set forth below the undersigned respectfully recommends that Plaintiffs' motion be denied.

BACKGROUND

The Court presumes familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case and only includes those facts that are necessary for resolution the instant motion.

Plaintiffs brought this civil rights action against defendants the County of Nassau (the “County”), Garden City and the Garden City Board of Trustees. Plaintiffs were seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, costs and attorneys' fees arising out of claims that Garden City discriminatorily re-zoned approximately twenty-five acres of County-owned land located in Garden City (the “Social Services Site”) to prevent affordable housing from being built, which would likely be occupied by minorities. By Memorandum and Order dated February 15, 2012, Judge Spatt granted the County's motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims against it; denied Defendants' motion for summary judgment and granted NYCC's motion to amend. ECF No. 315. Judge Spatt conducted an 11-day trial commencing on June 17, 2013. In a Memorandum and Order dated December 6, 2013, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs had established the liability of Defendants under (1) the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. (the “FHA”) based upon theories 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. ECF No. 413.

In March 2014, the Court rendered a decision, setting the parameters of the Final Order. Mhany Mgmt. v. Incorporated Village of Garden City, 4 F.Supp.3d 549 (E.D.N.Y. 2014). First, the Court determined that an injunction prohibiting future discrimination in housing was appropriate. Id. at 554-55. In doing so, Judge Spatt rejected Plaintiffs' request for a broad, sweeping injunction and rather, adopted the following language suggested by Defendants:

In accordance with the laws of the United States, the Village shall not take any action: (1). Interfering in any way with any person in the exercise of his or her right under the law to secure equal housing opportunity for himself, herself, or others, or any other right enjoyed under the FHA.

(2). Interfering with the development or acquisition of any affordable housing units because of race, color, or national origin.

(3). Discriminating because of race, color, or national origin in any aspect of the enactment or administration of zoning, land use, special permit, or building ordinance laws, polices, practices, requirements, or processes relating to residential property.

Id. at 555.

Next, the Court determined that Plaintiffs were entitled to affirmative injunctive relief. Id. at 555-58. In doing so the Court noted that “the Court is cognizant of the general reluctance of the judiciary to impose affirmative relief. ‘If the court orders a FHA defendant to provide affirmative relief, such as to pass policies or rules, build housing or take other affirmative steps toward non-discriminatory housing, then such mandates require serious justification,' because it is a ‘massive judicial intrusion on private autonomy.'” Id. at 555 (quoting Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp. v. Vill. of Arlington Heights, 558 F.2d 1283, 1293 (7th Cir. 1977)). Judge Spatt pointed out 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. (citation omitted). Taking these principles into consideration, Judge Spatt then ordered that (1) Garden City officials be required to participate in Fair Housing training; (2) Garden City enact a “fair housing resolution”; and that (3) Garden City re-zone the Social Services Site to allow for multi-family residential development (if the County decided to sell the property within a year). Id. Judge Spatt stated that “while a Town's track record of stalling efforts to build low-income housing is relevant to the imposition of affirmative relief, Huntington Branch, N.A.A.C.P. v. Town of Huntington, 844 F.2d 926, 942 (2d Cir. 1988), aff'd in part sub nom. Town of Huntington, N.Y. v. Huntington Branch, N.A.A.C.P., 488 U.S. 15, 109 S.Ct. 276, 102 L.Ed.2d 180 (1988), the Court notes that, in this case, for various reasons, it expressly declined to place significant weight on any history of discrimination in Garden City.” Id. at 558. With respect to the Court's affirmative relief requirement that the Social Services Site be rezoned, the Court pointed out that “a directive to the Garden City Defendants to rezone the Social Services Site to zone R-M would not, without further action by third-parties, remedy the FHA and constitutional violations in this case.” Id.

Judge Spatt next announced two conditional measures of “affirmative injunctive relief with which Garden City must comply in the event the Nassau County does not announce for sale the Social Services Site for residential development within one year of the date of the judgment.” Id. The Court concluded that if the County did not decide to sell the property within a year, Garden City must apply to become a member of the Nassau County Urban Consortium (“Consortium”), and once accepted, “participate in Consortium activities in good faith.” Id. at 558. Plaintiffs had requested that, as a member of the Consortium, Garden City be enjoined from:

1. Refusing funds from [the Department of Housing and Urban Development], such as Community Development Block Grants ("CDBG") and HOME Investment Partnerships Program ("HOME") funds, intended for provision of affordable housing (as defined by the relevant HUD program), in Garden City;

2. Failing to use funds obtained from HUD for affordable housing (as defined by the relevant HUD program); and

3. Applying residency preferences, such as a preference for current or past residents of Garden City, to housing programs Garden City participates in as a member of the Consortium.

(Plfs' Amended Proposed Judgment, at § IX.). The Court rejected this request, holding that “these additional obligations of participation in the Nassau County Consortium go far beyond the rulings in this case and are unnecessary to achieve the objectives set forth.” Id. at 558-59.

In addition, in the event the County decided not to sell the Social Services Site, Judge Spatt determined that Garden City must adopt a proposal to require new residential developers to set aside at least 10% of their units at affordable rates, and defined affordable housing as housing for which a family whose income is 80% or less of the Nassau-Suffolk Metropolitan Statistical Area Median Income pays no more than 30% of its income. Id. at 558-60. In connection with this requirement of the Final Order, Plaintiffs had requested the Court require

Garden City to ‘take all the necessary steps to ensure' the development of 78 affordable housing units in Garden City within five years, but specifies that Garden City need not do the building itself. The Plaintiffs also propose that the housing units "be located within Garden City Public School District attendance boundaries" and provides that at least 75% of the units must be two-bedroom units or larger. The Plaintiffs would further obligate the Garden City Defendants to, among other things, conduct an annual survey of Garden City to identify publicly and privately owned sites that are viable for residential development, including new construction or rehabilitation projects. The Plaintiffs would also require Garden City to give Mhany the right of first consideration if Garden City chooses to sell Garden City-owned land for the development of the 78 affordable housing units. Finally, the Plaintiffs propose that Garden City could fulfill its requirements under the judgment if it donated suitable land for the development of the 78 affordable housing units.

Id. at 559. Judge Spatt opined that “[i]n the Court's view, the Plaintiffs' proposed steps that Garden City must take to promote the building of the 78 housing units go too far. As this Court previously found, federal courts should not become zoning boards of appeal to review nonconstitutional land[-]use determinations by the [C]ircuit's many local legislative and administrative agencies.” Id. (citation and internal quotation omitted). Accordingly, Judge Spatt rejected Plaintiffs' proposal.

Garden City was also ordered to appoint a Fair Housing Compliance Officer (“FHCO”) to oversee compliance with the Final Order, to fund the relief required by the Final Order and to file compliance reports. Id. at 560. The Court ordered that the Consortium obligation and Affordable Housing requirements would expire five years after coming into effect. Id. at 561. The Final Order reflecting this decision was entered...