New York State Ass'n of Realtors, Inc. v. Shaffer
Decision Date | 30 September 1993 |
Docket Number | No. CV 91-1897 (ADS).,CV 91-1897 (ADS). |
Citation | 833 F. Supp. 165 |
Parties | NEW YORK STATE ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC. and Clifford Hall, Plaintiffs, v. Gail S. SHAFFER, Individually and as Secretary of State of the State of New York, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Michael T. Wallender, Albany, NY, Goldson & Radin by Howard W. Goldson, Commack, NY, for plaintiffs.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., State of NY by August L. Fietkau, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.
The plaintiffs commenced this action to obtain a declaratory judgment to declare that Chapter 696 of the New York State Laws of 1989 (N.Y. Real Prop. Law § 442-h) and the regulations promulgated thereunder to establish or enforce "nonsolicitation zones" are unconstitutional. The plaintiffs move for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, invalidating Real Property Law § 442h(1) and (2) and 19 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 178 in total, as well as invalidating 19 N.Y.C.R.R. § 175.17(a), as applied by the defendant to truthful and non-misleading communications by real estate licensees which do not make a representation regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of persons of a particular race, color, religion, or national origin.
The defendant moves for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 dismissing the action on the ground that she is entitled to dismissal of the action as a matter of law.
The plaintiff, New York State Association of Realtors, Inc., represents real estate licensees throughout the State of New York and the plaintiff Clifford Hall is a real estate broker in Queens, New York. The defendant Gail Shaffer is the Secretary of State of the State of New York. This case centers around "nonsolicitation orders" issued by the Secretary of State which prevent licensed real estate brokers from soliciting prospective clients directly. The purported reason for these nonsolicitation orders is to prevent the practice of blockbusting. The term blockbusting is defined as a practice whereby individuals "prey upon the fears of property owners in racially transitional areas and thereby induce the kind of panic selling which results in community instability" (Zuch v. Hussey, 394 F.Supp. 1028, 1049 E.D.Mich. 1975, partially affirmed and remanded, 547 F.2d 1168 6th Cir.1977).
Blockbusting is prohibited by a federal statute which states that:
"it shall be unlawful ... for profit, to induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representation regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin" (42 U.S.C. § 3604e).
This statute was "intended by Congress to reach only real estate brokers and their agents" (Michigan Protection & Advocacy Service, Inc. v. Babin, 799 F.Supp. 695, 715 E.D.Mich.1992). The practice of blockbusting is also prohibited pursuant to a New York State statute which provides that:
"it shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any real estate broker, real estate salesman or employee or agent thereof ... to represent that a change has occurred or will or may occur in the composition with respect to race, creed, color, national origin or marital status of the owners or occupants in the block, neighborhood or area in which the real property is located, and to represent, directly or indirectly, that this change will or may result in undesirable consequences in the block, neighborhood or area in which the property is located, including but not limited to the lowering of property values, an increase in criminal or anti-social behavior, or a decline in the quality of schools or other facilities" (N.Y.Exec.Law § 2963-b).
In addition to the above statutes, the New York Secretary of State promulgated a regulation which stated that:
"No broker or salesperson shall induce or attempt to induce in order to sell or lease any residential property or to list same for sale or lease by making any representation regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, color, religion or national origin" (19 N.Y.C.R.R. § 175.17a).
This regulation was initially enforced by "cease and desist" orders. These orders prohibited brokers from soliciting homeowners who notified the Secretary of State that they did not desire to sell or lease their property and did not want to receive solicitations. In addition to the cease and desist orders, the Secretary of State issued nonsolicitation orders in the early 1970s which prevented licensed real estate brokers from actively soliciting homeowners in designated areas in Kings and Queens County.
The issuance of these nonsolicitation orders was challenged in 1979 by a group of realtors. In finding that the implementation of nonsolicitation orders by the Secretary of State was arbitrary and capricious, the New York Court of Appeals stated that:
(Hawley v. Cuomo, 46 N.Y.2d 990, 992, 389 N.E.2d 827, 828, 416 N.Y.S.2d 232, 233 1979 emphasis added).
Apparently simultaneously with the above nonsolicitation orders, the Secretary of State issued an order for various communities within Bronx County which prevented real estate brokers in that area from soliciting listings from residents in any manner including, letters, postcards, telephone calls, door-to-door canvassing, window signs, billboards, advertisement by handbills or news publications, except those of general circulation. It was claimed that nonsolicitation orders restricted speech in an unconstitutional manner and exceeded the authority granted to the Secretary of State for the enactment of this type of regulation.
In reviewing the Bronx nonsolicitation order, the New York Court of Appeals stated that the order:
It is asserted by the plaintiffs that this law "on its face and as applied imposes a content based restriction on permissible communication by real estate licensees" (Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, at p. 10).
In addition, these regulations prevent realtors from establishing or relocating real estate offices within a nonsolicitation area without prior approval from the Secretary of State (See 19 N.Y.C.R.R. § 178.2).
Specifically, within Queens County, the Secretary of State imposed restrictions upon the communities of Richmond Hill, Woodhaven, Glen Oaks, Floral Park, Bellerose, Queens Village, Cambria Heights, Laurelton, Springfield Gardens, Brookville, and Rosedale (See 19 N.Y.C.R.R. § 178.8)...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ippolito v. Meisel
...not extend to requests for declaratory judgment, however. Pulliam, 466 U.S. at 544, 104 S.Ct. at 1982; New York State Assoc. of Realtors v. Shaffer, 833 F.Supp. 165, 187 (E.D.N.Y.), (citing Benitez v. Wolff, 985 F.2d 662, 666 (2d Cir.1993) (qualified immunity protects against suits for dama......
-
New York State Ass'n of Realtors, Inc. v. Shaffer
...regulation), defining and prohibiting the practice of blockbusting, constitutionally valid both facially and as applied. See 833 F.Supp. 165. Since we need not focus on the facial validity of section 442-h to decide this appeal, we confine our inquiry primarily to the narrower issue of whet......
-
Perez v. Hoblock
...qualified immunity. Def. Mem. at 7-8. Plaintiff does not, however, appear to seek monetary damages. See New York State Assoc. of Realtors v. Shaffer, 833 F.Supp. 165, 187 (E.D.N.Y.) ("Here, the plaintiff is not seeking monetary damages and therefore the defense of qualified immunity is not ......
-
Anheuser-Busch v. Mayor and City Council
...promotional efforts have some positive effect on almond demand." Id. at 439 (citations omitted). In New York State Association of Realtors v. Shaffer, 833 F.Supp. 165 (E.D.N.Y.1993), an association of real estate brokers sought a declaratory judgment that a statute authorizing the Secretary......