Oceanview Home for Adults, Inc. v. Zucker
| Decision Date | 18 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | Index No. 906012-16 |
| Parties | In the Matter of OCEANVIEW HOME FOR ADULTS, INC. D/B/ A OCEANVIEW MANOR, RESIDENT AA, RESIDENT BB, AND RESIDENT CC, Petitioners, v. HOWARD ZUCKER, M.D., in his official capacity as Commissioner of Health of the State of New York, and ANNE MARIE T. SULLIVAN, M.D., in her official capacity as Commissioner of Mental Health for the State of New York, Respondents. For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Unpublished Opinion
Jeffrey J. Sherrin, Esq. Danielle E. Holley Tangorre, Esq. Michael Hawrylchak, Esq. Andrew Ko, Esq. O'Connell and Aronowitz, P.C. Attorneys for Petitioners
Gary J. Malone, Esq. Robert L. Begleiter, Esq. Harrison]. McAvoy Esq. Margaux Poueymirou, Esq. Constantine Cannon, LLP Attorneys for Respondents
AMENDED DECISION/ORDER/TUDGMENT
In this proceeding/ the Petitioner Oceanview Home for Adults, Inc. d/b/a Oceanview Manor ("Oceanview") challenges certain regulations ("Challenged Regulations") promulgated by the Respondent Howard Zucker, M.D., in his capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health ("Respondent"), as violating, and causing Oceanview to violate, the Federal Fair Housing Act as amended ("FHAA").[1]
Oceanview, a transitional adult home as defined under the Challenged Regulations, asserts that the Challenged Regulations are preempted by the FHAA because they discriminate, and cause Oceanview to discriminate, against individuals with a serious mental illness. Specifically, Oceanview alleges that the Challenged Regulations unlawfully impose a quota on the number of residents with a serious mental illness who may reside in a transitional adult home and unlawfully prohibit it from admitting an individual with a serious mental illness into its facility when doing so would cause it to exceed that quota.
The Respondent contends that any discrimination against individuals with a serious mental illness benefits those individuals as a matter of public health because large congregate settings -e.g, transitional adult homes -do not promote their recovery. The Respondent also proffers that the Challenged Regulations fulfill the State's obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the United States Supreme Court's holding in Olmstead v. L.C. by Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999)(" Olmstead"), known as the Olmstead mandate. The Challenged Regulations, the Respondent contends, are lawful under the FHAA since they further, in theory and in practice, these bona fide governmental interests and are narrowly tailored to achieve these interests.
Trial commenced on June 5, 2019 and continued over eighteen non-consecutive days. Numerous witnesses testified on behalf of each party, and hundreds of pages of exhibits were received into evidence. The Court also took judicial notice of certain facts and records as set forth in its decision and order dated September 24,2019. Following trial, the parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law together with supporting memoranda. Subsequently, on August 31,2022, the Court opened the record for the receipt of additional evidence from both parties. The Court has carefully and thoroughly considered the evidence presented at trial as well as the arguments proffered by the parties in support of their respective positions.
Some decades ago, it was common and accepted practice by the State to confine people to institutions because of their mental health diagnoses and attendant behaviors. Through advocacy of these individuals and numerous groups on their behalf, the desegregation of the mentally ill in these institutions has over time, resulted in their transition out of these facilities into the community. One housing option that developed following desegregation is the adult home, which provides long-term housing with assistance to its residents. Adult homes are found throughout the State, with many located in the greater New York City area.
Oceanview is a privately-owned and operated adult care facility located at the Coney Island boardwalk in Brooklyn, New York. Oceanview is licensed by the New York State Department of Health ("DOH") to house up to 176 adults. Many of its residents have a mental illness, such as schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder. Many residents need some form of assistance-but not continuous nursing care, such as that provided by a nursing home-for their mental illness. Many residents require assistance not for a mental illness, but for other, physical conditions.
The Respondent claims that adult homes such as Oceanview-now classified as "transitional adult homes" under the Challenged Regulations - are "institutions" or "institutional" in nature due to their size and the number of their residents having a serious mental illness. The Challenged Regulations are claimed to ameliorate this aspect of transitional adult homes in two ways: first, by imposing a quota upon the number of residents with a serious mental illness who may live in a transitional adult home, and second, by precluding persons with a serious mental illness from obtaining housing in a transitional adult home. According to the Respondent, community integration of persons with a serious mental illness fosters their recovery and improves their life circumstances. The Challenged Regulations divert such persons away from institutions and into alternative settings that are more integrated in the community and consequently more conducive to their recovery.
Yet transitional adult homes such as Oceanview are not "institutions" for purposes of Title II of the ADA or as addressed by the Supreme Court in Olmstead when it construed Title II of the ADA and its attendant regulations. Adult homes, including transitional adult homes, are not owned, established, or operated by the State. None of the residents living in transitional adult homes are committed to or confined there against their will by the State. Rather, residents of transitional adult homes live in a setting far less restrictive than those of nursing homes and state psychiatric hospitals.
Nor are transitional adult homes "institution-like." Residents of transitional adult homes are free to come and go as they wish, and to leave altogether for other housing. Residents may seek and obtain medical treatment wherever they wish, both on site and in the community. Transitional adult homes such as Oceanview that are certified by DOH for assisted living programs ("ALPs") receive Medicaid funding pursuant to the Federal Home and Community Based Services waiver program("HCBS"). Oceanview, and other similar adult homes, meet the certification criteria because their housing facilities are home-like and located in a community setting. By virtue of their certifications, they are not "institutional" or "institution-like."
The Challenged Regulations are said to promote the dignity of people with a serious mental illness by discouraging their placement in transitional adult homes. The Respondent advances the theory that institutions such as transitional adult homes do not promote the recovery of the seriously mental ill. This theory is not apt because Oceanview's housing does promote "recovery" as it was defined at trial by the Respondent's witnesses.
The Respondent put forth no empirical or factually based evidence in support of its claimed benefit of the Regulations' limitations on the admission of people with a serious mental illness to transitional adult homes. The Respondent, in fact, provided absolutely no data to support its theory that people with a serious mental illness do not have good potential for recovery in transitional adult homes. No witness involved with the development of the Regulations could point to any literature, study, statistic, or other data that compared outcomes of people with a serious mental illness who live in transitional adult homes, such as Oceanview, to outcomes of those who do not. The Respondent also failed to address the benefit of transitional adult homes with ALPs for people with a serious mental illness having comorbidities (people with a serious mental illness having physical limitations requiring assistance that an adult home can provide). In no housing setting other than transitional adult homes - including nursing homes, homeless shelters, psychiatric hospitals, private apartment buildings - does the Respondent or other arm of State government limit housing choices for people with a serious mental illness.
The Respondent also asserts that the Challenged Regulations fulfill the State's integration mandate under Olmstead and the ADA by directing persons with a serious mental illness towards other housing alternatives in the community. However, the Challenged Regulations are not necessary for compliance with Olmstead, nor are they narrowly tailored to suit individuals' particular needs. New York State is the only state whose response to Olmstead was to restrict a seriously mentally ill person's choice of housing. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that persons with a serious mental illness were, in fact, diverted to settings more conducive to their needs because of the implementation of the Challenged Regulations.
The Respondent has determined that transitional adult homes such as Oceanview are "institutional" and do not promote the dignity or recovery of people with a serious mental illness. The Court finds, to the contrary, based upon the credible proof, that transitional adult homes including Oceanview do not lack the indices of community integration and the community integration of people with a serious mental illness is the stated purpose of the Challenged Regulations. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial