Case 1:02-cv-03499-CPS-SMG Document 1 Filed 06/17/02 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------X iC: J '• ·; !ij

r:{) 2 KAREN BENNETT, SUSANA LOPEZ LIRA, 1MSlrr:::: ;;~ ;;cr:

DalEl oBtOheRrsAsHimPiAlaUrlyLIsNit~ianteddi,vidually

and

on

l:lehalft>f!:"r
;'c , .

',uu;:r:: · • ...

ll.!'tY.

Plaintiffs,

': '(.f~>-~ .- ---

v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY and

TON J. ~ CLASS ACTION CRjf:LAINT 8

TINO HERNANDEZ, in his capacity as Chairperson

of the New York City Housing Authority; the

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, and MEL MARTINEZ,

in his capacity as Secretary of Housing and Urban

Development,

Defendants.

-----------------------------------------------------------X
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT I. This is a class action for injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of persons with mobility impairments who have been granted vouchers from the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program administered by the New York City Housing Authority. Plaintiffs allege that defendants have violated their rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S. C. § 794 et seq. ("Section 504"); 24 C.F.R. Part 8; Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. ("the ADA"); 28 C.F.R. Part 35; and the Fair Housing
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. ("FHA"), by failing or refusing to assist them in finding housing so

that they can make use of their housing vouchers.

I

Case 1:02-cv-03499-CPS-SMG Document 1 Filed 06/17/02 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 2
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for civil
actions arising under the laws of the United States; 28 U.S.C. § 1343 for actions under laws providing for the protection of civil rights; and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701
et seq. 3. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 139l(e) because two of the
named plaintiffs reside in this district.
PARTIES 4. Plaintiff KAREN BENNETT is a person with disabilities who has been granted a Section 8 voucher and needs assistance in locating appropriate, accessible housing. She currently resides in Brooklyn, New York, but faces imminent eviction. 5. Plaintiff SUSANA LOPEZ LIRA is a person with disabilities who has been granted a Section 8 voucher and needs assistance in locating appropriate, accessible housing. She currently resides in Brooklyn, New York, but in an apartment which is not accessible and in which her tenancy is not stable. 6. Plaintiff DEBORAH PAULIN is a person with disabilities who has been granted a Section 8 voucher and needs assistance in locating appropriate, accessible housing. She currently lives in a shelter in Manhattan. 7. Defendant NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY ("NYCHA") is the public housing agency in the City of New York and is responsible for administering the Section 8 tenant-based Housing Choice Voucher Program as well as for managing public housing in all
2

Case 1:02-cv-03499-CPS-SMG Document 1 Filed 06/17/02 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 3
boroughs of the City. 8. Defendant TINO HERNANDEZ is the Chairperson ofNYCHA and as such is
responsible for the administration of all ofNYCHA' s programs. He is being sued in his official capacity. Collectively, NYCHA and Hernandez will be referred to as ''NYCHA defendants."
9. Defendant UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ("HUD") is the federal executive agency responsible for the administration of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program and the public housing program.
10. Defendant MEL MARTINEZ is the Secretary ofHUD and as such is responsible for the administration of all ofHUD's programs. He is being sued in his official capacity. Collectively, HUD and Martinez will be referred to as "HUD defendants."
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS II. The named plaintiffs, KAREN BENNETT, SUSANA LOPEZ LIRA, and DEBORAH PAULIN, bring this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of themselves and as representatives of all individuals with mobility impairments who are or will be holders of Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program vouchers through NYCHA. 12. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. 13. There are questions oflaw and fact common to the class which predominate over any questions affecting only the individual plaintiffs, including, but not limited to whether the defendants are violating plaintiffs' rights under Section 504 and the ADA and their implementing regulations by failing to provide assistance in locating apartments when necessary, and to notify
3

Case 1:02-cv-03499-CPS-SMG Document 1 Filed 06/17/02 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 4
them of their right to such assistance. 14. The claims of the individual named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of all class
members. 15. The representative plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of all
members of the class, because they each have the requisite personal interest in the outcome of this case, they have no interest antagonistic to others in the class, and they are represented by the New York Legal Assistance Group, counsel experienced in class action litigation generally, and specifically in litigation involving the rights of people with disabilities.
16. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members ofthe class would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to the practices at issue in this action. Separate actions would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of other members of the class and would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their own interests.
17. The defendants have acted and will act on grounds generally applicable to each member of the plaintiff class, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole. A class action is superior to other methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.
STATUTORY AND REGULATORY SCHEME 18. The Section 8 program is intended to provide "decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings for families oflower income." 42 U.S.C. § 1437. 19. The Section 8 program is administered byHUD, through local public housing
4

Case 1:02-cv-03499-CPS-SMG Document 1 Filed 06/17/02 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 5
authorities ("PHAs"). 42 U.S.C. § 1437(f). HUD has promulgated regulations governing the Section 8 program, codified at 24 C.F.R. Part 982.
20. When an individual is found eligible for the Section 8 program, he or she is given a "voucher" and is supposed to find an apartment in the private housing market with a landlord who is willing to sign a contract with the PHA, pursuant to which the PHA pays a portion of the rent. 24 C.F.R.§ 982.l(b)(2).
21. Section 504 states that "no otherwise qualified individual with a disability...shall, solely by reason ofher or his disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).
22. A program or activity receiving federal financial assistance is prohibited from denying a qualified handicapped person "the opportunity accorded others to participate in the program" and "an equal opportunity to achieve the same benefits that others achieve in the program." 28 C.F.R. § 42.503(b)(i) & (ii).
23. The ADA states that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits ofthe services, programs or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." 42
u.s.c. § 12132.
24. A "public entity'' is "any department, agency, ...or other instrumentality of a State or
States or local government." 42 U.S.C. § 12131.
25. Federal regulations require that public entities must "make available to...beneficiaries, and other interested persons information regarding the...protections against
5

Case 1:02-cv-03499-CPS-SMG Document 1 Filed 06/17/02 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 6
discrimination assured them by the Act and this part." 28 C.F.R. § 35.106. 26. "A public entity, in providing any aid, benefit, or service, may not, ...on the basis of
the disability, [d]eny a qualified individual with a disability the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service." 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(l)(i).
27. HUD has promulgated federal regulations implementing Section 504 as it applies to the administration of the Section 8 program. 24 C.F.R. Part 8.
28. The federal regulations mandate that "(w]hen issuing a....Housing Voucher to a family which includes an individual with handicaps," the PHA must "include a current listing of available accessible units known to the PHA and, if necessary, otherwise assist the family in locating an available accessible dwelling unit." 24 C.F.R. § 8.28(a)(3).
29. The regulations further require that PHAs, in their activities to encourage participation by landlords, "include encouragement of participation by owners having accessible units." 24 C.F.R. § 8.28(a)(2).
30. PHAs must "[t]ake into account the special problem of ability to locate an accessible unit when considering requests by eligible individuals with handicaps for extensions of...Housing Vouchers; and...(i]fnecessary as a reasonable accommodation for a person with disabilities, approve a family request for an exception rent under § 982.504(b)(2) for a regular tenancy under the Section 8 certificate program so that the program is readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities." 24 C.F.R. § 8.28(a)(4) & (5).
31. The initial term of a Section 8 voucher is 60 days, and PHAs may grant extensions at their discretion. 24 C.F.R. § 982.303. But the regulations mandate that "[i]fthe family needs and requests an extension of the initial voucher term as a reasonable accommodation, in
6

Case 1:02-cv-03499-CPS-SMG Document 1 Filed 06/17/02 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 7
accordance with part 8 of this title, to make the program accessible to a family member who is a person with disabilities, the PHA must extend the voucher up to the term reasonably required for that purpose." 24 C.F.R. § 982.303(b)(2).
32. The general regulations controlling the Section 8 program govern the waiting lists for both the tenant-based Section 8 program and the public housing programs also administered by PHAs. PHAs may merge the waiting lists for these different programs, at their own discretion. Ifthey do not choose to merge the lists, if the waiting list for tenant-based assistance is open when an applicant is placed on the waiting list for the PHA's public housing program, "the PHA must offer to place the applicant on its waiting list for tenant-based assistance." And conversely, if the waiting list for the public housing program is open when an applicant is placed on the waiting list for its tenant-based program, "and if the other program includes units suitable for the applicant, the PHA must offer to place the applicant on its waiting list for the other program." 24 C.F.R. § 982.205(a)(2).
33. The FHA prohibits discrimination in housing against persons with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2)(A).
34. The FHA defines discrimination as "a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [a disabled] person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).
35. The FHA mandates that HUD "administer the programs and activities relating to housing and urban development in a manner affirmatively to further the policies of [the FHA]." 42 U.S.C.§ 3608(e)(5).
7

Case 1:02-cv-03499-CPS-SMG Document 1 Filed 06/17/02 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 8
FACTS PERTAINING TO THE CLASS 36. NYCHA defendants receive federal money for the Section 8 program. 37. NYCHA defendants have not made and are not making reasonable efforts to provide to tenants with mobility impairments current, useful lists of available, accessible apartments whose landlords will accept Section 8 vouchers. 38. The lists of supposedly available apartments provided by NYCHA to Section 8 voucher holders show: of the apartments listed as available on July 27, 2001, two (2) out of two hundred and eleven (211) are marked as accessible (0.95%); of those listed on AprilS, 2002, zero out of sixty-six (66) are marked as accessible (0.0%); and of those listed on May 3, 2002, three (3) out of ninety-one (91) are marked as accessible (3.3%). Few, if any, ofthese apartments are available.
39. NYCHA defendants do not assist voucher holders who have mobility impairments in locating appropriate, accessible apartments whose landlords will accept Section 8 tenants, even when such assistance is necessary to enable the voucher holders to locate housing.
40. NYCHA defendants have no established policy or practice for offering to place on the public housing waiting list applicants for their Section 8 program or for offering to place on the Section 8 waiting list applicants for their public housing program.
41. NYCHA defendants have no established policy or practice for making such offers to people with mobility impairments.
42. NYCHA defendants have not made and are not making reasonable efforts to encourage participation in the Section 8 program by landlords with accessible dwelling units.
43. NYCHA defendants have no established policy or practice of informing people with
8

Case 1:02-cv-03499-CPS-SMG Document 1 Filed 06/17/02 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 9
mobility impairments that they may obtain housing subsidies above market rents if that is necessary for them to find appropriate, accessible apartments.
44. NYCHA defendants have no policy of informing people with mobility impairments that NYCHA will provide other assistance in finding available, accessible apartments.
FACTS ABOUT THE NAMED PLAINTIFFS 45. Plaintiff KAREN BENNETT has Multiple Sclerosis ("MS"), a progressive neuromuscular disease which now requires her to use a wheelchair. She lives with five of her children, all of whom are under the age of 14. 46. The only sources of income to Ms. Bennett's family are Supplemental Security mcome and public assistance. 47. Ms. Bennett has had a Section 8 voucher since approximately 1992 and her current landlady has accepted her Section 8 subsidy. 48. Ms. Bennett's current apartment is on the second floor in a house with no elevator. Her children carry her wheelchair up and down the stairs and she must drag herself, crawling, up and down the stairs. 49. Because her apartment is not accessible to people with mobility impairments and because conditions in the apartment were, and are, terrible, Ms. Bennett began a search for a new apartment more than one year ago. 50. Ill April 2001, Ms. Bennett requested a transfer voucher from NYCHA to permit her to transfer to another apartment. 51. When Ms. Bennett initially requested the transfer voucher from NYCHA, NYCHA
9

Case 1:02-cv-03499-CPS-SMG Document 1 Filed 06/17/02 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 10
did not offer to place her on the waiting list for NYCHA's public housing program, or otherwise suggest that she apply to that program. In March 2002, on her own initiative, Ms. Bennett filed an application for public housing.
52. In June 2001, Ms. Bennett received a 30-day Notice from her landlady informing her that the landlady was about to start court proceedings to regain possession of the apartment for her own family. The landlady subsequently commenced a proceeding in Housing Court, to which Ms. Bennet has no defense.
53. On approximately September 4, 2001, Ms. Bennett appeared in Housing Court and signed a Stipulation agreeing to move by February 28, 2002.
54. On September 24, 2001, NYCHA issued a transfer voucher to Ms. Bennett. 55. Because she was unable to find an accessible apartment large enough for herself and her five children, Ms. Bennett was unable to move by February 28, 2002 and in April, a Warrant of Eviction was issued by the Housing Court. 56. Execution of the Warrant of Eviction has been stayed by the Housing Court until July 15, 2002. Efforts are being made by Ms. Bennett and her attorneys to obtain a further stay of the eviction, but Ms. Bennett and her five children face imminent eviction. 57. Ms. Bennett has asked NYCHA for help in finding an apartment because she needed an accessible apartment whose landlord would accept Section 8 vouchers and she was having trouble finding such an apartment. 58. NYCHA has given Ms. Bennett several lists oflandlords who supposedly had available apartments, and she has called the landlords on those lists. Very few, if any, of the apartments on the lists were identified as accessible. No landlord had an available, accessible
10

Case 1:02-cv-03499-CPS-SMG Document 1 Filed 06/17/02 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 11
apartment.
59. Ms. Bennett has also contacted real estate brokers and individual landlords, but has never been offered an appropriate apartment.
60. Although Ms. Bennett requested assistance from NYCHA in finding an apartment, NYCHA has not offered any help to Ms. Bennett in her efforts to find an appropriate, accessible apartment that would accept her Section 8 voucher, other than to provide her with lists. Without assistance from NYCHA, Ms. Bennett is unlikely to find an appropriate, accessible apartment.
61. Plaintiff DEBORAH PAULIN is a 40 year old woman with MS, who since the fall of 200 I, has used a motorized scooter to travel some of the time. The rest of the time she uses a cane.
62. Ms. Paulin has been living in a homeless shelter since approximately December 2000 with her daughter, who is now a freshman in college and comes "home" to her mother on holidays and summer vacation.
63. Ms. Paulin's only source of income is Social Security Disability benefits. 64. Ms. Paulin applied to NYCHA's public housing program in approximately January 2001. At that time she did not yet know that she had MS, but she was having multiple medical problems and had trouble standing up, so she asked for an accessible apartment. 65. When Ms. Paulin applied for a NYCHA apartment, no one at NYCHA asked her if she was interested in applying for a Section 8 voucher at the same time. 66. In approximately March 2001, Ms. Paulin was diagnosed with MS. 67. At around that same time, Ms. Paulin moved into the Regency Family Residence where she now lives. There she had a new caseworker, who suggested that she apply for a
11

Case 1:02-cv-03499-CPS-SMG Document 1 Filed 06/17/02 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 12
Section 8 voucher, which she did.
68. When Ms. Paulin applied for a Section 8 voucher, she requested assistance from NYCHA because of her disability. NYCHA offered no assistance other than to provide with a list of supposedly available apartments.
69. In February, 2002, Ms. Paulin received a Section 8 voucher and attended the compulsory briefing. At that time, she asked ifNYCHA would help her find an apartment and was told that they would not.
70. In February 2002, Ms. Paulin was notified that she was being offered a NYCHA apartment, but it was not accessible.
71. Subsequently, NYCHA withdrew the offer of an apartment stating that Ms. Paulin was no longer "a family" because her daughter was in college. Still later, NYCHA claimed that Ms. Paulin was not eligible because she owed money from a prior NYCHA tenancy.
72. Ms. Paulin is disputing both of these bases for NYCHA's denial of her current eligibility.
73. Ms. Paulin has received lists from NYCHA of supposedly available Section 8 apartments, but there were almost no accessible apartments on the lists, and when she called the landlords, she was told there were no available, accessible apartments.
74. Ms. Paulin has several times requested assistance from NYCHA in finding an apartment, but has always been told that NYCHA does not provide any such help, and she has received no such help.
75. Most recently, Ms. Paulin was told that there might be a NYCHA apartment available to her.
12

Case 1:02-cv-03499-CPS-SMG Document 1 Filed 06/17/02 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 13
76. IfNYCHA actually offers her an apartment, she will withdraw her claims in this action, but because that has not yet happened, and because she has had the experience of offers being withdrawn, she continues to seek assistance in making use of her Section 8 voucher.
77. Without assistance from NYCHA, Ms. Paulin is unlikely to find an appropriate, accessible apartment.
78. Plaintiff SUSANA LOPEZ LIRA is a 52 year old woman with a mobility impairment. She injured her hip in a car accident in 1975 and that injury resulted in severe infection in the joint. She has undergone four surgeries, ending in a procedure in which part of her hip was removed. It is extremely difficult and painful for her to walk. She is in severe, chronic, and debilitating pain and needs further surgery, but has not been able to have it because of her unstable housing situation. She has a motorized scooter, but cannot use it now because her apartment is not accessible.
79. Ms. Lopez Lira is also legally blind, currently has a serious infection in one eye, and may need a corneal transplant. She cannot do this unless she has a safe, stable place to live.
80. Her only source of income is public assistance and food stamps. 81. Ms. Lopez Lira was evicted from her last apartment in approximately January 2001. She spent several days in the subway and then obtained the help of a priest who paid for her to stay in a room in someone else's apartment.
82. The apartment is on the third floor of a building with no elevator and Ms. Lopez Lira is unable to use her scooter. She must drag herself slowly and painfully up and down the flights of stairs.
83. Ms. Lopez Lira applied for a Section 8 voucher as a homeless person in January
13

Case 1:02-cv-03499-CPS-SMG Document 1 Filed 06/17/02 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 14
2001, after her eviction.
84. At the time of her application, Ms. Lopez Lira informed NYCHA of her disability, presented medical information, and told them she would need an accessible apartment.
85. In November 2001, Ms. Lopez Lira received a Section 8 voucher. When she went to the briefing, one employee ofNYCHA, seeing that she was almost blind and was having trouble walking, asked Ms. Lopez Lira if she had anyone- a friend, family member, husband- who could help her find an apartment. Ms. Lopez Lira said that she did not. The NYCHA employee said, "Good luck."
86. When Ms. Lopez Lira applied for a Section 8 voucher, no one asked her if she would like to apply for a regular NYCHA apartment. Later, when she asked about NYCHA apartments, she was told that there was a long waiting list, and was given the impression that, because it would take such a long time to get a NYCHA apartment, it was not even worth applying.
87. It is extremely difficult for Ms. Lopez Lira to look for an apartment because it is hard for her to travel. She has no telephone, and therefore cannot leave messages for landlords to call back.
88. She has gotten help from several social services agencies and has tried to call many landlords and brokers, but she has not been able to find an accessible apartment whose landlord will accept her Section 8 voucher.
89. Ms. Lopez Lira asked NYCHA for assistance in finding an apartment, but she was told that NYCHA did not provide any such assistance and she has received no such assistance.
90. Without assistance from NYCHA, Ms. Lopez Lira is unlikely to find an appropriate accessible apartment.
14

.........
Case 1:02-cv-03499-CPS-SMG Document 1 Filed 06/17/02 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 15
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 91. NYCHA defendants have violated and are violating the rights of the plaintiffs under 24 C.P.R. § 8.28(a)(3); Section 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a); and Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 - 12165 by failing to provide a current listing of available accessible units and by failing to otherwise assist plaintiffs in locating available accessible dwelling units.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 92. NYCHA defendants have violated and are violating the rights ofplaintiffs under 24 C.P.R.§ 8.28(a)(2); Section 504,29 U.S.C. § 794(a); and Title II ofthe ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131- 12165 by failing to make reasonable efforts to encourage participation in the Section 8 program by owners having accessible units.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 93. NYCHA defendants have violated and are violating the rights of plaintiffs under 24 C.P.R.§ 8.28(a)(3); 24 C.P.R.§ 982.205(a)(2); Section 504,29 U.S.C. § 794(a); and Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 - 12165 by failing to affirmatively offer to place plaintiffs on the Section 8 waiting lists when they apply for NYCHA public housing and by failing to affirmatively offer to place plaintiffs on the public housing waiting lists when they apply for the Section 8 program.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 94. NYCHA defendants have violated and are violating the rights of plaintiffs under 28
15

Case 1:02-cv-03499-CPS-SMG Document 1 Filed 06/17/02 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 16
C.P.R.§ 35106; Section 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a); and Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1213112165 by failing to inform them of all the protections assured by these statutes.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 95. HUD defendants have violated and are violating the rights of plaintiffs under Section 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a); Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 - 12165; and the FHA, 42 U.S.C.§ 3604(t); and 42 U.S.C. § 3608(e)(5) by failing to adequately oversee the actions of the NYCHA defendants and by failing to ensure that NYCHA defendants comply with existing federal regulations concerning the rights of people with disabilities in the Section 8 program.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request the court to: 1. Enter an order certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with the class consisting of all individuals with mobility impairments who are or will be holders of Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program vouchers through NYCHA; 2. Enter a declaratory judgment against the NYCHA defendants finding that:
a. NYCHA defendants have violated and are violating the rights of plaintiffs under 24 C.P.R. § 8.28(a)(3); Section 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a); and Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S. C. §§ 12131 - 12165 by failing to provide a current listing of available accessible units and by failing to otherwise assist the plaintiffs in locating available accessible dwelling units;
b. NYCHA defendants have violated and are violating the rights of plaintiffs
16

Case 1:02-cv-03499-CPS-SMG Document 1 Filed 06/17/02 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 17
under 24 C.F.R. § 8.28(a)(2); Section 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a); and Title II ofthe ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 - 12165 by failing to make reasonable efforts to encourage participation in the Section 8 program by owners having accessible units;
c. NYCHA defendants have violated and are violating the rights ofplaintiffs under 24 C.F.R. § 8.28(a)(3); 24 C.F.R. § 982.205(a)(2); Section 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a); and Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 - 12165 by failing to affirmatively offer to place plaintiffs on the Section 8 waiting lists when they apply for NYCHA public housing and by failing to affirmatively offer to place plaintiffs on the public housing waiting lists when they apply for the Section 8 program;
d. NYCHA defendants have violated and are violating the rights of plaintiffs under 28 C.F.R. § 35106; Section 504,29 U.S. C.§ 794(a); and Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 - 12165 by failing to inform them of all the protections assured by these statutes.
3. Enter a declaratory judgment against HUD defendants finding that HUD defendants have violated and are violating the rights of plaintiffs under Section 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a); Title II ofthe ADA, 42 U.S. C.§§ 12131 - 12165; and the FHA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(f) and 3608(e)(5) by failing to adequately oversee the actions ofNYCHA defendants and by failing to ensure that NYCHA defendants comply with existing federal regulations concerning the rights of people with disabilities in the Section 8 program.
4. Permanently enjoin NYCHA defendants to:
a. Provide to all holders of Section 8 vouchers who have mobility impairments current listings of available accessible units;
b. Establish, maintain, and enforce procedures for assisting members of plaintiff
17

----------------------....... Case 1:02-cv-03499-CPS-SMG Document 1 Filed 06/17/02 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 18
9. Grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: June 17, 2002
New York, New York
Jane G gold Stevens, OfCounsel (JS-4970) Laura Davis, Of Counsel (LD-8226) 130 East 59'h Street New York, New York 10022 (212) 750-0800 x 207 and 210
19

 
 Case 1:02-cv-03499-CPS-SMG Document 41 Filed 05/04/05 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 32

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MICHAEL HEYER, et al.,
Plaintiffs, -against -
NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY,
et al.,
Defendants.
UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KAREN BENNETT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-againstNEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al.,
Defendants.

80 Civ. 1196 (RWS) 02 Civ. 3499 (CPS)(SMG)

STIPULA TION AND ORDER O~ F SETTLEMENT

WHEREAS, a complaint in He er et al. v. New Yo

et al., 80

Civ. 196(RWS) (the "~ Action") dated February29, 1980 alleged that the New York City

Housing Authority (the "Housing Authority") failed to provide individuals with mobility impairmentswho havebeen,are, or will be qualified for the Section 8 program with effective

assistancein finding accessiblehousing, and seekingdeclaratoryand injunctive relief; and

WHEREAS,the Courtcertifieda plaintiffclassin the~ actionon May22,

1980; and

Case 1:02-cv-03499-CPS-SMG Document 41 Filed 05/04/05 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 33

WHEREAS, the Court approveda StipulationiOf SettlementAnd Order in the

~ action on September13, 1982(the "1982 Stipulation"), and the Court retainedjurisdiction

as set forth in paragraph 14 of the 1982 Stipulation; and

WHEREAS, an action was commenced in the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of New York, entitled Karen Bennett et al. v. New York City Housing Authority

~, 02 Civ. 3499 (CPS), on or aboutJune 7, 2002 (the "Bennett action"), assertingsimilar

allegationsto thosein the~ actionandassertingclaimsundertheAmericanswith

Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act and seeking class certification for a similar class, as

well asinjunctiveanddeclaratoryrelief; and

WHEREAS, the Housing Authority denies the allegations in the Bennett action,

and maintains that its policies and practicesregarding assistanceto individuals with mobility

impainnents who apply to or are participants in the Section 8 program comply with applicable

law and regulations; and

WHEREAS, the parties wish to resolve their disputes amicably without any

admission of liability, and without an adjudication on the merits, by replacing the 1982

Stipulationwith this Stipulation,andby amicablyresolvingthe Bennettaction;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and

betweentheplaintiffs in the~ actionandin the BennettactionandtheHousingAuthority,

that:

1

The 1982Stipulationis herebydissolvedandextinguisheda; ll rights,duties,and

obligationsof thepartiescreatedthereundesrhallceaseto exist;andthis StipulationandOrder

Of Settlemen(tthe "Stipulation")is substitutedtherefor;andthefum andBennettactionsare

2

Case 1:02-cv-03499-CPS-SMG Document 41 Filed 05/04/05 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 34

consolidated for all purposes.

2

A class is now certified for the purposeof the consolidatedcasesconsisting of all

individuals with mobility impairments who are or will be holders of Section 8 Housing Choice

Voucher Program vouchers through the Housing Authority,

3,

It is and shall be the policy of the Housing Authority that its policies regarding

individuals with mobility impainnents who apply to or participate in the Section 8 program

conform to the requirements of applicable federal law and regulations.

4.

The Housing Authority shall infonn mobility-impaired applicants for the Section

8 program that they may also apply for admission to public housing. For those mobility-impaired

applicants who apply to both programs, the Housing Authority will processboth applications in

accordancewith applicable federal law and regulations.

5 The Housing Authority shall infonn applicants for the Section 8 program that, if they

have a mobility impairment that would make it a hardship for them to appear in person for their

eligibility interview, they may requestthat a telephone interview be scheduled.

6.

TheHousingAuthority shallprovideaccommodatiotno individualswith mobility

impainIlents applying to or participating in the Section 8 program, provided that the Housing

Authority determines, in its discretion and on a case-by-casebasis, that the accommodation

requestedis reasonable,and provided that the accommodationrequesteddoes not create an

undue financial and administrative burden or fundamentally alter the Section 8 program
7. Whereappropriatet,heHousingAuthorityshallprovidea reasonable

accommodationto Section 8 applicants or participants with mobility impairments, on an

individualized,case-by-casbeasis,basedonthe factsandcircumstancepsresentedr,egarding

3

Case 1:02-cv-03499-CPS-SMG Document 41 Filed 05/04/05 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 35

attendanceat Section 8 briefings and pickup of Section 8 vouchers.

8

Housing Authority shall inform Section 8 participants that they may request

an accommodationThe Housing Authority shall provide Section 8 participants with a form to

requestsuchaccommodationT. he fornl shall be provided to Section 8 participants at briefings

and in annual recertification packets,and may be obtained at other times at the Section 8

participant's request. A copy of the fom1is annexedhereto as Exhibit A

9.

The Housing Authority shall provide listings of available apartmentsto Section 8

participants at briefings and during their apartmentsearches,at their request, which include

infoffi1ation regarding the accessibility of the apartmentslisted. In appropriate circumstances,

and where requestedas a reasonableaccommodation,the Housing Authority will mail listings of

available apartmentsto mobility-impaired Section8 participants. At briefings, including those

conducted pursuantto paragraph7, the Housing Authority shall infoml Section 8 participants

that they may accesslistings of available apartmentson the internet, and that they may request

these listings to be mailed asa reasonableaccommodation.

10. TheHousingAuthoritywill regularlyupdateits lists of availableapartments.

11

In its next quarterly newsletter distributed to all Section 8 landlords, and once a

year thereafter, the Housing Authority will recommend that landlords rent apartmentsto

individuals with mobility impaimlents, will recommend that they modify apartmentsto suit

individuals with mobility impainnents, and will advise them that tax incentives may be available

for suchmodifications,

12. TheHousingAuthorityhasaskedall approvedrealestatebrokersto notify the

Housing Authority if they have knowledge or expertise in locating apartmentsthat may be

4

'he

Case 1:02-cv-03499-CPS-SMG Document 41 Filed 05/04/05 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 36

accessibleor otherwise suitable for individuals with mobility impairments, or haveapartments

that may be suitable for those with mobility impairments now or in the future. TheHousing Authority will modify the real estatebroker list it preparesto specify, basedon brokers

responses,which brokers have indicated that they have suchknowledge or expertise,

3

If an individual with a mobility impainnent requests,asa reasonable

accommodation, that the paymentstandardusedto detemline the sharesof rent be increased,the

Housing Authority will infonn the individual within fifteen (15) days of his or her requestof the

documentationrequired by the Housing Authority to substantiatethe need for this

accommodation.The Housing Authority will requestHUD's approval for suchincreasewithin

fourteen (14) days after the individual submits all required documentationto the Housing

14. Every Januaryand July during the Stipulation Period, the Housing Authority will provide plaintiffs' counsel with (a) a list of individuals with mobility impaiffi1ents,and their names,addresses,and telephonenumbers, who have made a request for accommodationin the Section 8 program; the nature of the accommodationrequested;and the status of the requests; and (b) a list of requestsby the Housing Authority to HUD for pennission to grantrents above the paymentstandardfor individualswith mobility impairmentsandthestatusof thoserequests.
15. Within 60 days of the execution of this Stipulation, the Housing Authority will trainall relevantSection8 personneli,ncluding anyrelevanthousingassistantsr,egardingthe obligations contained in this Stipulation, and will continue to train relevant personnel as needed,
16. If plaintiffs have evidence that the Housing Authority is systemically failing to comply with this Stipulation, plaintiffs' counsel shall notify the Housing Authority's counsel in
5

Authority.

Case 1:02-cv-03499-CPS-SMG Document 41 Filed 05/04/05 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 37

writing of the specific basis and evidence for the claim of systemic non-compliance. The parties

shall thereafter attempt to resolve the allegation of systemic non-compliance in good faith

without the need for judicial intervention. If the parties are unable to resolve the allegation of

systemic non-compliance to the satisfaction of plaintiffs' counsel within 30 days of plaintiffs'

counsel providing written notice consistentwith the terms of this paragraph,plaintiffs may seek

relief from the Court
7. Where notices are to be provided to plaintiffs' counsel under the tenns of this

Stipulation, they will be sentto the addressindicated below, or any updatedaddressprovided by

the plaintiffs' counsel

Jane Greengold Stevens New York Legal Assistance Group 450 West 33rdStreet, 11thFloor
New York, N.Y. 10001

AND

Nancy Rosenbloom Legal Aid Society 199 Water Street
New York, N.Y. 10038

Plaintiffs' counsel will inform the Housing Authority of any changeof addressduring the

Stipulation Period asdefined in paragraph19.
18. Theissueof attorney'sfeeswill be addressedprivatelybetweentheparties.

19. Any and all rights, duties, and obligations created by this Stipulation will expire

three years after the date this Stipulation is "so ordered" by the Court (the "Stipulation Period"),

and this Stipulation will be dissolved and extinguished at the end of the Stipulation Period. The

Courtretainsjurisdictionduringthe StipulationPeriod.

20. Duringthe StipulationPeriod,theHousingAuthoritywill adhereto thepolicies

andproceduresenumeratedin paragraphs3 through15of this Stipulation.

21

The Housing Authority may amendthesepolicies and proceduresduring the

Stipulation Period, so long asthe amendmentsconfonn with applicable law, rules, and
6

Case 1:02-cv-03499-CPS-SMG Document 41 Filed 05/04/05 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 38
regulations, only with the prior written consentof plaintiffs 1counselor with the prior written approval of the court. The Housing Authority will give plaintiffs' counsel prior written notice of any proposed change. Within fourteendays of the receipt of suchnotice, plaintiffs' counsel will give written notice to the Housing Authority's counsel whether or not they object to the proposed change. If plaintiffs' counsel do not object to the proposedchange,the Housing Authority may then promptly implement it. Ifplaintiffs' counsel object to the proposedchange,the Housing Authority must make an application to the Court and have that application approved by the Court if it wishes to be permitted to implement the change.
Dated

SO ORDERED:

RobertW. Sweet,V.S.D.]

7

 
 Case 1:05-cv-05286-RWS Document 10 Filed 02/01/12 Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
KAREN BENNETT and DEBORAH PAULIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

.. , , 05 Civ. 5286 (RWS)

NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY and TINO HERNANDEZ, in his capacity as Chairperson of the New York City Housing Authority,
Defendants.

MICHAEL HEYER, et al., Plaintiffs,
-againstNEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, et aI.,
Defendants.

80 Civ. 1196 (RWS)

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT WHEREAS, a complaint in Heyer et al. v. New York City Housing Authority et aI., 80 Civ. 1196 (RWS) (the "Heyer action") dated February 29, 1980 alleged that the New York City Housing Authority (the "Housing Authority") failed to provide individuals with mobility impainnents who have been, are, or will be qualified for the Section 8 program with effective assistance in finding accessible housing. and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief; and WHEREAS, the Court certified a plaintiff class in the Heyer action on May 22, 1980; and

Case 1:05-cv-05286-RWS Document 10 Filed 02/01/12 Page 2 of 12
WHEREAS, the Court approved a Stipulation of Settlement and Order in the Heyer action on September 13, 1982 (the" 1982 Stipulation"), and the Court retained jurisdiction as set forth in paragraph 14 of the 1982 Stipulation; and
WHEREAS, an action was commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District ofNew York. entitled Karen Bennett et a1. v. New York City Housing Authority et aI., 02 Civ. 3499 (CPS). on or about June 17,2002 (the "Bennett action"). asserting similar allegations to those in the Heyer action and asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act and seeking class certification for a similar class, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Authority denied the allegations in the Bennett action. but the parties wished to resolve their disputes amicably without any admission of liability and without an adjudication on the merits, by replacing the 1982 Stipulation with a new Stipulation; and
WHEREAS, this Court approved a Stipulation and Order of Settlement on April 27, 2006 (the "2006 Stipulation"), dissolving the 1982 Stipulation and substituting therefore a new Stipulation imposing certain obligations, including a reporting requirement, on the Housing Authority for a three year Stipulation period, beginning April 27, 2006; and
WHEREAS, plaintiffs subsequently identified significant deficiencies in the Housing Authority's reporting during the Stipulation period and requested that the Stipulation Period be extended and the deficiencies cured; and
WHEREAS, the parties again wished to resolve their disputes amicably without any admission ofliability. the parties proposed an extension of the Stipulation Period; and
2

Case 1:05-cv-05286-RWS Document 10 Filed 02/01/12 Page 3 of 12
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2009, this Court approved a Stipulation Extending the Stipulation (the "2009 Stipulation"), which extended all the terms of the 2006 Stipulation from April 27, 2009 to November 30, 2010, with all rights and obligations continuing in full tlrroughouttheperiod;and
WHEREAS, plaintiffs have alleged additional significant deficiencies in the Housing Authority's compliance with requirements ofthe 2006 and 2009 Stipulations, and
WHEREAS, the Housing Authority denies plaintiffs' allegations of additional deficiencies, and
WHEREAS, the parties once again wish to resolve their differences amicably; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the plaintiffs in the Heyer action and in the Bennett action and the Housing Authority, that: 1. The 2006 Stipulation and the 2009 Stipulation are hereby dissolved and extinguished; all rights, duties, and obligations of the parties created thereunder shall cease to exist; and this StipUlation and Order of Settlement (the "Stipulation") is substituted therefor. 2. The class. consisting of all individuals with mobility impairments who are or will be holders of Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program vouchers through the Housing Authority, remains certified. 3. It is and shall be the policy of the Housing Authority that its policies and practices regarding individuals with mobility impairments who apply to or participate in the Section 8 program conform to the requirements of applicable federal law and regulations. 4. The Housing Authority shall inform mobility-impaired applicants for the Section 8 program that they may also apply for admission to public housing. For those mobility-impaired
3

Case 1:05-cv-05286-RWS Document 10 Filed 02/01/12 Page 4 of 12
applicants who apply to both programs, the Housing Authority will process both applications in accordance with applicable federal law and regulations.
5. The Housing Authority shall provide accommodations to individuals with mobility impairments applying to or participating in the Section 8 program, provided that the Housing Authority determines, in its discretion and on a case-by-case basis, that the accommodation requested is reasonable, and provided that the accommodation requested does not create an undue financial and administrative burden or fundamentally alter the Section 8 program.
6. In scheduling and conducting briefings and Housing Authority presentations, in application packets, transfer packets, and recertification packets. and as appropriate during ornl interactions including telephone contacts, the Housing Authority shall inform Section 8 applicants and participants that they may request an accommodation.
7. In scheduling and conducting briefings, in transfer packets and recertification packets, and as appropriate during other interactions, the Housing Authority shall provide Section 8 applicants and participants with a form that (a) asks the applicant or participant to report whether he or she or any member of his or her family is a person with a disability; (b) asks the applicant or participant to report whether he or she or any member of his or her family requests a reasonable accommodation; (c) provides examples of accommodations that may be requested; and (d) notifies applicants and participants that additional accommodations not specifically listed may be available if necessary to allow their full participation in the Section 8 program.
4

Case 1:05-cv-05286-RWS Document 10 Filed 02/01/12 Page 5 of 12
8. The reasonable accommodations provided by the Housing Authority will include, but will not be limited to: (a) conducting eligibility interviews by telephone; (b) conducting briefings and issuing vouchers and packets at the applicant's or participant's home; (c) allowing an authorized representative to attend the briefing and pick up a voucher in lieu of the disabled applicant or participant; (d) sending an applicant or participant lists of available accessible apartments by mail; (e) granting an extension of time during which an applicant or participant may use a voucher; (f) requesting an increased payment standard from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); (g) paying the fees charged by a participating real estate broker; (h) granting a participant's request for a transfer voucher for reasons based on mobility impairment, e.g. need for an accessible apartment, a larger apartment, an apartment on a lower floor; and (i) conducting termination hearings at the voucher holder's home.
9. The Housing Authority will conduct individualized assessments of all requests for accommodation by mobility-impaired Section 8 applicants and participants. Before the Housing Authority denies an applicant or participant's reasonable accommodation request, a Housing Authority supervisor or manager will review the request and any supporting documentation.
10. The Housing Authority will provide each Section 8 applicant or participant whose reasonable accommodation request based on mobility impairment is denied with a written notice stating the determination, the basis for that determination, and information regarding the proccss for requesting a grievance hearing if the applicant or participant disagrees with the determination.
11. If the Housing Authority grants a participant's request for a transfer voucher as a reasonable accommodation of a mobility impairment on an expedited or "emergency" basis, the Housing Authority will notifY the participant that (a) hislher transfer request has been approved;
5

Case 1:05-cv-05286-RWS Document 10 Filed 02/01/12 Page 6 of 12
(b) he/she will be contacted to schedule a briefing at which he/she wi1l receive hislher transfer voucher; and (c) if, after four weeks, he/she has not received a date for a briefing, he/she may contact the Customer Contact Center to obtain the date for the briefing.
12. The Housing Authority shall provide listings of available apartments to Section 8 applicants and participants at briefings and during their apartment searches, at their request, which include information regarding the accessibility of the apartments listed. In appropriate circumstances, and where requested as a reasonable accommodation, the Housing Authority will mail listings of available apartments to mobility-impaired Section 8 applicants and participants. As described in paragraph 6, the Housing Authority shall inform Section 8 applicants and participants that they may access listings of available apartments on the internet, and that they may request these listings to be mailed as a reasonable accommodation.
13. At least every month, the Housing Authority will update its lists of available apartments.
14. Ifan individual with a mobility impairment requests, as a reasonable accommodation, that the payment standard used to determine the shares of rent be increased, the Housing Authority will inform the individual within fifteen (15) days of his or her request of the documentation required by the Housing Authority to substantiate the need for this accommodation. The Housing Authority will request HUD's approval for such an increase within fourteen (14) days after the individual submits all required documentation to the Housing Authority. Within seven (7) days after submitting the exception rent request to HUD, the Housing Authority will notifY the individual that a request for an exception rent has been submitted to HUD on his/her behalf.
6

Case 1:05-cv-05286-RWS Document 10 Filed 02/01/12 Page 7 of 12
15. Whenever a Section 8 applicant or participant requests a reasonable accommodation from the Housing Authority, other than a request to mail apartment listings•. through a request to any Housing Authority employee, the Housing Authority will maintain documentation of the accommodation request; the name, address, and telephone number of the person for whom an accommodation is requested; the date on which the request was made; the nature ofthe accommodation requested; and the stated reason for the request. When the Housing Authority determines whether to grant the accommodation request, the Housing Authority wilJ record this determination, the date of the determination, and the date on which the Housing Authority notified the applicant or participant of the determination. When the Housing Authority denies a request for a reasonable accommodation, the Housing Authority will record the reason for the denial. When the Housing Authority approves a request, the Housing Authority will also record the date on which the accommodation is put into place.
16. On the landlord portion of its web site, NYCHA will recommend that landlords modify apartments to accommodate individuals with mobility impairments, and will advise them that tax incentives may be available for such modifications.
17. Once a year, the Housing Authority will ask all approved real estate brokers to notify the Housing Authority if they have knowledge or expertise in locating apartments that may be accessible or otherwise suitable for individuals with mobility impairments, or have apartments that may be suitable for those with mobility impairments now or in the future. The Housing Authority will modify the real estate broker list it prepares to specify, based on brokers' responses, which brokers have indicated that they have such knowledge or expertise.
7

Case 1:05-cv-05286-RWS Document 10 Filed 02/01/12 Page 8 of 12
18. On April 30, 2012 and every three (3) months thereafter during the Stipulation period, on the first business day of the month, the Housing Authority will provide plaintiffs' counsel with:
a. Copies of all "Request for Reasonable Accommodations" forms submitted to the Housing Authority by individuals with mobility impairments during the previous three months, including but not limited to those submitted with initial applications and annual recertifications;
b. Copies of all notices issued to applicants and participants with mobility impairments during the previous three months pursuant to paragraph 10 above, informing them that their reasonable accommodation requests have been denied;
c. Copies of any decisions after grievance hearings requested in response to the notice specified in paragraph 10 that were issued to individuals with mobility impairments during the previous three months;
d. A list of all requests made by the Housing Authority to HUD for permission to grant rents above the payment standard for individuals with mobility impairments during the previous three months, and the status of those requests; and
e. A log or chart containing the information listed in paragraph 15 above for all requests received during the previous three months, and the current status of those requests.
8

Case 1:05-cv-05286-RWS Document 10 Filed 02/01/12 Page 9 of 12
19. The parties may renegotiate the monitoring requirements contained in paragraph 18 above, ifNYCHA so requests, based upon the progress of the Housing Authority's cUJTently ongoing alterations to its computer system.
20. Within 60 days of the Effective Date of this Stipulation, the Housing Authority will train all relevant personnel, including but not limited to all Customer Contact Center staff, housing assistants, and staff conducting annual recertification reviews, regarding the obligations contained in this Stipulation, and will continue to train relevant personnel as needed.
21. Within 60 days of the Effective Date of this StipUlation, the Housing Authority will issue policies or procedures as necessary to implement the requirements of this Stipulation.
22. Customer Contact Center staff responding to calls from Section 8 applicants and participants who have questions or concerns related to mobility impainnents and reasonable accommodations, or state that someone in their household has a disability, will refer callers to the appropriate Housing Authority personnel. Additionally. Customer Contact Center staffwill ask callers who request voucher extensions. increased payment standards, payment of broker's fees, and/or transfer vouchers, and callers who state that they are having trouble finding an apartment, whether they require a reasonable accommodation for a disability.
23. If plaintiffs have evidence that the Housing Authority is systemically failing to
comply with this Stipulation, plaintiffs' counsel shall notify the Housing Authority's counsel :-0
writing of the specific basis and evidence for the claim of systemic non-compliance. The parties shall thereafter attempt to resolve the allegation of systemic non-compliance in good faith without the need for judicial intervention. If the parties are unable to resolve the allegation of systemic non-compliance to the satisfaction of plaintiffs' counsel within 30 days of plaintiffs'
9

Case 1:05-cv-05286-RWS Document 10 Filed 02/01/12 Page 10 of 12

counsel providing written notice consistent with the terms of this paragraph, plaintiffs may seek

relief from the Court.

24. Where notices are to be provided to plaintiffs' counsel under the terms of this

Stipulation, they will be sent to the address indicated below, or any updated address provided by

the plaintiffs' counsel:

Jane Greengold Stevens

AND

New York Legal Assistance Group

7 Hanover Square, 18th Floor

New York, N.Y. 10004

Judith Goldiner Legal Aid Society 199 Water Street New York, N.Y. 10038

Plaintiffs' counsel will inform the Housing Authority of any change of address during the

Stipulation Period as defined in paragraph 26.

25. The parties shall attempt to come to an agreement on the issue of attorneys' fees

arising from monitoring compliance with the 2006 and 2009 Stipulations and the process of

coming to agreement and obtaining approval of this Stipulation. If the parties are unable to

agree, within sixty (60) days of the date this Stipulation is signed, or such additional time as

agreed upon by the parties, plaintiffs may move the Court, pursuant to Rule 54 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, for an Order awarding reasonable costs, fees and disbursements to

plaintiffs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 794a(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 12205 and the Housing Authority may

oppose the application.

26. Any and all rights, duties, and obligations created by this Stipulation will run from

the date this Stipulation is "so ordered" by the Court until April 30, 2014 (the "Stipulation

Period"), and this Stipulation will be dissolved and extinguished at the end of the Stipulation Period unless the Stipulation Period is extended by consent ofthe parties or order of the Court.

10

Case 1:05-cv-05286-RWS Document 10 Filed 02/01/12 Page 11 of 12
The Court retains jwisdiction dwing the Stipulation Period. 21. Plaintiffs will not move to extend the Stipulation Period past April 30, 2014 if(I),
for four consecutive quarters, the Housing Authority provides information pursuant to paragraph 17(e) with respect to all of the requests for accommodation recorded on the forms provided pursuant to paragraph 17(a), and (2) plaintiffs have no evidence the Housing Authority is systemically improperly denying requests for reasonable accommodations of mobility impairments. Nothing herein is intended to require or authorize extension ofthe Stipulation· period under any circumstances.
28. Owing the Stipulation Period, the Housing Authority will adhere to the policies and procedures enumerated in this Stipulation.
29. The Housing Authority may amend these policies and procedures during the StipUlation Period, so long as the amendments conform with applicable law, rules, and regulations, and only with the prior written consent of plaintiffs' counselor with the prior written approval of the Court. The Housing Authority will give plaintiffs' counsel prior written notice of any proposed change. Within fourteen days of the receipt of such notice, plaintiffs' counsel will inform the Housing Authority's counsel in writing whether or not they object to the proposed change. Ifplaintiffs' counsel do not object to the proposed change, the Housing Authority may then promptly implement it. If plaintiffs' counsel object to the proposed change, the Housing. Authority must make an application to the Court and have that application approved by the Court if it wishes to be permitted to implement the change.
11

Case 1:05-cv-05286-RWS Document 10 Filed 02/01/12 Page 12 of 12

Dated;
New Yor Legal Assistance Grollp Jane Grccngold Stevens, ofcbunsel (JS 4790) Julia Russell. of counsel (JR 7378) 7 Hanover Square, 18th noar New YQrk, N.Y. 10004 212-613-5000 AttolTlcys for Dennett Plaintiffs

Dated: LIJo/IL _ __
so~~-----

Genenll Cl)ul1sei New York City Housing Authority Steven J. Rappaport, of cmmsel (SR 7666) 250 Broadway, 9th flool' New York, N.Y. 10007 212-776-5152 Attorneys for Defendants

SO ORDERED:
Dutc

cet, U.S.D.J.
I to '5/. /

12

 
 248 F.Supp.2d 166 (2002)
Karen BENNETT et alia, Plaintiffs, v.
NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY et alia, Defendants.
No. CV-02-3499 (CPS).
United States District Court, E.D. New York.
December 18, 2002.
168*168 Jane Greengold Stevens, Laura Davis, New York Legal Assistance Group, New York City, for plaintiffs.
Charles S. Kleinberg, U.S. Attorneys Office, Carole W. Wilson, Howard M. Schmeltzer, David M. Reizes, Scott de la Vega, Lillanne Alexander, U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
SIFTON, Senior District Judge.
Plaintiffs Karen Bennett, Susana Lopez Lira, and Deborah Paulin bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated for damages, declaratory and injunctive relief against the New York City Housing Authority ("NYCHA") and Tino Hernandez, in his official capacity as Chairperson of NYCHA (collectively, "city defendants"); and also against the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") and Mel Martinez, in his official capacity as Secretary of HUD (collectively, "federal defendants"). The original complaint asserts claims for relief against the federal defendants under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 794 ("Section 504"); Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12165; and the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(f), 3608(e)(5) for federal defendants' alleged failure to adequately oversee the actions of the NYCHA defendants and ensure their compliance with the regulatory scheme of the federal Section 8 housing assistance program. Federal defendants move to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), or alternatively for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Plaintiffs cross-move for leave to amend the complaint under rule 15(a). For reasons set forth below, federal defendants' motion to dismiss is granted and plaintiffs' motion is denied as futile.
BACKGROUND

HUD is the federal funding agency overseeing the Section 8 housing program. Under that program, HUD distributes funds through local public housing authorities ("PHAs") in the form of vouchers to low-income families to help them rent apartments through their local PHA. See 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o), 24 C.F.R. § 982.1(a)(b). Landlord participation in this Section 8 program is voluntary, 24 C.F.R. § 982.302(b), but HUD directs PHAs to encourage landlords with handicapped-accessible units to participate in the program as part of their effort to encourage landlord 169*169 participation generally. 24 C.F.R. § 8.28(a)(2). HUD regulations create an administrative process by which beneficiaries claiming discrimination on the basis of a disability may file an administrative complaint with HUD, either individually or on behalf of a class. 24 C.F.R. § 8.56(c)(1). Those claiming discrimination in violation of Section 504 may also file a complaint with HUD under regulations adopted specifically for its enforcement. 28 C.F.R. § 35.171. Finally, any interested person seeking issuance, amendment, or repeal of a regulation under the Section 8 program may petition the Secretary of HUD for such action under its rulemaking procedures. 24 C.F.R. § 10.20(b). Plaintiffs have not pursued any of these administrative remedies prior to filing the present suit.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) states, in relevant part, that "a party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires." Leave to amend is to be granted absent "undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment." Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962);accord Williams v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 819 F.Supp. 214, 223 (E.D.N.Y.1993). Plaintiffs proposed amended complaint withdraws certain claims and pleads the federal defendants' alleged violations of plaintiffs' rights with additional particularity. As discussed below in the context of the federal defendants' motion, even the proposed amended complaint does not withstand a motion to dismiss. Leave to amend the complaint is therefore denied as futile. See Halpert v. Wertheim & Co., Inc. 81 F.R.D. 734, 735 (S.D.N.Y., 1979) ("If the complaint, as amended, could not withstand a motion to dismiss, a motion to amend need not be granted.").
In their opposition to defendants' motion, plaintiffs concede that they cannot maintain a claim against the federal defendants under Title II of the ADA and withdraw that claim as well as their claim for monetary damages against the federal defendants. However, they maintain the validity of their claims under Section 504 and the FHA. The proposed amended complaint claims that HUD has failed to structure the Section 8 program in a manner that requires and enables public housing authorities to provide effective assistance to people with disabilities to enable them to enjoy the benefits of the program equally to those enjoyed by

people without disabilities ... [or] adequately oversee the actions of the NCHA defendants and ... ensure that NYCHA defendants comply with existing federal regulations concerning the rights of people with disabilities in the Section 8 program.
(Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 103.) In particular, plaintiffs allege that HUD's failure to affirmatively mandate that PHAs provide persons with disabilities certain forms of assistance suggested in HUD literature or to impose funding sanctions on the basis of placement rates for persons with disabilities (as it does on the basis of overall placement rates) violates Section 504 and the FHA. Id. ¶¶ 45-52. Accordingly, the only question currently to be decided is whether plaintiffs may maintain their claims under Section 504 and the FHA.
Federal defendants first assert that they enjoy sovereign immunity to the claims asserted. Congressional waivers of sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed in statutory text. See, e.g., 170*170 Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192, 116 S.Ct. 2092, 135 L.Ed.2d 486 (1996); United States v. Nordic Village, 503 U.S. 30, 33-34, 37, 112 S.Ct. 1011, 117 L.Ed.2d 181 (1992); United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538, 100 S.Ct. 1349, 63 L.Ed.2d 607 (1980). Plaintiffs do not argue the question of sovereign immunity under the FHA, apparently conceding the issue. In any event, the FHA does not include a waiver of sovereign immunity. Almonte v. Pierce, 666 F.Supp. 517, 524 (S.D.N.Y. 1987).
With respect to Section 504, plaintiffs claim that the 1978 amendment to the Rehabilitation Act includes a waiver of sovereign immunity and that they may bring an action directly under that section or under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq., challenging the federal defendants' actions or failures to act. Federal defendants concede that Section 504 as amended does include a waiver of sovereign immunity but argue that it provides no private right of action against HUD. Federal defendants also argue that plaintiffs may not maintain an action under the APA. Each argument will be considered in turn.
Private Right of Action
In Marlow v. United States Department of Education, 820 F.2d 581 (2d Cir. 1987), the Second Circuit considered whether the Rehabilitation Act provides a private right of action. The plaintiff in Marlow sued the Department and Secretary of Education seeking to reopen his administrative complaint and an order allowing him to rebut a finding by the Department's Office for Civil Rights that he was not an "otherwise qualified handicapped person" under the Rehabilitation Act. Marlow, 820 F.2d at 581-82. The court of appeals first noted that Section 504 was modeled after Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that the enforcement scheme of Title VI also applies to Section 504. Id. at 582, see also29 U.S.C. § 794(a)(2). The court of appeals found that the first avenue of review, dealing with agency decisions to terminate or refuse to grant funding, does not provide a private right of action to a

complainant alleging that a funding recipient (such as NYCHA) has not violated Section 504. Marlow, 820 F.2d at 582. The second avenue of review, the court held, is the APA. Id. Plaintiffs APA claim is discussed further below.
The court noted that there is an implied right of action under Section 504 against recipients of federal funds but stated that such an implied right of action against the funding agency itself would only be found in narrow circumstances. Id. at 583. In support of this ruling, the court noted that allowing plaintiff to proceed would disrupt its enforcement efforts in a manner inconsistent with the statutory and regulatory scheme of Section 504 and pointed out that Title VI, upon which that scheme was based, was "aimed at protecting individual rights without subjecting the Government to suits." Id. The court also noted that the remedial purpose of Section 504 would not be undermined by its holding, because the plaintiff could still pursue an action directly against the recipient of federal funds. Id. at 584.
Following Marlow, other courts in this Circuit have found that the Rehabilitation Act does not afford private plaintiffs a right of action against the federal funding agency. See, e.g.,Ohta v. Muraski, 1993 WL 366525, at *9 n. 25 (D.Conn.1993) (Cabranes, J.). Plaintiffs attempt to respond to the precedent in this Circuit by invoking Ninth Circuit precedent and arguing that Marlow is distinguishable on its facts. The Ninth Circuit cases cited by plaintiff are plainly inconsistent with the reasoning and outcome of the Marlow court; accordingly, they will not be followed on the issue 171*171 of implied rights of action. SeeDoe v. Att'y Gen'l of the U.S., 941 F.2d 780 (9th Cir.1991) (finding an implied right of action under Section 504 as amended based on the history of such implied rights of action under Section 504 and Title VI); J.L. v. Social Sec. Admin., 971 F.2d 260 (9th Cir.1992) (same, but finding that prudential concerns made it appropriate for plaintiffs to develop a record before the administrative agency before coming to federal court). As defendants point out, the Ninth Circuit is the exception to the rule on this issue. SeeWomen's Equity Action League v. Cavazos, 906 F.2d 742, 749 (D.C.Cir.1990) (collecting cases).
Plaintiffs argue that Marlow is distinguishable because the plaintiff in that case was only challenging a ruling on his individual complaint against a funds recipient. Rather than seeking review of a particular agency decision, plaintiffs here are challenging HUD's systematic failure to ensure that NYCHA administers Section 8 programs in a nondiscriminatory manner. It is true that the Marlow court cited an agency's conscious and express abdication of its enforcement duties, as well as its acquiescence or active participation in discriminatory practices, as among the "special circumstances" under which a private right of action might be implied. Marlow, 820 F.2d at 583. HUD has in place an administrative mechanism for parties seeking additional regulations. Plaintiffs have not seen fit to make use of this mechanism, nor have they in any way brought HUD's alleged failings to agency attention. Under such circumstances, I cannot say that there has been "conscious abdication" of statutory duties or "acquiescence" in PHA discrimination. Accordingly, I

conclude that there is no implied private right of action in favor of plaintiffs seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against a funding agency under Section 504 based on a claim that the agency has not adopted enforcement mechanisms over and above those already in place.
Review Under APA
The APA provides for judicial review of "final agency action." 5 U.S.C. § 704. Plaintiffs admit that they have not brought their claims to HUD's attention. They nevertheless argue, citing Sierra Club v. Thomas, 828 F.2d 783 (D.C.Cir. 1987), that agency inaction may constitute final action reviewable under the APA. In Sierra Club was faced with an alleged delay in concluding a pending rulemaking, not a failure to implement rulemakingsua sponte, and the categories of inaction held to be reviewable all presumed either a pending request for relief or a "clear statutory duty," the shunning of which would be "of such magnitude that it amounts to an abdication of statutory responsibility." Id. at 793-95. As discussed above, plaintiffs have not alleged any such "clear statutory duty" to enact the regulations it seeks, and they have not brought their claims to HUD for administrative review.
The requirement of final agency action serves the purpose of preventing the courts "from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized...." Abbott Laboratories, Inc. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967). In terms of determining whether agency action is "final," a court will consider "whether the process of administrative decisionmaking has reached a stage where judicial review will not be disruptive of the agency process and whether legal consequences will flow from the action taken...." Seafarers International Union of North America v. United States Coast Guard, 736 F.2d 19, 26 (2d Cir.1984) (quotingNatural Resources 172*172 Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 539 F.2d 824, 836-37 (2d Cir.1976), vacated and remanded for consideration of mootness, 434 U.S. 1030, 98 S.Ct. 759, 54 L.Ed.2d 777 (1978)). In this case, plaintiffs have failed to generate any record upon which HUD's policymaking might be reviewed for errors of law. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit cases on which plaintiffs rely for their argument in support of an implied right of action directly under Section 504 weigh against their argument in favor of reviewability under the APA, an issue on which Second Circuit law is not so clearly contradictory. In J.L., the court found that plaintiffs should in the first instance pursue their claims with the relevant agency in order to develop a record for review, then return to court if they were unsatisfied with the agency action.J.L., 971 F.2d at 270-72. Where plaintiffs have not even brought their claims to the attention of a funding agency, there is no "final action" or inaction ripe for review under the APA.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, federal defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted. I therefore have no occasion to consider its motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or its alternative motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint is denied as futile.
The Clerk is directed to furnish a filed copy of the within to all parties and to the magistrate judge.
SO ORDERED.

 
 Case 1:80-cv-01196-RWS Document 1 Filed 02/29/80 Page 1 of 5

' ----------- YH. H'JM8t::H .... ------~----

MU. UA'r' Yt::AH •:::...-

208 !01 80 1196 02 129 80 3

t<Js
440 l

PLAINTIFFS

I HEYER, MICHAEL individually and on behalf!
of all others simdlarly situated

~~

2J s

UIHI::!'f

-------===c:.~·-··

NEAREST $1.000

NlMlER

Ot:.M~

l 3

0868

DEFENDANTS

YH.

NUMb~

"'!

0 1196

SWEET, J.

I WEW YORK HOUSIWG AUTHORITY
CIIRISTAIW, JOSEPH J. individually and
in his capacity as Chairman of the
New York City Housing AutlJori ty

CAUSE
violation o~ right secured-Rehabilitation Act o~ 1973 Housing and Cormnunity Development Act of 1974
United States Housing Act o:t 19 37

I

dd

Catherine Mitchell

I

ATTORNEYS Donald Scgatz

Howard G. Lane of Counsel

250 Broadway

Norman Spiegel

I

NYC 10007 433-50!,5

Community AcLion for Legal Services Inc~

Handicapped Persons Legal Support Unit

335 Broadwau NYC 10031

925-1000

Sub. 1-11-82

Legal Aid Society and John E. Kirklin

11 Park Place, Bth Floor

NYC 10007

227-2755

UNlTED &TATr<S OtSTRfCT COUflT DOCKET

Case 1:80-cv-01196-RWS Document 1 Filed 02/29/80 Page 2 of 5

80CIV 1196

MICHAEL HE:'tER

NEW YORK HOUSING AU1710RITY ET AL

OAT£

NR.!

PROCEEDINGS

02-29-80 1
02-29-80 t

Filed compalint and issued su.miOOns
Filed f:q;--ap:rte ORlJER, that the app.lication to c0l'1ll1Ence and to prosecute this actic.: in forma pauperis is g:ranted in all respects~.stewart J.

)l-18-80

3 Filed true copy of Order grantin leace to commence and prosecute this action filed 2-29-80 with marshal's ret. of service served- New York City Housing Authori by F. Cox on 3~6·-80 Joseph J. Christian by Fagdom Cox on 3-6-80

04-10-80 4 05-05-80 5

Filed ANSYF~ of clefts Ne~ York City Mousing Authority
:i1J!:r94 stip. and Ollder ext. pltfts tinle to move for a determination as to whether this case should De uaintained as class action to 6-30-80~-Sweet, J,

05-20-80 6 6-.?,5-_\lO

Filed pltfs Frlst lnterrog. Filed pltf•s notice of pre·· trial conference ·c:orisentldd:......,.-sw·ee't~ 'J.

06-25·-80 7 l-10-80 8

Filed pltf•s notice of Amended interrog.
Filed pltfs affdvt. and not.ice of motioo for an order for class certif.ic:,;~.tion and order to compel further answers to interrog. ret, ll-2:1-80

J-10-80 9 Filed pltf's memorandl,llll of Jav in support of pltf's above ootion for class certification and an order compelling further answers to interrog.
ll-20-80 10 Filed clefts affdvt, in opposition to class certification and to the an order to compel further answers to interrog,

11-20-80 11 Filed affdvt. of Jack Tillem counsel for deft. New York City Housing Authorityet al in oppositionto class certification and to an order to comoel further answers to .interrog.

1 ll-2o-so
L-10-80
\
[2-10-80

12 Filed deft, New York Housing et al ~e~orandum of law in oppos1t~on tc classs <ertificat:ion and iu opposition to compel further answers to the interr
13 Filed pltf' s statetaent in support of his motion for class certificatiou
14 Filed pltfs Reply memorandum of law to the arguments presented in clefts memorandum of law Ln opposition to pltf's motion for class certification and to compel further answers to interrog,

4-2-Bl

15 Filed Opinion 115J422: Pltff's Motion for Class Certification is gl\mted~ Pltff's Motion to compel Defts. to answer interrogs. is granted in part and dEJni,ed in in part .. .SWEET, ,J. m/n

4-14-81 16 05-08-8! 17

J Filed Amended Opinion N51422: The cover sheet of the opinion of this court in this ac-tion dated 3~26-81 is hereby amended t:o reflect that the correc-t docket number .ts BO Civ. 1196 {RWS). m/n
Filed pltf's community action for legal handicapped Persons Legal notJce of pretrial cOnderence

18

Filed notice of pre-trial conference by pltf. pursuant to the attached pre-

trial U30C

foorrdethr k

'ifn'llti'&1-T, nafflAs""ttl'lo'i.'m,,t

~
Nl,w"l!liiW

on -

S-26-8l

at

4·45

_________c___._____________

.continued on page --3--

Case 1:80-cv-01196-RWS Document 1 Filed 02/29/80 Page 3 of 5

CIVIL DOCKET CONTINUATlON SHEET DEFENDANT

MJ.CllAEL HEYER

NF.lJ YORK !lOUSING A THORITY E1' AL

PAGE ---"t"OF__ PAGES L:c.....~-~-~---···~-----'-------------_j_

DATE

NR.

PROCEEDJNGS

05-28 81

19 Filed ORDER, that this matter is certified as a class ,;~,~ under rule 23(b) (2) -·-Sweet. J. m/n

08-13-81 08-13-81

20 Filed pltf. Micbael Heyer answ.ers. to defts Firs.t Interrog
21 Filed pltf's notice of taking deposition of the New York City Housing Authority
on June 11. 1981 and deponent is required to produce documents

08-13-81 08-20-81

22 Filed pltf's Amended notice of taking deposition of New York City Housing Authority and request for production of documents

23 Filed stip~ and order pltfs time to answer to deft's interrog to 7-17-81 and defts

i

time for trial :is eXt~ to (10 days)-Sofae_r, J *

24 IFiled Pre~Trial ORDER, the parties shall complete all disc.overy:o inspection and
motions Dy 12-11-81 and the parties shall submit to the court
trial briefs, ajoint proposed pre-trial order and, if applicab proposed jury charges and ~oir dire requests by 12-17-81-Sweet, J. m/n

12-07-81 25

Filed PRE-Trial Order, The parties shall complete all discovery, onspection and
motions hy 4-28-81 and the parties shall submit ot the court trial briefs
a joint proposed pre-trial order and, if applicable, proposed jury charges and ~oir dire requests by 5-8-S)l

0 1-ll-82 26 Filed Consent ORDER substituting atty for pltf.--Swee,t J.

04-07-82 28 Filed pltfs uotice of taking deposition of Albert Doreste, Coorinator of the Handicapped for the New York Housing Aughor:Lty on April LS, 1982

04-13-82 29 Filed clefts Cross notice of taking deposition of Michael Heyer on April 15~ 1982

05--l 3-82 30
'

Filed PRE~Trtal ORDER, The parties sfiall~eomplaete all discover, inspection and
1'0oti.ons by 6-7-82 and the parties sliall sufunit trial Oriefs, a joint proposed pre~trial order and, if applicaOley proposed jury charges and
voire request by 6-14-84--S~eet, J. m/n

6-09-82 31 iled PRE~Trial ORD.ER, The parties shall complete all discovery, inspection and
motions by 7-12-82 and the parties shall submit trial briefs, a joint proposed pre-trial order by 7-12-82--S~eet, J. m/n

07-09-82

IFiled 32

PRE-Trial ORDER, The parties shall complete all discovery, inspection and

!

motions by 8-16-82 and the parties shall submit trial briefs, a joint

proposed pre-trial roder by 8-23-82--S~eet, J. m/n

09-16-82 33

Filed stip. and order of settlement and Order~ It shall be the policy of New Yorl City Housing Authority to provide impaired handicapped or disabled individuals with assistance in finding accessible and other suitable housing units to the extent such housing is available as furt.her indicated -~Sweet, J. m/n
continued on page--4---

Case 1:80-cv-01196-RWS Document 1 Filed 02/29/80 Page 4 of 5

DC lllA (Rev. l/75}

PLAINTIFF
MICHAEL HEYER

J DATE

NR.

CIVIL DOCKET CONTINUATION SHEET DEFENDANT
NEW YORK CITY ROUSING AUTHORITY

ET AI

DOCKET No80-1196RIIS
PAGE _!:._OF_ _ PAGES

PROCEECHNGS

12-10-82 34 12-10-82 35
04-13-83 36 p4-13-83 37

Filed pltffs affdvt. and notice of motion for an order for award of reasonable attorneys fees and costs.

Filed pltffs BEief in support of pltffs above motion for award of reasonable attorneys fees and costs. orig. to chambers

~iled
Wiled

clefts affdvt. by Herbert Hamburg In Opposition to the Award of Attorneys fees
deft.Charles E. William, 111 affdvt. by: Jack Tillem In Oppos:it:ion to Motion for Counsel fees

p4-13-83 38 04-13-83 39 04-13-83 40

Wiled clefts Edward McClendon affdvt. in Opposition to the Award of Attorney's
fees~
Filed affdvt. by Harold Sole In Opposition to the motion of pltff for atty's fees

Filed defts Memorandum of law in Opposition to pltff's motion for attorney's fees

and costs.

orig~ to chambers

4-27-83 4-27-83

41 iled pltffs affdvt~ hy Ja,es C. Francis in support of pltff 1 s motion for an a~ard of attys fees
42 Piled pltffs Reply Memorandum in support of pltffs motion for award of reasonable attys fees and costs. orig. to chambers

'06-30-83 43
07-08-83 44 07-08-83 45 07-20-83 46 8-03-83 47 08-12-83 48
01-25-84 (49)

Filed OPINION II 54908 Pltff. class seek an award of attorneys fees and costs against defts New York City Housing. For reasons stated , this cour concludes that the plaintiff's attorneys are entitled to an award of fees of $ 15, 501.25 and costs of $589.00 for a total of $16,090.25 Submit Judgment on notice within ten (10 dayd of the date of this opinion--Sweet, J. m/n

ned pltffs notice of motion for an order pursuant to rule 3(j) permitting reargument of pltffs motion for an award of atty's fees and costs

and for other relief. ret. July 22, 1983. iled pltffs Memorandum in' support of pltffs motion for reargument*

orig. to

chambers

Filed pltff's Memorandum of law in Opposition to pltff 1s Motion for reargument. orig. to chambers

Fld Memo opinton II 55059 in re to reargue oplnlon /J 54908, awarding attnys fees the court affirms that the rate of $85 was not appropriate. The attny~ skill determined his fees ... thereforethe motion is denied ... Sweet,
Fld Judgment U 83,1318 that attny fees are awarded to pltffs attny in the amt of
$16,090.25, ... defts are order to pay legal aid $2,827.05, •• and defts are to pay a check to co:nmunity ActJ.on for legal services for $13,263.20 ... So ordered ... Sweet, J. 8~12-33 Judg~ent entered 8-15-83 •.. Clerk, Docketed. 8-16-83 m/n Filed Pltffs' SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT NO. 83,1318 in sum of $2,827.05 etc.

Case 1:80-cv-01196-RWS Document 1 Filed 02/29/80 Page 5 of 5

---~--~-----.=C.I V.:I L.;D.O:C =-K=E=T~=C.O~~N:T:I.N.U:A.T.;I OcN :::S.H:E.E.T:...::=:-=-~--~----~-----

IPLA1NT!FF;
' Mtchacl Heyer, eta!

OE.F'ENOANT:
1\'YC floJsmg Authoc;ty, eta!

DOCKET NO. 80Cv!!96 PA"E _;,__ OF" __ PAG cs.

DATE
~----
7118105

NR.

PROCEEDINGS

50 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT by and between the plaintiffs in the Heyer action and in the Bennett action and the Housing Authority_ (Signed by Judge RobertW_ Sweet on 51!0105)- (tp,}

J0111/05 51

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Sweet from Jane Greengold Stevens dated 10/6/05 re: Requesting the Court's approval of a Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement Notice is approved_ It is suggested that the objections be filed on December 2 and the hearing scheduled for January 18-(Signed by Judge Robert W _ Sweet on IOIII/05)(tp,)

11118/05 52

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to The Honorable Robert W_ Sweet from Steven J_
Rappaport dated ll/10/05 re: that the court is granting the Mr- Rappaport's request for
adjournment, to 2123/06 or later, the hearing on the fairness of the proposed settlement in the entitled cases [80cv1196, 02cv3499, 05cv5286] and reset, to 1123106, the date by which comments of class members must be postmarked. (Signed by Judge RobertW. Sweet on II/15/05){tp, )[EOD 12/14105]

4128/06 53 OPIN10N AND ORDER #93055; lt appears to the Court, based on the Court's reading of the Settlement and bearing from members of the class, that pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(e), the Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest oftbe class. The Stipulation and Order of Settlement between the parties, attached hereto, and made a part hereof, is therefore approved. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4127/06) (tp,) [EOD 5/5/06]

4/28/06 54 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/27/06) (tp,) [EOD 5/5/06]

 
 Case: 1:05-cv-5286 As of: 09/20/2016 10:15 PM EDT 1 of 4
CLOSED,RELATED
U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:05−cv−05286−RWS

Bennett et al v. New York City Housing Authority et al Assigned to: Judge Robert W. Sweet Case in other court: USDC−EDNY, 1:02−cv−3499 (CPS) Cause: 28:1331ed Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/03/2005 Date Terminated: 04/28/2006 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 443 Civil Rights: Accommodations Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Karen Bennett

represented by Jane Greengold Stevens New York Legal Assistance Group 450 West 33rd Street 11th Floor New York, NY 10001 (212) 613−5031 Fax: (212) 750−0820 Email: jstevens@nylag.org LEAD ATTORNEY

Julia Grossman Russell New York Legal Assistance Group 450 West 33rd Street 11th Floor New York, NY 10001 (212)−613−5000 Fax: (212)−750−0820 Email: jrussell@nylag.org LEAD ATTORNEY

Yisroel Schulman New York Legal Assistance Group 7 Hanover Sq., 18th Fl. New York, NY 10004 (212)−613−5050 Fax: (212)−758−9970 Email: yschulman@nylag.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Susana Lopez Lira

represented by Jane Greengold Stevens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Julia Grossman Russell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Yisroel Schulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Deborah Paulin individually

represented by Jane Greengold Stevens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:05-cv-5286 As of: 09/20/2016 10:15 PM EDT 2 of 4

Julia Grossman Russell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Yisroel Schulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Deborah Paulin on behalf of all others similarly situated

represented by Jane Greengold Stevens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Julia Grossman Russell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Yisroel Schulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant New York City Housing Authority
Defendant Tino Hernandez in his capacity as Chairperson of the New York City Housing Authority Defendant United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
Defendant Mel Martinez

represented by Ricardo Elias Morales , . New York City Housing Authority 250 Broadway 9th Floor new York, NY 10007 (212) 776−5190 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ricardo Elias Morales , . (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Kleinberg United States Attorney's office Eastern District of New York One Pierrepont Plaza 14th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 (718) 2546012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/03/2005

# Docket Text
CASE TRANSFERRED IN from the United States District Court − Eastern District of New York; Case Number: 02−cv−3499 (CPS). Original file with documents numbered 1−43, certified copy of transfer order and docket entries

Case: 1:05-cv-5286 As of: 09/20/2016 10:15 PM EDT 3 of 4

06/03/2005 06/13/2005 06/13/2005 06/13/2005 06/17/2005 10/17/2005
11/18/2005
04/28/2006
04/28/2006 04/20/2009
10/08/2010 10/08/2010 10/12/2010

received.Document filed by Karen Bennett, Susana Lopez Lira, Deborah Paulin(individually), Deborah Paulin(on behalf of all others similarly situated).(laq, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/6/2005 (laq, ). (Entered: 06/06/2005)
CASE REFERRED TO Judge Robert W. Sweet as possibly related to 1:80−cv−1196. (laq, ) (Entered: 06/06/2005)
CASE ACCEPTED AS RELATED to 1:80−cv−1196. Notice of Assignment to follow. (laq, ) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
1 NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT to Judge Robert W. Sweet. Judge Unassigned no longer assigned to the case. (laq, ) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman is so designated. (laq, ) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
Mailed notice to the attorney(s) of record. (laq, ) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Sweet from Jane Greengold Stevens dated 10/6/05 re: Requesting the Court's approval of a Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement. Notice is approved. It is suggested that the objections be filed on December 2 and the hearing scheduled for January 18.(Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 10/11/05) ORIGINAL DOCUMENT ENTERED IN CASE #80cv1196(RWS), DOC. #51. (tp, ) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
ENDORSED LETTER addressed to The Honorable Robert W. Sweet from Steven J. Rappaport dated 11/10/05 re: that the court is granting the Mr. Rappaport's request for adjournment, to 2/23/06 or later, the hearing on the fairness of the proposed settlement in the entitled cases [80cv1196, 02cv3499, 05cv5286] and reset, to 1/23/06, the date by which commennts of class members must be postmarked. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT ENTERED IN CASE #80cv1196(RWS), DOC. #52. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 11/15/05)(tp, ) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
OPINION AND ORDER #93055; It appears to the Court, based on the Court's reading of the Settlement and hearing from members of the class, that pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(e), the Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the class. The Stipulation and Order of Settlement between the parties, attached hereto, and made a part hereof, is therefore approved. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT ENTERED IN CASE #80cv1196, DOC. #53. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/27/06) (tp,) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT ENTERED IN CASE #80cv1196, DOC. #54. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/27/06)(tp, ) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
2 STIPULATION EXTENDING STIPULATION OF 2006: The Stipulation Period established in the 2006 Stipulation is hereby extended from April 27, 2009 to November 30, 2010, with all rights and obligations set forth in the 2006 Stipulation continuing in full throughout the period. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/16/2009) (tve) (Entered: 04/20/2009)
3 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Jane Greengold Stevens on behalf of Karen Bennett, Susana Lopez Lira, Deborah Paulin(individually), Deborah Paulin(on behalf of all others similarly situated) (Stevens, Jane) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
4 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Julia Grossman Russell on behalf of Karen Bennett, Susana Lopez Lira, Deborah Paulin(individually), Deborah Paulin(on behalf of all others similarly situated) (Russell, Julia) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
5 STIPULATION TO EXTEND STIPULATIONS OF 2006 &2009. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the plaintiffs in the Heyer action and in the Bennett action and the Housing Authority, that: The Stipulation Period established in the 2009 Stipulation is hereby extended from November 30, 2010 to March 31, 2011, with all rights and obligations set forth in the 2006 Stipulation, as extended by the 2009 Stipulation, continuing in full throughout the period. Electronic or faxed signatures on this Stipulation shall have the same force and effect as original signatures. Relates to 05−5286, 80−1196. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 10/11/10) (rjm) (Entered: 10/12/2010)

Case: 1:05-cv-5286 As of: 09/20/2016 10:15 PM EDT 4 of 4

04/27/2011 05/02/2011 06/24/2011 12/28/2011 02/01/2012 03/30/2012

6 ENDORSED LETTER: addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Jane Greengold Stevens dated 3/30/2011 re: The parties jointly request an additional three month extension of the 2009 stipulation through June 30, 2011, to allow counsel to come to a final agreement on the terms of the ongoing stipulation. ENDORSEMENT: So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/26/11) (js) (Entered: 04/28/2011)
7 STIPULATION TO EXTEND STIPULATIONS OF 2006 &2009, that the Stipulation Period established in the 2009 Stipulation is hereby extended from March 31, 2011 until June 30, 2011, with all rights and obligations set forth in the 2006 Stipulation, as extended by the 2009 Stipulation. continuing in full throughout the period. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/29/11) (pl) (Entered: 05/02/2011)
8 STIPULATION TO EXTEND STIPULATIONS OF 2006 &2009: The Stipulation Period established in the 2009 Stipulation is hereby extended from June 30,2011 to December 30,2011, with all rights and obligations set forth in the 2006 Stipulation, as extended by the 2009 Stipulation, continuing in full throughout the period. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 6/21/2011) (jar) (Entered: 06/24/2011)
9 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND STIPULATIONS OF 2006 &2009: The Stipulation Period established in the 2009 Stipulation is hereby extended from 12/30/2011 until 1/31/2012, with all rights and obligations set forth in the 2006 Stipulation, as extended by the 2009 Stipulation, continuing in full throughout the period. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 12/21/2011) (tro) (Entered: 12/28/2011)
10 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT: The 2006 Stipulation and the 2009 Stipulation are hereby dissolved and extinguished; all rights, duties, and obligations of the parties created thereunder shall cease to exist; and this Stipulation and Order of Settlement (the "Stipulation") is substituted therefor. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 1/31/2012) (ft) (Entered: 02/01/2012)
11 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W Sweet from Julia Russell dated 3/29/2012 re: The parties have agreed to extend the time to negotiate fees until 5/18/2012. ENDORSEMENT: So Ordered. (unable to docket in 80 cv 1198) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/30/2012) (cd) (Entered: 03/30/2012)

 
 Case: 1:02-cv-3499 As of: 09/20/2016 11:20 PM EDT 1 of 5
U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:02−cv−03499−CPS−SMG

CLOSED

Bennett et al v. New York City Housing Authority et al Assigned to: Judge Charles P. Sifton Referred to: Chief Mag. Judge Steven M. Gold Demand: $0 Cause: 29:0794 Job Discrimination (Handicap)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/17/2002 Date Terminated: 05/23/2005 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 443 Civil Rights: Accomodations Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Karen Bennett

represented by Yisroel Schulman New York Legal Assistance Group 450 West 33 Street New York, NY 10001 212−613−5050 Email: yschulman@nylag.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Susana Lopez Lira

represented by Yisroel Schulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Deborah Paulin individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

represented by Yisroel Schulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant New York City Housing Authority
Defendant Tino Hernandez in his capacity as Chairperson of the New York City Housing Authority Defendant United States Department of Housing and Urban Development

represented by Ricardo Elias Morales New York City Housing Authority 250 Broadway 9th Floor New York, NY 10007 (212) 776−5190 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Ricardo Elias Morales (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Charles Steven Kleinberg United States Attorneys Office Eastern District of New York One Pierrepont Plaza, 14th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 (718)254−6012 Fax: (718)254−6012 Email: Charles.Kleinberg@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:02-cv-3499 As of: 09/20/2016 11:20 PM EDT 2 of 5

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Mel Martinez in his capacity as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

represented by Charles Steven Kleinberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/17/2002
07/02/2002 07/02/2002 07/10/2002 07/16/2002 07/16/2002
08/20/2002 09/05/2002 09/13/2002
09/13/2002
09/24/2002 09/26/2002
10/24/2002
10/29/2002 10/30/2002
10/30/2002

# Docket Text
1 Complaint filed as to defendant(s) Tino Hernandez, Mel Martinez, New York City Housing Authority, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Filing fee $150.00. Receipt number: 263076.. Filed by Yisroel Schulman on behalf of Karen Bennett, Susana Lopez Lira, Deborah Paulin. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Bowens, Priscilla) (Entered: 06/17/2002)
2 UNSIGNED otsc (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/02/2002)
3 Pltff's memo. of law in support OTSC. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/02/2002)
4 Letter filed by Jane Greengold Stevens to Judge Sifton request an opportunity to be heard on pending motion. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/10/2002)
5 Notice of Motion For Class Certification filed by Yisroel Schulman on behalf of Karen Bennett. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/16/2002)
6 Declaration Memo. of Law in support of motion for a TRO; and Certification of the Class filed by Yisroel Schulman on behalf of Karen Bennett. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/16/2002)
7 Answer to complaint. filed by Ricardo Elias Morales on behalf of Tino Hernandez, New York City Housing Authority. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
8 By Judge Sifton Order extending time Answer due by 9/18/2002. On ltr. dtd. 8/22/02 from Charles S Kleinberg.(Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 09/05/2002)
9 Motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment filed by Charles Kleinberg on behalf of Mel Martinez, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (Rodriguez, Angela) (Entered: 09/18/2002)
10 Memorandum in support of motion to dismiss filed by Charles Kleinberg on behalf of Mel Martinez, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (Related document(s) 9 ) (Rodriguez, Angela) (Entered: 09/18/2002)
11 Order dtd. 9/12/02 Adjourned to 11/21/02 motion for class certification. On ltr. dtd. 9/10/02 from Henry Schoenfeld. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 09/24/2002)
12 Memorandum in support Corrected Copy filed by Charles Kleinberg on behalf of United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 09/26/2002)
13 Revised Scheduling Order dtd. 10/11/02 Pltff's opposition to motion to 10/29/02; Reply to motion to dismiss 11/18/02; Motion adjourned to 11/22/02 @ 4:30. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 10/24/2002)
28 NOTICE / PROPOSED AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT by Karen Bennett (Plaintiff's) (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
14 Motion to amend/correct the complaint filed by Yisroel Schulman on behalf of Karen Bennett, Susana Lopez Lira, Deborah Paulin. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 10/30/2002)
15 Memorandum in opposition to Federal deft's motion to dismiss or summary judgment and for leave to amend the complaint filed by Yisroel Schulman on behalf of Karen Bennett, Susana Lopez Lira, Deborah Paulin. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 10/30/2002)

Case: 1:02-cv-3499 As of: 09/20/2016 11:20 PM EDT 3 of 5

11/01/2002 11/21/2002 11/25/2002
12/04/2002 12/04/2002 12/18/2002 12/18/2002
12/19/2002 12/23/2002
12/30/2002 01/21/2003 02/12/2003 02/13/2003 04/16/2003

16 ORDER Pltff's motion for class certification to 12/19/02; Opposition 11/22/02; Reply 12/13/02. On ltr. dtd. 10/25/02 from Henry Schoenfeld.. Signed by Judge Charles P. Sifton on 10/29/02. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 11/01/2002)
17 Reply Memo. of Law in support of Federal Deft's motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment and in opposition to pltff's motion to amend. filed by United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 11/21/2002)
18 Minute Entry Before Judge Sifton Civil Cause for motion conf. Case called. Motions argued. Decsiion RESERVED on all motions for proceedings held before Charles P. Sifton : Motion Hearing held on 11/25/2002 re 14 Motion to amend/correct the complaint filed by Karen Bennett, Susana Lopez Lira, Deborah Paulin, 9 Motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment filed by United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Mel Martinez. (Court Reporter Loan Hong.) (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 12/02/2002)
19 Letter from Charles S. Kleinberg to Judge Sifton request extension of time to file reply papers to 11/19/02. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 12/04/2002)
20 Letter from Charles S.Kleinberg to Judge Sifton request extension of time for filing reply papers to 11/20/02. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 12/04/2002)
21 Letter from Jane Greengold Stevens dtd 12/12/02 In regard to the letter sent to the court on 12/11/02 by the Deft. Plaintiff's submit that the federal deft remain a critical party to the case, crucial to provision of a full remedy for the plaintiffs. (Sica, Michele) (Entered: 12/18/2002)
22 Memorandum And Order: For the foregoing reasons, federal defendants' Motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted. I therefore have no occasion to consider its motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or its alternative motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint is denied as futile. granting 14 Motion to Amend/Correct. (forwarded for Judgment)(C/M). Signed by JudgeCharles P. Sifton on 12/16/02. (Sica, Michele) (Entered: 12/18/2002)
23 ENDORSED ORDER: GRANTING an adjournment of the Motion to 02/19/03 at 4:30p.m.(Stipulation of Settlement attached) . Signed by Judge Charles P. Sifton on 12/16/02. (Sica, Michele) (Entered: 12/19/2002)
24 Amendment to 22 Memorandum and Order: The final 2 paragraphs of the Memorandum and Order dated 12/16/02 are amended to read as follows: "Conclusion−For the foregoing reasons, federal dfts' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted. I therefore have no occasion to consider its motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or its alternative motion for summary judgment. Pltfs' motion for leave to amend the complaint is denied as futile. The Clerk is directed to furnish a filed copy of the within to all parties and to the Magistrate Judge." Signed by Judge Charles P. Sifton on 12/20/02. C/M.(Fahey, Lauren) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
25 JUDGMENT That the plaintiff take nothing of defendants; that the federal defendants' motion to diamiss for lack of subject matter jurisduction is granted; that plaintiffs' motion to amend to complaint is denied; and that the complaint is dismissed . Signed by Judge Charles P. Sifton on 12/20/02. (Sica, Michele) (Entered: 12/30/2002)
27 Letter from Charles Kleinberg to Judge Sifton dtd 11/22/02, writing to correct an error in "Reply Memorandum of Law In Support Of Federal Defendant's Motion To Dismiss, Etc." dtd 11/20/02. (Sica, Michele) (Entered: 01/21/2003)
29 ORDER Clerk directed to vacate judgment entered 12/30/03. Signed by Judge Charles P. Sifton on 1/6/03. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/12/2003)
30 ORDER So ordered. On ltr. dtd. 1/5/03 from Rosanne R. Pisem the parties decided to postpone the Bennett class certification motion to allow settlement discussions to proceed.. Signed by Judge Charles P. Sifton on 2/10/03. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/13/2003)
31 Letter from Rosanne R. Pisen to Judge Sifton Regarding Class certification motion to May 30,2003. We have decided to postpone the class certification motion to allow

Case: 1:02-cv-3499 As of: 09/20/2016 11:20 PM EDT 4 of 5

04/24/2003 06/17/2004 08/18/2004 08/27/2004 10/05/2004 11/01/2004 12/06/2004 12/15/2004
01/06/2005
01/31/2005 01/31/2005 03/01/2005 04/29/2005
05/04/2005 05/23/2005

settlemnt discussions to proceed.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 04/16/2003)
32 ORDER re 5 Motion For Class Certification be deemed WITHDRAWN without prejudice to reinstatement if settlement break down. On ltr. dtd. 4/15/03 from Jane Greengold Stevens.. Signed by Judge Charles P. Sifton on 4/21/03. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 04/24/2003)
33 Letter from Jane Greengold Stevens to Mag. Gold dtd. 5/21/04 Regarding address change. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 06/17/2004)
34 ORDER pltff's counsel is directed to submit a written report on status of this case to Mag. Judge no leter than AUguet 31,2004. Signed by Judge Steven M. Gold on 8/17/04. (Jackson, Ramona) Copies Mailed. (Entered: 08/18/2004)
35 ORDER dated 8/20/04 on letter dated 8/18/04 from Jane Greengold Stevens to Judge Sifton and Magistrate Gold re: Status Letter; endorsed: counsel shall submit an updated status report by 10/1/04. ( Signed by Judge Steven M. Gold on 8/20/04 )(Guzzi, Roseann) (Entered: 08/27/2004)
36 ORDER Counsel shall submit an updated status report by 11/1/04. On ltr. dtd. 10/1/04 from Elissa M. Krell.. Signed by Judge Steven M. Gold on 10/1/01. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 10/05/2004)
37 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 12/8/2004 10:00 AM in Courtroom A before Magistrate−Judge Steven M. Gold. Signed by Judge Steven M. Gold on 11/1/2004. (Vasquez, Lea) (Entered: 11/01/2004)
38 Letter from Lea Vasquez to all counsel regarding re−scheduling status conference scheduled for 12/8/2004. (Vasquez, Lea) (Entered: 12/06/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Steven M. Gold : Status Conference held on 12/14/2004. Greengold−Stevens, Rosenbloom and Davis for plaintiffs, Rappaport and Krell for defendants. Parties will discuss issues regarding settlement agreement raised today among themselves, and advise court on whether they are able to reach final agreement at or before the next conference. NEXT CONF: JANUARY 3, 2005 AT 12 NOON. (Vasquez, Lea) (Entered: 12/15/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Steven M. Gold : Telephone Conference held on 1/3/2005. Greengold−Stevens and Rosenbloom for plaintiffs, Rappaport and Krell for defendants. Counsel report that they have resolved the issues discussed at the conference on 12/14 and are close to reaching a final settlement agreement. Counsel will submit a final proposed consent decree or a written status report by 2/1/05. (Vasquez, Lea) (Entered: 01/06/2005)
39 Letter from Defendants New York City Housing Authority and Tino Hernandez to Magistrate Judge Gold Regarding Recent Developments. (Krell, Elissa) (Entered: 01/31/2005)
STATUS REPORT ORDERAn updated status report is due by 2/28/2005. Signed by Judge Steven M. Gold on 01/31/2005. (Vasquez, Lea) (Entered: 01/31/2005)
40 Letter from Jane Greengold Stevens to Mag. Judge Gold Regarding status report. (Stevens, Jane) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
ORDER: In a letter dated March 1, 2005, plaintiffs' counsel indicated that they hoped to file a Stipulation of Discontinuance in a few days. As of today's date, the Court's records show that no Stipulation has been filed. Accordingly, plaintiff shall immediately file with the Court via ECF the Stipulation or a status report explaining the delay. So Ordered. Ordered by Judge Steven M. Gold on 04/29/2005. (O'Connor, Erin) (Entered: 04/29/2005)
41 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT by Karen Bennett. (Attachments: # 1)(Stevens, Jane) (Entered: 05/04/2005)
Case transferred to District of SDNY. certified copy of transfer order, and docket sheet sent.. Ordered by Judge Charles P. Sifton on 5/16/05. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 05/23/2005)

Case: 1:02-cv-3499 As of: 09/20/2016 11:20 PM EDT 5 of 5

05/23/2005 06/02/2005

42 ORDER Clerk directed to transfer case to SDNY for consolidation with CV 80−1196 (RWS). Ordered by Judge Charles P. Sifton on 5/16/05. (Jackson, Ramona)Copies mailed. (Entered: 05/23/2005)
43 .Record certified to SDNY. Ackn. requested. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 06/02/2005)

 
 Case: 1:80-cv-01196-RWS As of: 11/04/2016 02:33 PM EDT 1 of 3
U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:80−cv−01196−RWS

CLOSED

Heyer v. New York Housing Authority et al Assigned to: Judge Robert W. Sweet Cause: 29:794 Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Plaintiff Michael Heyer individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

Date Filed: 02/29/1980 Date Terminated: 09/16/1982 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Catherine Mitchell Community Action for Legal Services, Inc. Handicapped Persons Legal Support Unit 335 Broadway New York, NY 10031 212−925−1000 TERMINATED: 01/11/1982 LEAD ATTORNEY
Howard G. Lane Community Action for Legal Services, Inc. Handicapped Persons Legal Support Unit 335 Broadway New York, NY 10031 212−925−1000 TERMINATED: 01/11/1982 LEAD ATTORNEY
John E. Kirklin Legal Aid Society 11 Park Place 8th Floor New York, NY 10007 (212) 227−2755 LEAD ATTORNEY

V. Defendant New York Housing Authority
Defendant Joseph J. Christain individually and in his capacity as Chairman of the New York City Housing Authority

represented by Donald Scgatz 250 Broadway New York, NY 10007 (212)433−5045 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Donald Scgatz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Date Filed 02/29/1980

# Docket Text
1 SCANNED PAPER DOCKET REPORT containing docket entries entered on the Paper Docket for period of 02/29/1980 to 04/28/2006. The Last Document No. used on the Paper Docket is 54. (jeh, ) (Entered: 05/09/2006)

Case: 1:80-cv-01196-RWS As of: 11/04/2016 02:33 PM EDT 2 of 3

02/29/1980 02/29/1980 02/29/1980 04/10/1980 04/02/1981 05/28/1981 01/11/1982 09/16/1982
07/18/2005 10/11/2005 11/18/2005
04/28/2006
04/28/2006 04/20/2009

1 COMPLAINT against New York Housing Authority, Joseph J. Christain. Document filed by Michael Heyer.(jeh, ) Modified on 5/9/2006 (jeh, ). (Entered: 05/09/2006)
2 (filed Es−aprte Order) ENDORSEMENT on Declaration in Support of Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, I.F.P. REQUEST IS GRANTED. (Signed by Judge Charles E. Stewart on 2/29/80) (jeh, ) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
SUMMONS ISSUED as to New York Housing Authority, Joseph J. Christain. (jeh, ) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
4 ANSWER to Complaint. Document filed by New York Housing Authority, Joseph J. Christain.(jeh, ) Modified on 5/9/2006 (jeh, ). (Entered: 05/09/2006)
15 OPINION # 514222; Pltff's motion for class certification is granted. Pltff's motion to compel defts to answer interrogs is granted in part and denied in part. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/2/81) (jeh, ) Modified on 5/9/2006 (jeh, ). (Entered: 05/09/2006)
19 ORDER; that this matter is certified as a class action under rule 23 (b) (2). (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 05/28/81) (jeh, ) Modified on 5/9/2006 (jeh, ). (Entered: 05/09/2006)
26 (Consent) ORDER; substituting attorney for pltf. Attorney John E. Kirklin for Michael Heyer added. Attorney Howard G. Lane and Catherine Mitchell terminated. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 01/11/82) (jeh, ) Modified on 5/9/2006 (jeh, ). (Entered: 05/09/2006)
33 STIPULATION AND ORDER of SETTLEMENT; It shall be the policy of the New York City Housing Authority to provide impaired handicapped or disabled individuals with assistance in finding accessible and other suitable housing units to the extent such housing is available as further indicated. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 9/16/82) (jeh, ) Modified on 5/9/2006 (jeh, ). Modified on 5/9/2006 (jeh, ). (Entered: 05/09/2006)
50 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT; by and between the plaintiffs in the Heyer action and in the Bennett action and the Housing Authority. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 07/18/2005) (jeh, ) Modified on 5/9/2006 (jeh, ). (Entered: 05/09/2006)
51 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Jane Greengold Stevens dated 10/06/2005 re: Requesting the Court's approval of a Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement. Notice is approved. It is suggested that the objections be filed on December 2 and the hearing scheduled for January 18. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 10/11/05) (jeh, ) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
52 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to The Honorable Robert W. Sweet from Steven J. Rappaport dated 11/10/2005 re: that the court is granting the Mr. Rappaport's request for adjournment, to 2/23/2006 or later, the hearing on the fairness of the proposed settlement in entitled cases (80cv1196,02cv3499,05cv5286) and reset, to 1/23/06, the date by which comments of class members must be postmarked. (EOD 12/14/05) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 11/15/2005) (jeh, ) Modified on 5/10/2006 (jeh, ). (Entered: 05/10/2006)
53 OPINION AND ORDER # 93055; It appears to the Court, based on the Court's reading of the Settlement and hearing from members of the class, that pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(e), the Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, ad in the best interest of the class. The Stipulation and Order of Settlement between the parties, attached hereto, and made a part hereof, is therefore approved. (EOD 5/5/06). (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 04/27/2006) (jeh, ) Modified on 5/10/2006 (jeh, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 5/17/2006 (jeh, ). (Entered: 05/10/2006)
54 STIPULATION AND ORDER of SETTLEMENT; (EOD 5/5/2006). (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/27/2006) (jeh, ) (Entered: 05/10/2006)
55 STIPULATION EXTENDING STIPULATION OF 2006: The Stipulation Period established in the 2006 Stipulation is hereby extended from April 27, 2009 to

Case: 1:80-cv-01196-RWS As of: 11/04/2016 02:33 PM EDT 3 of 3

10/12/2010
05/02/2011 06/24/2011 12/28/2011 02/01/2012

November 30, 2010, with all rights and obligations set forth in the 2006 Stipulation continuing in full throughout the period. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/16/2009) (tve) (Entered: 04/23/2009)
56 STIPULATION TO EXTEND STIPULATIONS OF 2006 &2009. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the plaintiffs in the Heyer action and in the Bennett action and the Housing Authority, that: The Stipulation Period established in the 2009 Stipulation is hereby extended from November 30, 2010 to March 31, 2011, with all rights and obligations set forth in the 2006 Stipulation, as extended by the 2009 Stipulation, continuing in full throughout the period. Electronic or faxed signatures on this Stipulation shall have the same force and effect as original signatures. Relates to 05−5286, 80−1196. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 10/11/10) (rjm) (Entered: 10/12/2010)
57 STIPULATION TO EXTEND STIPULATIONS OF 2006 &2009, that the Stipulation Period established in the 2009 Stipulation is hereby extended from March 31, 2011 until June 30, 2011, with all rights and obligations set forth in the 2006 Stipulation, as extended by the 2009 Stipulation. continuing in full throughout the period. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/29/11) (pl) (Entered: 05/02/2011)
58 STIPULATION TO EXTEND STIPULATIONS OF 2006 &2009: The Stipulation Period established in the 2009 Stipulation is hereby extended from June 30,2011 to December 30,2011, with all rights and obligations set forth in the 2006 Stipulation, as extended by the 2009 Stipulation, continuing in full throughout the period. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 6/21/2011) (jar) (Entered: 06/24/2011)
59 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND STIPULATIONS OF 2006 &2009: The Stipulation Period established in the 2009 Stipulation is hereby extended from 12/30/2011 until 1/31/2012, with all rights and obligations set forth in the 2006 Stipulation, as extended by the 2009 Stipulation, continuing in full throughout the period. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 12/21/2011) (tro) (Entered: 12/28/2011)
60 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT: The 2006 Stipulation and the 2009 Stipulation are hereby dissolved and extinguished; all rights, duties, and obligations of the parties created thereunder shall cease to exist; and this Stipulation and Order of Settlement (the "Stipulation") is substituted therefor. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 1/31/2012) (ft) (Entered: 02/01/2012)