United States Government Publishing Office publisher pbl distributor dst United States United States District Court Eastern District of New York author aut Government Organization text government publication eng USCOURTS Judicial Publications judicial 2021-05-12 Administrative Office of the United States Courts 2017-09-19 monographic deposited born digital JU 4.15 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301 P0b002ee1adf350a3 DGPO 2021-05-12 2021-05-12 USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301 machine generated eng fdlp USCOURTS USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301 District nyed 2nd New York 2351 2:05-cv-02301 Central Islip civil 443 Civil Rights Accommodations 42:405 Fair Housing Act 2:05-cv-02301 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301 JU 4.15 2:05-cv-02301;05-2301 United States District Court Eastern District of New York 2nd Circuit Central Islip U.S. Courts author aut Acorn Acorn Plaintiff County of Nassau County of Nassau Defendant Daphne Andrews Daphne Andrews Plaintiff Vic Devita Devita Vic Plaintiff Garden City Board of Trustees Garden City Board of Trustees Defendant Vernon Ghullkie Ghullkie Vernon Plaintiff Natalie Guerrido Guerrido Natalie Plaintiff Lisbett Hunter Hunter Lisbett Plaintiff Incorporated Village of Garden City Incorporated Village of Garden City Defendant Anthony LaPinta LaPinta Anthony Referee Long Beach Housing Authority, Long Beach Housing Authority, Movant MHANY Management, Inc. MHANY Management, Inc. Plaintiff McCray, Francine McCray, Francine Plaintiff Nassau County Office of Real Estate & Development Nassau County Office of Real Estate & Development Defendant Nassau County Planning Commission Nassau County Planning Commission Defendant New York Acor Housing Company New York Acor Housing Company Plaintiff New York Acorn Housing Company, Inc. New York Acorn Housing Company, Inc. Plaintiff New York Communities For Change, Inc. New York Communities For Change, Inc. Intervenor Plaintiff The Incorporated Village of Farmingdale The Incorporated Village of Farmingdale Movant Village of Great Neck Estates Village of Great Neck Estates Movant Village of Hewlett Bay Park Village of Hewlett Bay Park Movant Village of North Hills Village of North Hills Movant Village of Rockville Centre Village of Rockville Centre Movant Village of Sea Cliff Village of Sea Cliff Movant USCOURTS USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301 District nyed 2nd New York 2351 2:05-cv-02301 Central Islip civil 443 Civil Rights Accommodations 42:405 Fair Housing Act New York MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. SEE ATTACHED memorandum and order denying 30 34 motions to dismiss, and directing the parties to proceed with discovery in accordance with the direction of Magistrate Judge Wall. Ordered by JudgeJoseph F. Bianco on 7/21/06. (Blanche, Todd) 0 2006-07-21 D09002ee1ae026092 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-0 nyed-2_05-cv-02301_0.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-0 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-0.pdf USCOURTS 2:05-cv-02301; Mhany Management Inc. et al v. County Of Nassau et al; United States District Court Eastern District of New York New York USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-0 0 2006-07-21 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. SEE ATTACHED memorandum and order denying 30 34 motions to dismiss, and directing the parties to proceed with discovery in accordance with the direction of Magistrate Judge Wall. Ordered by JudgeJoseph F. Bianco on 7/21/06. (Blanche, Todd) ORDER granting in part and denying in part 58 plaintiffs' Motion to Compel. See attached order. Ordered by JudgeWilliam D. Wall on 9/25/07. (Disbrow, Sandra) 1 2007-09-25 D09002ee1ae026093 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-1 nyed-2_05-cv-02301_1.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-1 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-1.pdf USCOURTS 2:05-cv-02301; Mhany Management Inc. et al v. County Of Nassau et al; United States District Court Eastern District of New York New York USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-1 1 2007-09-25 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 58 plaintiffs' Motion to Compel. See attached order. Ordered by JudgeWilliam D. Wall on 9/25/07. (Disbrow, Sandra) ORDER granting in part and denying in part 80 plaintiffs' Motion to Compel production of documents from defendant Nassau County. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 3/14/08. c/e (Disbrow, Sandra) 2 2008-03-14 D09002ee1ae02601c https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-2 nyed-2_05-cv-02301_2.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-2 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-2.pdf USCOURTS 2:05-cv-02301; Mhany Management Inc. et al v. County Of Nassau et al; United States District Court Eastern District of New York New York USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-2 2 2008-03-14 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 80 plaintiffs' Motion to Compel production of documents from defendant Nassau County. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 3/14/08. c/e (Disbrow, Sandra) ORDER granting in part and denying in part 116 Motion for Sanctions. See attached order. Ordered by Judge William D. Wall on 3/9/2009. (Disbrow, Sandra) 3 2009-03-09 D09002ee1ae026091 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-3 nyed-2_05-cv-02301_3.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-3 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-3.pdf USCOURTS 2:05-cv-02301; Mhany Management Inc. et al v. County Of Nassau et al; United States District Court Eastern District of New York New York USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-3 3 2009-03-09 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 116 Motion for Sanctions. See attached order. Ordered by Judge William D. Wall on 3/9/2009. (Disbrow, Sandra) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum & Order, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion seeking to set aside the September 5, 2007 discovery order of Magistrate Judge Wall is denied. Magistrate Judge Wall can now expeditiously review in camera the twenty-two documents submitted by the Garden City defendants. The documents will be reviewed within the framework set forth in the September 25, 2007 Order, with the additional instruction that any documents illustrating that racial considerations were part of the legislative deliberations must also be produced. SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 9/10/2009. (Howard, Timothy) 4 2009-09-10 D09002ee1ae026021 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-4 nyed-2_05-cv-02301_4.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-4 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-4.pdf USCOURTS 2:05-cv-02301; Mhany Management Inc. et al v. County Of Nassau et al; United States District Court Eastern District of New York New York USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-4 4 2009-09-10 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum & Order, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion seeking to set aside the September 5, 2007 discovery order of Magistrate Judge Wall is denied. Magistrate Judge Wall can now expeditiously review in camera the twenty-two documents submitted by the Garden City defendants. The documents will be reviewed within the framework set forth in the September 25, 2007 Order, with the additional instruction that any documents illustrating that racial considerations were part of the legislative deliberations must also be produced. SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 9/10/2009. (Howard, Timothy) MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER - It is hereby ORDERED that the Defendant Countys 283 motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims against it is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the Garden City Defendants 278 motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims against it is DENIED in all respects; and it is further ORDERED that the Inventor-Plaintiff NYCCs 290 motion to amend the intervenor complaint to include a cause of action for violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is GRANTED. NYCC is directed to file an amended complaint only as against the Garden City Defendants in conformance with the rulings set forth in this Memorandum of Decision and Order within 20 days of the date of this Order; and it is further ORDERED that the Plaintiffs and the Garden City Defendants are directed to appear on Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 9:00am for a conference to set a trial date. Signed by Senior Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 2/15/2012. (Coleman, Laurie) 5 2012-02-15 D09002ee1ae026022 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-5 nyed-2_05-cv-02301_5.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-5 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-5.pdf USCOURTS 2:05-cv-02301; Mhany Management Inc. et al v. County Of Nassau et al; United States District Court Eastern District of New York New York USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-5 5 2012-02-15 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER - It is hereby ORDERED that the Defendant Countys 283 motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims against it is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the Garden City Defendants 278 motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims against it is DENIED in all respects; and it is further ORDERED that the Inventor-Plaintiff NYCCs 290 motion to amend the intervenor complaint to include a cause of action for violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is GRANTED. NYCC is directed to file an amended complaint only as against the Garden City Defendants in conformance with the rulings set forth in this Memorandum of Decision and Order within 20 days of the date of this Order; and it is further ORDERED that the Plaintiffs and the Garden City Defendants are directed to appear on Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 9:00am for a conference to set a trial date. Signed by Senior Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 2/15/2012. (Coleman, Laurie) MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER - It is hereby: ORDERED, that the Plaintiffs 338 motion to amend the joint pretrial order is granted as set forth above; and it is further ORDERED, that the Plaintiffs are directed to file an amended joint pretrial order in accordance with this decision on or before May 6, 2013; and it is further ORDERED, that the Plaintiffs request for a telephone conference is denied as unnecessary; and it is further ORDERED, that every party may depose the four additional individuals that will be included in the amended joint pretrial order, with each party paying the costs of their own depositions. Signed by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 4/29/13. (Coleman, Laurie) 6 2013-04-29 D09002ee1ae02601e https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-6 nyed-2_05-cv-02301_6.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-6 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-6.pdf USCOURTS 2:05-cv-02301; Mhany Management Inc. et al v. County Of Nassau et al; United States District Court Eastern District of New York New York USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-6 6 2013-04-29 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER - It is hereby: ORDERED, that the Plaintiffs 338 motion to amend the joint pretrial order is granted as set forth above; and it is further ORDERED, that the Plaintiffs are directed to file an amended joint pretrial order in accordance with this decision on or before May 6, 2013; and it is further ORDERED, that the Plaintiffs request for a telephone conference is denied as unnecessary; and it is further ORDERED, that every party may depose the four additional individuals that will be included in the amended joint pretrial order, with each party paying the costs of their own depositions. Signed by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 4/29/13. (Coleman, Laurie) MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER - For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not established liability on the part of the Garden City Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1982 and the amended complaint is dismissed as to that cause of action. However, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have established by, a preponderance of the evidence, the liability on the part of the Garden City Defendants under (1) the 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. As noted above, the Court finds that the Garden City Defendants acted with discriminatory intent when they eliminated R-M zoning and endorsed R-T 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. Accordingly, the Court directs the Plaintiffs to submit a proposed remedial plan to be incorporated in the final judgment in this case within thirty days of the date of this order. The Garden City Defendants shall then have thirty days to respond with objections. The Plaintiffs shall then have 15 days to reply to the Garden City Defendants objections. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 12/6/2013. (Coleman, Laurie) 7 2013-12-06 D09002ee1ae02601d https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-7 nyed-2_05-cv-02301_7.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-7 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-7.pdf USCOURTS 2:05-cv-02301; Mhany Management Inc. et al v. County Of Nassau et al; United States District Court Eastern District of New York New York USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-7 7 2013-12-06 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER - For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not established liability on the part of the Garden City Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1982 and the amended complaint is dismissed as to that cause of action. However, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have established by, a preponderance of the evidence, the liability on the part of the Garden City Defendants under (1) the 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. As noted above, the Court finds that the Garden City Defendants acted with discriminatory intent when they eliminated R-M zoning and endorsed R-T 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. Accordingly, the Court directs the Plaintiffs to submit a proposed remedial plan to be incorporated in the final judgment in this case within thirty days of the date of this order. The Garden City Defendants shall then have thirty days to respond with objections. The Plaintiffs shall then have 15 days to reply to the Garden City Defendants objections. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 12/6/2013. (Coleman, Laurie) MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER - For the foregoing reasons, within ten days of the date of this order, the Plaintiffs are directed to submit a proposed final judgment in accordance with the terms set forth in this decision and order. The Defendants shall then have ten days to file objections or an alternative proposed judgment. The Court will subsequently enter a final judgment. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 3/17/2014. (Coleman, Laurie) 8 2014-03-17 D09002ee1ae026020 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-8 nyed-2_05-cv-02301_8.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-8 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-8.pdf USCOURTS 2:05-cv-02301; Mhany Management Inc. et al v. County Of Nassau et al; United States District Court Eastern District of New York New York USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-8 8 2014-03-17 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER - For the foregoing reasons, within ten days of the date of this order, the Plaintiffs are directed to submit a proposed final judgment in accordance with the terms set forth in this decision and order. The Defendants shall then have ten days to file objections or an alternative proposed judgment. The Court will subsequently enter a final judgment. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 3/17/2014. (Coleman, Laurie) MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER re 510, 514, 516 - For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs met their burden at trial in establishing that Garden City's legitimate, substantial, non-discriminatory interests in not overburdening public schools and reducing traffic could have been served by R-M zoning. The Court confirms its finding, that the adoption of R-T zoning instead of R-M zoning had a disparate impact on minorities in Garden City. This matter is respectfully referred to Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay for the conclusion of discovery on the Plaintiffs "steering" claims under the FHA and Title VII. SEE ATTACHED DECISION for details. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 9/19/2017. (Coleman, Laurie) 9 2017-09-19 D09002ee1ae02601f https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-9 nyed-2_05-cv-02301_9.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-9 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-9.pdf USCOURTS 2:05-cv-02301; Mhany Management Inc. et al v. County Of Nassau et al; United States District Court Eastern District of New York New York USCOURTS-nyed-2_05-cv-02301-9 9 2017-09-19 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER re 510, 514, 516 - For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs met their burden at trial in establishing that Garden City's legitimate, substantial, non-discriminatory interests in not overburdening public schools and reducing traffic could have been served by R-M zoning. The Court confirms its finding, that the adoption of R-T zoning instead of R-M zoning had a disparate impact on minorities in Garden City. This matter is respectfully referred to Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay for the conclusion of discovery on the Plaintiffs "steering" claims under the FHA and Title VII. SEE ATTACHED DECISION for details. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 9/19/2017. (Coleman, Laurie)