2018 06:45 PM - Law.comNYCHA’s purported actions in the past, between 2012 and 2016, alleging...
Transcript of 2018 06:45 PM - Law.comNYCHA’s purported actions in the past, between 2012 and 2016, alleging...
-
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: IAS PART 35 -----------------------------------------------------------------------x In the Matter of the Application of THE CITY-WIDE COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS and AT-RISK COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC., Petitioners, For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules,
-against- THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY and SHOLA OLATOYE, as Chair of the New York City Housing Authority, Respondents. -----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Index No. 100283/18 (Edmead, J.)
RESPONDENTS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
KELLY D. MACNEAL First Deputy General Counsel New York City Housing Authority Attorney for Respondents 250 Broadway, 9th Floor New York, New York 10007 (212) 776-5154
Nancy M. Harnett Seth E. Kramer Andrew M. Lupin Melissa R. Renwick, Of Counsel
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2018 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 100283/2018NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2018
1 of 29
-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ...............................................................................................1
STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................4
ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................................5
THE COURT SHOULD DENY PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ..................................................................5
A. Petitioners Cannot Demonstrate a Likelihood of Success on the Merits Because They Have No Private Right of Action to Enforce the Laws They Invoke ..........................................................6 1. Local Law 1 ...........................................................................................9
2. Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act .......................................10
3. Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act .........................11
4. United States Housing Act ...................................................................12
5. Federal Regulations .............................................................................13
B. Petitioners Cannot Show Irreparable Injury ....................................................14
1. NYCHA Has Already Taken the Necessary Steps to Comply with the Law .............................................................14
2. The New Issues Raised in Petitioners’ Motion Do Not Show Irreparable Injury .............................................17
a. Petitioners’ Claim That NYCHA Did Not Inspect Two Exempted Apartments Does Not Warrant the
Immediate Relief They Seek ..........................................................17
b. Petitioners’ Claims Concerning Work Orders Does Not Warrant the Immediate Relief Petitioners Seek .............19
3. Article 78 Proceedings Are Expedited Summary Proceedings............19
C. The Balance of the Equities Does Not Favor Petitioners ................................20
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2018 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 100283/2018NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2018
2 of 29
-
D. Petitioners Impermissibly Seek Ultimate Relief Under the Guise of a Preliminary Injunction ...................................................21
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................22
ii
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2018 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 100283/2018NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2018
3 of 29
-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Federal Cases
Abrahams v. MTA Long Island Bus, 644 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2011) .........................................14 Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) ..........................................................................13 Concerned Tenants Assn. of Father Panik Vil. v. Pierce, 685 F. Supp. 316 (D. Conn. 1988) ...........................................................................................12 Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 137 S.Ct. 743 (2017) ...................................................................7 Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) .........................................................7, 10, 11
Gross v. Max, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110547 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2012) ...............................12 Harris v. United States Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9776 (S.D.N.Y. Jul 16, 1993) ............................................................13 Jefferson v. Soe, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104389 (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 6, 2017) (JS) (AYS) ............6 Johnson v. City of Detroit, 446 F.3d 614 (6th Cir. 2006) ..................................................10, 13 LaPierre v. LaValley, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112004 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2016) (MAD) (DJS) ...............................6 Lindsay by Stevens v. New York City Hous. Auth., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1893 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 1999) ..........................................................11 Mair v. City of Albany, 303 F. Supp. 2d 237 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) ..............................................12 McField v. Phila. Hous. Auth., 992 F. Supp. 2d 481 (E.D. Pa 2014) ......................................11 Perry v. Housing Authority of Charleston, 664 F.2d 1210 (4th Cir. 1981) .............................12 Santiago by Muniz v. Hernandez, 53 F. Supp. 2d 264 (E.D.N.Y. 1999).................................12 S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Clorox Co., 241 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 2001) .....................................6
iii
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2018 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 100283/2018NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2018
4 of 29
-
Page(s)
State Cases
Berenger v. 261 W. LLC, 93 A.D.3d 175 (1st Dep’t 2012) ......................................................7 Credit Agricole Indosuez v. Rossiyskiy Kredit Bank, 94 N.Y.2d 541 (2000) ..........................6 Doe v. Axelrod, 73 N.Y.2d 748 (1988) .....................................................................................5 Delgado v. New York City Hous. Auth., 66 A.D.3d 607 (1st Dep’t 2009) .................7, 8, 9, 12 Doe v. Dinkins, 192 A.D.2d 270 (1st Dep’t 1993) ..................................................................10 East Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist. v. King, 130 A.D.3d 19 (3d Dep’t 2015) ...................................8 George v. Bloomberg, 2 A.D.3d 294 (1st Dep’t 2003) ..............................................................8 Gibbs v. Paine, 276 A.D.2d 743 (2d Dep’t 2000)....................................................................11 Grant Co. v. Srogi, 52 N.Y.2d 496 (1981) .................................................................................5 Hedgepeth v. Wing, 29 A.D.3d 632 (2d Dep’t 2006) ................................................................5 Hill v. Guiliani, 272 A.D.2d 157 (1st Dep’t 2000) ....................................................................8 Home Care Ass’n v. Bane, 218 A.D.2d 106 (3d Dep’t 1995) ...................................................8 Housing Works, Inc. v. City of New York, 225 A.D.2d 209 (1st Dep’t 1998) ........................5 Juarez by Juarez v. Wavecrest Mgmt. Team, 88 N.Y.2d 628 (1996) ........................................9 Kerusa Co. LLC v. W10Z/515 Real Estate Ltd. Partnership, 12 N.Y.3d 236 (2009) ...............7 La Barbera v. Town of Woodstock, 29 A.D.3d 1054 (3d Dep’t 2006) .....................................5 Lee v. New York City Dep’t of Hous. Pres. & Dev., 162 Misc. 2d 901 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 1994) ............................................................................16 Lee v. New York City Dep’t of Hous. Pres. & Dev., 212 A.D.2d 453 (1st Dep’t 1995) ............................................................................................16 McCain v. Koch, 70 N.Y.2d 109 (1987)..................................................................................10 Peckman v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 125 A.D.2d 244 (1st Dep’t 1986) ......................................16
iv
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2018 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 100283/2018NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2018
5 of 29
-
Page(s)
State Cases (continued)
Rosa Hair Stylists v Jaber Food Corp., 218 A.D.2d 793 (2d Dep’t 1995) ................................5 St. Margaret’s Ctr. v. Novello, 23 A.D.3d 817 (3d Dep’t 2005) ...............................................8
St. Paul’s Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. York Claims Serv., Inc., 308 A.D.2d 347 (1st Dep’t 2003) ........................................................................................5, 21 Stray from the Heart, Inc. v. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene of the City of New York, 83 A.D.3d 521 (1st Dep’t 2011), aff’d, 20 N.Y.3d 946 (2012) .................................................5 Subway Surface Supervisors Assn. v. New York City Tr. Auth., 22 N.Y.3d 1182 (2014) ..............................................................................................................8 TOA Constr. Co., Inc. v. Tsitsires, 54 A.D.3d 109 (1st Dep’t 2008) ......................................16 Westside Ventura, LLC v. New York City Dep’t of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., Index No. 114471/10, 2011 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2671 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. Jun. 1, 2011) ...........9 Women’s Voices for the Earth, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 29 Misc. 3d 358 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2010) ................................................................................7
Federal Statutes and Regulations
24 C.F.R. § 35.115(a)(4) ..........................................................................................................17
24 C.F.R. § 35.125 ...................................................................................................................16
24 C.F.R. § 35.170(a)...............................................................................................................14
42 USC § 1396a(a)(30)(A) ........................................................................................................8
42 U.S.C. § 1437d ................................................................................................................6, 12
42 U.S.C. § 4822 (LPPPA) ............................................................................................6, 10, 11
42 U.S.C. § 4851 (RLBPHRA) ......................................................................................6, 11, 12
42 U.S.C. § 4852d ....................................................................................................................12
v
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2018 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 100283/2018NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2018
6 of 29
-
Page(s)
Other Authorities
N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 27-2056 (Local Law 1) .............................................................. passim
N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 27-2056.4 .............................................................................................6
N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 27-2056.4(a) .......................................................................................14
N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 27-2056-5(b) ......................................................................................17
N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 27-2056.9 .......................................................................................9, 14
N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 27-2056.10 .....................................................................................9, 14
N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 27-2056.18 .........................................................................................14
N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 27-2120 ..........................................................................................9, 14
N.Y.C. Charter § 1802 ...............................................................................................................9
28 RCNY 11-08 .......................................................................................................................17
28 RCNY 173.14 .....................................................................................................................21
vi
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2018 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 100283/2018NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2018
7 of 29
-
Respondents New York City Housing Authority (“NYCHA”) and Shola Olatoye, as
Chair of NYCHA, respectfully submit this memorandum of law in opposition to the motion of
Petitioners City-wide Council of Presidents (“CCOP”) and At-Risk Community Services Inc.
(“At Risk”) (together, “Petitioners”) for a preliminary injunction directing NYCHA to conduct
lead-based paint inspections within 90 days in certain apartments.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Although they now seek the extraordinary expedited relief of a preliminary injunction,
Petitioners brought this summary proceeding, not by order to show cause, but by notice of
petition initially returnable two months later. In their petition, Petitioners primarily focused on
NYCHA’s purported actions in the past, between 2012 and 2016, alleging NYCHA improperly
suspended lead inspections, incorrectly certified to the United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development (“HUD”) that it was complying with federal lead laws, and did not use
workers with the proper certifications to conduct visual assessments for presumed lead-based
paint hazards and remediate as required. Petitioners’ allegations echoed those already being
addressed by the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”), HUD, the New York City
Department of Investigation (“DOI”), and the New York City Council (“City Council”).
Notwithstanding Petitioners’ reliance on selective excerpts of NYCHA Chair Shola
Olatoye’s December 2017 testimony before the City Council and newspaper articles, NYCHA
already had taken corrective action long before Petitioners commenced this proceeding, as
acknowledged by a DOI report and attested to by Chair Olatoye before the City Council.
NYCHA corrected its HUD certification in July 2017 to comport with its earlier oral
representations to HUD officials about the status of NYCHA’s compliance with law; contracted
with a certified third-party vendor in July 2017 to perform the requisite visual assessments under
1
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2018 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 100283/2018NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2018
8 of 29
-
federal and local law; performed Local Law 1 annual visual assessments in approximately 99.9
percent of the 8,920 covered apartments since October 2017; and remediated presumed lead
paint hazards in approximately 87 percent of the apartments in which presumed lead paint
hazards were observed. NYCHA is evaluating the process used for its Local Law 1 inspections
for best practices and resources necessary to conduct the larger-scale HUD inspections in 2018.
With good reason, Petitioners therefore do not claim the historical allegations in their
petition justify a preliminary injunction. Instead, Petitioners “believe that events which occurred
subsequent to the filing of the Petition warrant holding an expedited hearing” on the issue of lead
inspections. Affirmation of Jim Walden in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, dated
March 26, 2018 (“Walden Aff.”) ¶ 2. Petitioners’ argument lacks merit and their motion should
be denied.
First, Petitioners allege NYCHA refused to inspect and remediate lead-based paint
hazards in two units at Ingersoll Houses and Melrose Houses. But federal and local laws do not
require NYCHA to conduct annual visual assessments of units at these developments. The New
York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (“HPD”) exempted buildings
at these developments from annual visual assessments required by Local Law 1 after NYCHA
tested a sampling of units in accordance with HUD guidance to rule out the presence of lead-
based paint above threshold levels. NYCHA is also exempt from the visual assessment
requirement under HUD’s regulations based on the same sampling.
Nevertheless, NYCHA did visually assess and test these units. Testing of paint chips
from the Ingersoll unit came back negative for a lead hazard. Testing of paint chips from the
Melrose unit showed lead was present on two metal window casings (painted colors not used by
NYCHA as standard paint) and NYCHA abated the lead. Out of an abundance of caution,
2
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2018 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 100283/2018NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2018
9 of 29
-
NYCHA will conduct lead-based paint testing in all units at Ingersoll and Melrose Houses where
a child under the age of 6 resides and where the unit was not individually tested as part of the
sampling or for other reasons. NYCHA will evaluate the results of testing at these two
developments to determine the best course of action at other exempt developments.
Second, Petitioners seek injunctive relief because an anonymous NYCHA employee
reportedly told CBS2 that NYCHA supervisors pressure employees to close out work tickets
before work is actually done. But in that same report, NYCHA’s Executive Vice President for
Operations Cathy Pennington denied this is NYCHA’s practice. In any event, NYCHA’s
processing of work order tickets is unrelated to its handling of the annual inspections that are the
subject of this proceeding.
Petitioners have not proved they are entitled to a preliminary injunction. Petitioners have
no likelihood of success on the merits because there is no private right of action under any of the
laws or regulations they seek to enforce. Instead, those laws set up regulatory schemes providing
for enforcement by HPD and HUD. Simply invoking CPLR Article 78 does not give rise to a
private right of action where none otherwise exists.
Petitioners cannot show irreparable injury because NYCHA has conducted the nearly
9,000 unit visual assessments required by Local Law 1 and the necessary remediation with
certified personnel. NYCHA also notifies residents of the results of the visual assessments
through a form generated from the inspectors’ handheld devices, and is addressing the issues
Petitioners raise concerning the apartments exempted from the visual assessment requirements in
Ingersoll and Melrose Houses. In addition, because this is an expedited summary proceeding,
this Court will be reviewing and determining the underlying Article 78 proceeding within
months, as opposed to the years plenary actions often last.
3
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2018 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 100283/2018NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2018
10 of 29
-
The balance of the equities does not favor granting Petitioners preliminary injunctive
relief. The injunction Petitioners seek would require NYCHA to re-inspect apartments that were
just inspected and remediated in the past months, a misallocation of scarce resources. Court
intervention is not necessary because, in addition to HPD and HUD which enforce lead paint
laws, local authorities monitor NYCHA’s progress, and the DOJ is conducting an investigation.
Even without a preliminary injunction, CCOP has an advisory role under federal regulations and
a say in selecting the state monitor under Governor Cuomo’s recent Executive Order. Adding
another level of directives with a preliminary injunction is unnecessary and will undoubtedly
result in conflicts.
Finally, Petitioners may not obtain ultimate relief by preliminary injunction. Here
Petitioners impermissibly seek even greater relief than the law could ultimately provide.
Petitioners would have this Court: impose a 90-day deadline where none exists under the law;
require multiple inspections of the same unit in a single year; and expand the scope of
inspections to apartments where children under 8 years old reside when Local law 1 applies to
units where children under the age of 6 reside.
For each of these reasons as discussed more fully below, this Court should deny
Petitioners’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
NYCHA respectfully refers this Court to the affidavit of Shireen Riazi Kermani, dated
April 12, 2018 (“Kermani Aff.”), the affirmation of Nancy M. Harnett, dated April 12, 2018
(“Harnett Aff.”), and the exhibits attached thereto for a full recitation of the facts.
4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2018 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 100283/2018NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2018
11 of 29
-
ARGUMENT
THE COURT SHOULD DENY PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION1
“A mandatory injunction should not be granted, absent extraordinary circumstances,
where the status quo would be disturbed and the plaintiff would receive the ultimate relief
sought, pendente lite.” St. Paul’s Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. York Claims Serv., Inc., 308 A.D.2d
347, 349 (1st Dep’t 2003) (citing Rosa Hair Stylists v Jaber Food Corp., 218 A.D.2d 793, 794
(2d Dep’t 1995)).2 To justify early judicial intervention, a “party seeking a preliminary
injunction must clearly demonstrate (1) the likelihood of ultimate success on the merits; (2) the
prospect of irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued; and (3) a balance of equities in the
movant’s favor.” Housing Works, Inc. v. City of New York, 225 A.D.2d 209, 213 (1st Dep’t
1998) (citing Doe v. Axelrod, 73 N.Y.2d 748, 750 (1988)); see also Grant Co. v. Srogi, 52
N.Y.2d 496, 517 (1981). Petitioners fail to satisfy their burden.
1 At-Risk, described in the Petition as “a non-profit corporation dedicated to serving the needs of New York City’s low-income housing tenants” (Pet. ¶ 15), has not met its burden to prove it has standing to litigate the claims asserted in this proceeding. See La Barbera v. Town of Woodstock, 29 A.D.3d 1054, 1055 (3d Dep’t 2006); Hedgepeth v. Wing, 29 A.D.3d 632, 635 (2d Dep’t 2006). At Risk has not shown what injury it has suffered or that claims like those asserted here would not be litigated absent its participation. See Stray from the Heart, Inc. v. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene of the City of New York, 83 A.D.3d 521, 522 (1st Dep’t 2011), aff’d, 20 N.Y.3d 946 (2012). 2 Petitioners cite several cases for the proposition courts may issue preliminary injunctions that compel action rather than maintain the status quo, but none of those cases is an Article 78 proceeding where, as here, the merits of the claims would be determined in an expedited manner. See Pet. Mem. at 14-15.
5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2018 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 100283/2018NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2018
12 of 29
https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=813a4b64-393b-445b-a158-3237c141aef3&pdsearchterms=308+A.D.2d+347&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=4trc9kk&earg=pdpsf&prid=648c2889-d027-46a7-a059-d305b15cf4d1https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=813a4b64-393b-445b-a158-3237c141aef3&pdsearchterms=308+A.D.2d+347&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=4trc9kk&earg=pdpsf&prid=648c2889-d027-46a7-a059-d305b15cf4d1https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=3f193db1-9747-4c93-a463-83035a8d1976&pdsearchterms=218+A.D.2d+793&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=813a4b64-393b-445b-a158-3237c141aef3https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=3f193db1-9747-4c93-a463-83035a8d1976&pdsearchterms=218+A.D.2d+793&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=813a4b64-393b-445b-a158-3237c141aef3https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=6f176ae4-9043-4e42-bad9-49cfca99fa48&pdsearchterms=225+A.D.2d+209&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=3f193db1-9747-4c93-a463-83035a8d1976https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=6f176ae4-9043-4e42-bad9-49cfca99fa48&pdsearchterms=225+A.D.2d+209&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=3f193db1-9747-4c93-a463-83035a8d1976https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=61aa459c-9514-4298-9e68-0371bd2d51f1&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A3S3J-XHX0-003D-G07B-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A3S3J-XHX0-003D-G07B-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=9096&pdshepid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A7XWN-JHJ1-2NSD-N404-00000-00&pdteaserkey=sr0&pditab=allpods&ecomp=Ly_fk&earg=sr0&prid=f431fbc0-4686-46c7-ac68-a2e3daf4b50chttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=105a47e4-d7ee-45fb-8570-8cd782894641&pdsearchterms=52+N.Y.2d+496&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=61aa459c-9514-4298-9e68-0371bd2d51f1https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=105a47e4-d7ee-45fb-8570-8cd782894641&pdsearchterms=52+N.Y.2d+496&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=61aa459c-9514-4298-9e68-0371bd2d51f1https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=5a4d61ea-f042-4ffb-88c6-ffe235c12277&pdsearchterms=29+A.D.3d+1054&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=105a47e4-d7ee-45fb-8570-8cd782894641https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=5a4d61ea-f042-4ffb-88c6-ffe235c12277&pdsearchterms=29+A.D.3d+1054&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=105a47e4-d7ee-45fb-8570-8cd782894641https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=46aa167d-f556-4c7a-a48e-f62b050feaad&pdsearchterms=29+A.D.3d+632&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=5a4d61ea-f042-4ffb-88c6-ffe235c12277https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=a6276164-eeee-488e-a45b-72939a714df2&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A52ND-DK41-F04J-71KP-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A52ND-DK41-F04J-71KP-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=9092&pdshepid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A52S9-D5M1-DXC7-F150-00000-00&pdteaserkey=sr0&pditab=allpods&ecomp=Ly_fk&earg=sr0&prid=961683fd-3295-4a4d-ba49-22c472589eb4https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=a6276164-eeee-488e-a45b-72939a714df2&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A52ND-DK41-F04J-71KP-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A52ND-DK41-F04J-71KP-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=9092&pdshepid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A52S9-D5M1-DXC7-F150-00000-00&pdteaserkey=sr0&pditab=allpods&ecomp=Ly_fk&earg=sr0&prid=961683fd-3295-4a4d-ba49-22c472589eb4https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=6acff44b-5f0d-4bd8-bf20-05062f872ab3&pdsearchterms=20+N.Y.3d+946&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=a6276164-eeee-488e-a45b-72939a714df2
-
A. Petitioners Cannot Demonstrate a Likelihood of Success on the Merits Because They Have No Private Right of Action to Enforce the Laws They Invoke
Petitioners seek an order requiring NYCHA to comply with Local Law 1 (N.Y.C. Admin.
Code § 27-2056.4) (see Petition (“Pet.”)3 ¶¶ 43-46), the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention
Act (“LPPPA”) (42 U.S.C. § 4822) (see Pet. ¶¶ 30-34), the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act (“RLBPHRA”) (42 U.S.C. § 4851) (see Pet. ¶ 31), the United States Housing Act
(42 U.S.C. § 1437d) (see Pet. ¶¶ 26-29), and corresponding federal regulations (see Pet. ¶¶ 32-
37). See also Pet. ¶¶ 197-206.
Courts repeatedly have held that “‘[o]bey the law’ injunctions” – the type of injunction
Petitioners seek in this case – “are vague, do not require the defendants to do anything more than
that already imposed by law, subject the defendants to contempt rather than statutorily prescribed
sanctions, and are not readily capable of enforcement. As such, these injunctions are not
favored.” Jefferson v. Soe, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104389, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 6, 2017) (JS)
(AYS); see S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Clorox Co., 241 F.3d 232, 240 (2d Cir. 2001)
(explaining “under Rule 65(d), an injunction must be more specific than a simple command that
the defendant obey the law”); LaPierre v. LaValley, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112004, at *8
(N.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2016) (MAD) (DJS) (denying plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive
relief and noting “obey the law” injunctions are not favored); see also Credit Agricole Indosuez
v. Rossiyskiy Kredit Bank, 94 N.Y.2d 541 (2000) (explaining CPLR 6301 governing preliminary
injunctions is substantially similar to rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).
But more fundamentally, because there is no private right of action under the provisions
Petitioners invoke, Petitioners fail to state a cause of action and accordingly have no likelihood
3 The Petition is annexed to the Walden Affirmation as Exhibit A.
6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2018 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 100283/2018NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2018
13 of 29
https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=c7541438-b71b-4e78-b1ee-fdd96baf2119&pdsearchterms=N.Y.C.+Admin.+Code+%C2%A7+27-2056.4&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=6acff44b-5f0d-4bd8-bf20-05062f872ab3https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=c7541438-b71b-4e78-b1ee-fdd96baf2119&pdsearchterms=N.Y.C.+Admin.+Code+%C2%A7+27-2056.4&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=6acff44b-5f0d-4bd8-bf20-05062f872ab3https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=8230385a-20eb-4af8-b683-7363925d42eb&pdsearchterms=42+U.S.C.+%C2%A7+4822&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=c7541438-b71b-4e78-b1ee-fdd96baf2119https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=21aa2cc9-531f-4696-be23-c000393c498b&pdsearchterms=42+U.S.C.+%C2%A7+4851&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=8230385a-20eb-4af8-b683-7363925d42ebhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=414f58e4-360f-4265-a51a-36c4175592dd&pdsearchterms=42+U.S.C.+%C2%A7+1437d&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=21aa2cc9-531f-4696-be23-c000393c498bhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=5c6ce4c0-5865-410b-bba3-90ca4ace568e&pdsearchterms=2017+U.S.+Dist.+LEXIS+104389&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=414f58e4-360f-4265-a51a-36c4175592ddhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=5c6ce4c0-5865-410b-bba3-90ca4ace568e&pdsearchterms=2017+U.S.+Dist.+LEXIS+104389&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=414f58e4-360f-4265-a51a-36c4175592ddhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=7e7e433b-5631-4d5b-936d-149fbae365c1&pdsearchterms=241+F.3d+232&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=5c6ce4c0-5865-410b-bba3-90ca4ace568ehttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=8465828f-0b5f-48eb-8e89-0af16702e23c&pdsearchterms=2016+U.S.+Dist.+LEXIS+112004&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=7e7e433b-5631-4d5b-936d-149fbae365c1https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=8465828f-0b5f-48eb-8e89-0af16702e23c&pdsearchterms=2016+U.S.+Dist.+LEXIS+112004&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=7e7e433b-5631-4d5b-936d-149fbae365c1https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=b514f29a-cf0f-40f9-9f60-4f5c55f878c6&pdsearchterms=94+N.Y.2d+541&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=8465828f-0b5f-48eb-8e89-0af16702e23chttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=b514f29a-cf0f-40f9-9f60-4f5c55f878c6&pdsearchterms=94+N.Y.2d+541&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=8465828f-0b5f-48eb-8e89-0af16702e23c
-
of success on the merits. In Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002), the United States
Supreme Court held that an individual could not bring an action to enforce a provision of the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 because the statute created no personally
enforceable rights. See Gonzaga, 536 U.S. at 276. The Court found if a statute does not
explicitly provide for a private right of action, it must clearly and unambiguously evince
Congressional intent to create new individual rights. Id. at 285-86, 290. Merely being within the
“general zone of interest that the statute is intended to protect” is insufficient to create a private
right of action. Id. at 283. “[I]t is rights, not the broader or vaguer ‘benefits’ or ‘interests,’ that
may be enforced under [section 1983].” Id. at 283 (emphasis in original). No private right of
action exists where a statute “by its terms grants no private rights to any identifiable class.” Id.
at 284 (citation omitted). If a statute focuses on a regulated person (or entity) rather than on
individuals protected, it creates “no implication of an intent to confer rights on a particular class
of persons.” Id. at 287.
Where there is no private right of action under a statute, the fact “[t]hat relief is sought in
an article 78 proceeding seeking mandamus relief does not lead to a different result.” Women’s
Voices for the Earth, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 29 Misc. 3d 358, 360 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co.
2010) (Braun, J.).4 Thus, the Appellate Division, First Department and other appellate courts
routinely have dismissed Article 78 proceedings seeking mandamus relief where there is no
private cause of action based on the underlying statutes. See Delgado v. New York City Hous.
4 This decision is consistent with the well settled law parties may not denominate their claims to evade dismissal based on the lack of a private right of action. See Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 137 S.Ct. 743, 752 (2017) (holding courts should look to the substance or “gravamen” of the claim to determine whether relief is limited by the federal IDEA statute); Kerusa Co. LLC v. W10Z/515 Real Estate Ltd. Partnership, 12 N.Y.3d 236, 245 (2009) (holding acceptance of pleading of common-law fraud claim as valid would “invite a backdoor private cause of action to enforce the Martin Act,” for which there is no private right to enforce); Berenger v. 261 W. LLC, 93 A.D.3d 175, 184 (1st Dep’t 2012) (same as Kerusa).
7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2018 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 100283/2018NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2018
14 of 29
https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=97aee8a0-0aa1-4376-b5c1-93a086be78ab&pdsearchterms=536+U.S.+273&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=b514f29a-cf0f-40f9-9f60-4f5c55f878c6https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=97aee8a0-0aa1-4376-b5c1-93a086be78ab&pdsearchterms=536+U.S.+273&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=b514f29a-cf0f-40f9-9f60-4f5c55f878c6https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=97aee8a0-0aa1-4376-b5c1-93a086be78ab&pdsearchterms=536+U.S.+273&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=b514f29a-cf0f-40f9-9f60-4f5c55f878c6https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=97aee8a0-0aa1-4376-b5c1-93a086be78ab&pdsearchterms=536+U.S.+273&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=b514f29a-cf0f-40f9-9f60-4f5c55f878c6https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=97aee8a0-0aa1-4376-b5c1-93a086be78ab&pdsearchterms=536+U.S.+273&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=b514f29a-cf0f-40f9-9f60-4f5c55f878c6https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=97aee8a0-0aa1-4376-b5c1-93a086be78ab&pdsearchterms=536+U.S.+273&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=b514f29a-cf0f-40f9-9f60-4f5c55f878c6https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=97aee8a0-0aa1-4376-b5c1-93a086be78ab&pdsearchterms=536+U.S.+273&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=b514f29a-cf0f-40f9-9f60-4f5c55f878c6https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=e5cbe6d3-5c39-4423-9d82-1ee38c9306c2&pdsearchterms=536+U.S.+273&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=or&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=4ba009ee-1915-4e43-bdc1-3ac4f2d56664https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=e974475d-b438-4011-bad0-ce6b1f596069&pdsearchterms=29+Misc.+3d+358&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=e7c573b3-f923-4ecc-9b15-443c6f7b3582https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=e974475d-b438-4011-bad0-ce6b1f596069&pdsearchterms=29+Misc.+3d+358&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=e7c573b3-f923-4ecc-9b15-443c6f7b3582https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=e974475d-b438-4011-bad0-ce6b1f596069&pdsearchterms=29+Misc.+3d+358&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=e7c573b3-f923-4ecc-9b15-443c6f7b3582https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=4ba009ee-1915-4e43-bdc1-3ac4f2d56664&pdsearchterms=66+A.D.3d+607&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=e974475d-b438-4011-bad0-ce6b1f596069https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=54e4ffe8-5402-46c8-8184-3ba84c47ef29&pdsearchterms=137+S.Ct.+743&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=89c869e4-1f84-483c-b702-531ddae8d727https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=54e4ffe8-5402-46c8-8184-3ba84c47ef29&pdsearchterms=137+S.Ct.+743&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=89c869e4-1f84-483c-b702-531ddae8d727https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=e7c573b3-f923-4ecc-9b15-443c6f7b3582&pdsearchterms=12+N.Y.3d+236&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=54e4ffe8-5402-46c8-8184-3ba84c47ef29https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=e7c573b3-f923-4ecc-9b15-443c6f7b3582&pdsearchterms=12+N.Y.3d+236&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=54e4ffe8-5402-46c8-8184-3ba84c47ef29https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=6c586f01-8f79-4560-9bed-b9a303e61b11&pdsearchterms=93+A.D.3d+175&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=e7c573b3-f923-4ecc-9b15-443c6f7b3582
-
Auth., 66 A.D.3d 607, 608 (1st Dep’t 2009) (upholding dismissal of Article 78 petition seeking
injunctive relief because “petitioners do not have a private right of action” inasmuch as “[o]nly
the Commissioner of [HPD] is authorized to seek such relief or other sanctions and remedies for
violations of the Housing Maintenance Code”); George v. Bloomberg, 2 A.D.3d 294, 294-95 (1st
Dep’t 2003) (upholding dismissal of Article 78 proceeding seeking mandamus relief because
there is no private right of action under the federal and state laws relied on by petitioner labor
unions); Hill v. Guiliani, 272 A.D.2d 157, 157 (1st Dep’t 2000) (holding case is essentially an
Article 78 proceeding in nature of mandamus to compel, and affirming dismissal because there is
no private right of action under laws relating to health facilities’ budget); see also Subway
Surface Supervisors Assn. v. New York City Tr. Auth., 22 N.Y.3d 1182, 1184-85 (2014)
(finding court should have dismissed Article 78 proceeding alleging the Transit Authority
violated a provision of the Civil Service Law because that provision “merely enunciate[ed] a
policy” and “no private right of action flows from it”); East Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist. v. King,
130 A.D.3d 19, 21, 23 (3d Dep’t 2015) (affirming dismissal of article 78 proceeding alleging
determination was based on an erroneous construction of federal IDEA law because there was no
private right of action to challenge respondent’s enforcement of laws under IDEA); St.
Margaret’s Ctr. v. Novello, 23 A.D.3d 817, 820 (3d Dep’t 2005) (holding federal statute
concerning reimbursement for adult day care services “creates no private right of action
enforceable in the context of a CPLR article 78 proceeding for health care providers such as
petitioners”); Home Care Ass’n v. Bane, 218 A.D.2d 106, 110-11 (3d Dep’t 1995) (rejecting
claim in Article 78 proceeding that calculation of reimbursement rate assigned to home health
care programs violated federal law because “no private right of action was created under 42 USC
§ 1396a(a)(30)(A)”).
8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2018 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 100283/2018NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2018
15 of 29
https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=4ba009ee-1915-4e43-bdc1-3ac4f2d56664&pdsearchterms=66+A.D.3d+607&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=e974475d-b438-4011-bad0-ce6b1f596069https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=849b28f8-a6ef-4eed-b62a-028cef4d85dd&pdsearchterms=2+A.D.3d+294&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=or&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=4ba009ee-1915-4e43-bdc1-3ac4f2d56664https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=849b28f8-a6ef-4eed-b62a-028cef4d85dd&pdsearchterms=2+A.D.3d+294&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=or&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=4ba009ee-1915-4e43-bdc1-3ac4f2d56664https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=dd6d3a2b-0ae1-49bb-8851-c234fe24b4e2&pdsearchterms=272+A.D.2d+157&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=or&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=849b28f8-a6ef-4eed-b62a-028cef4d85ddhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=9b429d4a-2476-4462-9574-7dfd5dad728b&pdsearchterms=22+N.Y.3d+1182&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=dd6d3a2b-0ae1-49bb-8851-c234fe24b4e2https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=9b429d4a-2476-4462-9574-7dfd5dad728b&pdsearchterms=22+N.Y.3d+1182&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=dd6d3a2b-0ae1-49bb-8851-c234fe24b4e2https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=4bf8db15-396d-42d5-a0f5-9b4a3ec4632f&pdsearchterms=130+A.D.3d+19&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=9b429d4a-2476-4462-9574-7dfd5dad728bhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=4bf8db15-396d-42d5-a0f5-9b4a3ec4632f&pdsearchterms=130+A.D.3d+19&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=9b429d4a-2476-4462-9574-7dfd5dad728bhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=b57ba567-741b-4634-969e-51096f22852b&pdsearchterms=23+A.D.3d+817&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=4bf8db15-396d-42d5-a0f5-9b4a3ec4632fhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=b57ba567-741b-4634-969e-51096f22852b&pdsearchterms=23+A.D.3d+817&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=4bf8db15-396d-42d5-a0f5-9b4a3ec4632fhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=92f20b09-b2e7-4b60-9c16-3b79d589f51b&pdsearchterms=218+A.D.2d+106&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=b57ba567-741b-4634-969e-51096f22852b
-
1. Local Law 1
The New York City legislature enacted Local Law 1 as part of the New York City
Housing Maintenance Code. See Juarez by Juarez v. Wavecrest Mgmt. Team, 88 N.Y.2d 628,
641 (1996) (discussing Local Law 1 in context of claim for damages where child was allegedly
injured after landlord did not comply with Local Law 1, and finding “[a]t issue here is the lead
abatement legislation adopted by the New York City Council in 1982 and contained in the
Housing Maintenance Code”); Westside Ventura, LLC v. New York City Dep’t of Hous.
Preserv. & Dev., 2011 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2671, at *1-2 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. Jun. 1, 2011) (Jaffe,
J.) (noting Local Law 1 is part of Housing Maintenance Code).
The New York City Charter and the Housing Maintenance Code vest HPD with the
power to enforce the Code provisions on “the maintenance, use, occupancy, safety or sanitary
condition of any [residential] building” generally and on lead-based paint specifically by, among
other things, inspecting, issuing violations, and instituting actions seeking injunctive relief to
compel landlords to correct or abate Code violations. See N.Y.C. Charter § 1802; N.Y.C.
Admin. Code §§ 27-2056.9, 2056.10, & 27-2120. Because HPD is responsible for enforcement
of the Housing Maintenance Code, the Appellate Division, First Department has confirmed there
is no private enforcement action. In Delgado, 66 A.D.3d 607, the First Department denied
residents’ Article 78 petition to compel compliance with the Housing Maintenance Code because
“[o]nly the Commissioner of [HPD] is authorized to seek such relief or other sanctions and
remedies for violations.” Id. at 608; cf. Westside Ventura, LLC, 2011 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2671
(denying Article 78 petition brought by landlord challenging HPD’s imposition of emergency
repair charges pursuant to Local Law 1 violations).
9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2018 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 100283/2018NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2018
16 of 29
https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=7d109ba7-8d25-41ab-8863-1170006cfe2b&pdsearchterms=88+N.Y.2d+628&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=4trc9kk&earg=pdpsf&prid=c0b77779-3a17-4194-9edd-2b1653a296a2https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=7d109ba7-8d25-41ab-8863-1170006cfe2b&pdsearchterms=88+N.Y.2d+628&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=4trc9kk&earg=pdpsf&prid=c0b77779-3a17-4194-9edd-2b1653a296a2https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=cbe7feaf-aaaa-43d4-a781-b04aeaff7b6c&pdsearchterms=2011+N.Y.+Misc.+LEXIS+2671&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=7d109ba7-8d25-41ab-8863-1170006cfe2bhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=cbe7feaf-aaaa-43d4-a781-b04aeaff7b6c&pdsearchterms=2011+N.Y.+Misc.+LEXIS+2671&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=7d109ba7-8d25-41ab-8863-1170006cfe2bhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=cbe7feaf-aaaa-43d4-a781-b04aeaff7b6c&pdsearchterms=2011+N.Y.+Misc.+LEXIS+2671&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=7d109ba7-8d25-41ab-8863-1170006cfe2bhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=0fb6561d-4d3d-423c-aa1f-aa5cce141faa&pdsearchterms=N.Y.C.+Charter+%C2%A7+1802&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=cbe7feaf-aaaa-43d4-a781-b04aeaff7b6chttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=748a9eab-1fb2-4dcf-84b5-e32d71543b8f&pdsearchterms=N.Y.C.+Admin.+Code+%C2%A7%C2%A7+27-2056.9&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=0fb6561d-4d3d-423c-aa1f-aa5cce141faahttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=748a9eab-1fb2-4dcf-84b5-e32d71543b8f&pdsearchterms=N.Y.C.+Admin.+Code+%C2%A7%C2%A7+27-2056.9&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=0fb6561d-4d3d-423c-aa1f-aa5cce141faahttps://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=71b6a3aa-67a3-4bdb-860b-59a62b5661ef&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fstatutes-legislation%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A5S2J-XKS1-JDSD-R1BG-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A5S2J-XKS1-JDSD-R1BG-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=160540&pdteaserkey=sr1&pditab=allpods&ecomp=Ly_fk&earg=sr1&prid=c5ba762c-a685-4546-b564-df0ec4b55327https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=e5e13c61-a3a9-4679-b174-0482e7629d0a&pdsearchterms=N.Y.C.+Admin.+Code+%C2%A7%C2%A7+27-2120&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=71b6a3aa-67a3-4bdb-860b-59a62b5661efhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=5397be90-61ea-4a25-8af9-10d5f00a100e&pdsearchterms=66+A.D.3d+607&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=e5e13c61-a3a9-4679-b174-0482e7629d0ahttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=5397be90-61ea-4a25-8af9-10d5f00a100e&pdsearchterms=66+A.D.3d+607&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=e5e13c61-a3a9-4679-b174-0482e7629d0ahttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=0b368f8b-3cb7-4990-91a0-4f25245b8b95&pdsearchterms=2011+N.Y.+Misc.+LEXIS+2671&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=5397be90-61ea-4a25-8af9-10d5f00a100e
-
Petitioners cite Doe v. Dinkins, 192 A.D.2d 270 (1st Dep’t 1993), and McCain v. Koch,
70 N.Y.2d 109 (1987), for the proposition courts may issue preliminary injunctive relief
compelling compliance with minimal standards of sanitation, safety, and decency. See
Petitioners’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (“Pet.
Mem.”) at 21. These decisions are inapposite, however, because they deal with claims the City
failed to comply with its obligations under the State Constitution to care for the needy based on
the poor conditions of its shelters and emergency hotels and motels, not a landlord’s obligations
under the Housing Maintenance Code. Moreover, in McCain, the Court of Appeals found the
lower court had discretion to impose minimum standards because there were no standards in
place at the time of the order (see McCain, 70 N.Y.2d at 119), whereas here, the City Council
has provided detailed requirements under the Housing Maintenance Code with regard to lead-
based paint hazards.
2. Lead Based Paint Poisoning Protection Act
In Johnson v. City of Detroit, 446 F.3d 614 (6th Cir. 2006), the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals applied Gonzaga to the LPPPA and found there was no private right of action for a
tenant alleging the City of Detroit Housing Commission, which owned and operated the
subsidized apartment in which she and her minor child resided, had violated her rights. See id. at
616-17. The court held that “statutory language that merely ‘benefits’ putative plaintiffs without
specific rights-creating language is insufficient to confer a personal federal right enforceable
under § 1983.” Id. at 621. The court acknowledged that prior to Gonzaga, a few courts had
found a private right of action exists under the LPPPA, but held those cases were premised on a
mere “benefits” analysis and needed to be reexamined in light of Gonzaga. See id. at 624. The
court held the LPPPA, like the statute in Gonzaga, “has an aggregate focus, it speaks in terms of
10
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2018 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 100283/2018NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2018
17 of 29
https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=97e66294-baca-4543-b57b-b9537081f6f6&pdsearchterms=192+A.D.2d+270&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=0b368f8b-3cb7-4990-91a0-4f25245b8b95https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=35a4c74c-d54d-4cc0-8b89-f086606ecd8d&pdsearchterms=70+N.Y.2d+109&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=97e66294-baca-4543-b57b-b9537081f6f6https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=35a4c74c-d54d-4cc0-8b89-f086606ecd8d&pdsearchterms=70+N.Y.2d+109&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=97e66294-baca-4543-b57b-b9537081f6f6https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=35a4c74c-d54d-4cc0-8b89-f086606ecd8d&pdsearchterms=70+N.Y.2d+109&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=97e66294-baca-4543-b57b-b9537081f6f6https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=cda7e7d6-be76-4abd-9127-3a848bc2eaaf&pdsearchterms=446+F.3d+614&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=35a4c74c-d54d-4cc0-8b89-f086606ecd8dhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=cda7e7d6-be76-4abd-9127-3a848bc2eaaf&pdsearchterms=446+F.3d+614&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=35a4c74c-d54d-4cc0-8b89-f086606ecd8dhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=cda7e7d6-be76-4abd-9127-3a848bc2eaaf&pdsearchterms=446+F.3d+614&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=35a4c74c-d54d-4cc0-8b89-f086606ecd8dhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=8bae3c52-ac33-4f87-8608-96b1d80cb00a&pdsearchterms=536+us+282&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=_g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=9a45ca5c-58ae-4256-8b80-6903ad7de52dhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=cda7e7d6-be76-4abd-9127-3a848bc2eaaf&pdsearchterms=446+F.3d+614&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=35a4c74c-d54d-4cc0-8b89-f086606ecd8dhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=cda7e7d6-be76-4abd-9127-3a848bc2eaaf&pdsearchterms=446+F.3d+614&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=35a4c74c-d54d-4cc0-8b89-f086606ecd8d
-
institutional policy and procedure, and fails to confer the sort of individual entitlement that is
enforceable under § 1983.” Id. at 624. The court stated the LPPPA “is, in essence a
congressional directive to the Secretary of HUD to establish and implement procedures
addressing such hazards,” and “the text and overall structure of the statute focuses on the
regulating entity’s duties, which is too far removed from the interests of individual tenants to
confer the kind of individual entitlement that is enforceable under § 1983 in accordance with
Gonzaga.” Id. at 624-25.
Other federal courts, as well as the Appellate Division, Second Department, similarly
have held there is no private right of action under the LPPPA. See Gibbs v. Paine, 276 A.D.2d
743, 744 (2d Dep’t 2000) (finding “[a] private remedy is inconsistent with the statute and its
regulatory provisions, which place primary responsibility on [HUD] to ensure that property
owners and public housing authorities comply with LPPPA”); McField v. Phila. Hous. Auth.,
992 F. Supp. 2d 481, 489 (E.D. Pa 2014) (dismissing claim under the LPPPA because “the
language of [the LPPPA] is not individual-focused”); Lindsay by Stevens v. New York City
Hous. Auth., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1893, at *13-14 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 1999) (JG) (finding no
private right of action under the LPPPA because “Congress provided an administrative scheme
to remedy violations of the LPPPA by vesting in HUD the responsibility of ensuring that owners
and PHAs comply with federal requirements”).
3. Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act
Under the RLBPHRA, the “Federal Government must take a leadership role in building
the infrastructure . . . necessary to ensure that the national goal of eliminating lead-based paint
hazards in housing can be achieved as expeditiously as possible.” 42 U.S.C. § 4851. Petitioners
do not allege NYCHA has violated any provision of the RLBPHRA. Nor can they successfully
11
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2018 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 100283/2018NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2018
18 of 29
https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=8bae3c52-ac33-4f87-8608-96b1d80cb00a&pdsearchterms=536+us+282&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=_g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=9a45ca5c-58ae-4256-8b80-6903ad7de52dhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=cda7e7d6-be76-4abd-9127-3a848bc2eaaf&pdsearchterms=446+F.3d+614&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=35a4c74c-d54d-4cc0-8b89-f086606ecd8dhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=8bae3c52-ac33-4f87-8608-96b1d80cb00a&pdsearchterms=536+us+282&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=_g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=9a45ca5c-58ae-4256-8b80-6903ad7de52dhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=cda7e7d6-be76-4abd-9127-3a848bc2eaaf&pdsearchterms=446+F.3d+614&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=35a4c74c-d54d-4cc0-8b89-f086606ecd8dhttps://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=2a236f81-0ee7-4022-a05a-1ebbab7ead55&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A41JD-YRJ0-0039-41NF-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A41JD-YRJ0-0039-41NF-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=9092&pdshepid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A7XWN-V5T1-2NSD-P34W-00000-00&pdteaserkey=sr0&pditab=allpods&ecomp=Ly_fk&earg=sr0&prid=74f3f3de-c567-4e6a-ad6c-a696f55c7c2chttps://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=2a236f81-0ee7-4022-a05a-1ebbab7ead55&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A41JD-YRJ0-0039-41NF-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A41JD-YRJ0-0039-41NF-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=9092&pdshepid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A7XWN-V5T1-2NSD-P34W-00000-00&pdteaserkey=sr0&pditab=allpods&ecomp=Ly_fk&earg=sr0&prid=74f3f3de-c567-4e6a-ad6c-a696f55c7c2chttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=7372e2b4-0737-4104-8e4e-4b8e60ed2b8b&pdsearchterms=992+F.+Supp.+2d+481&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=2a236f81-0ee7-4022-a05a-1ebbab7ead55https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=7372e2b4-0737-4104-8e4e-4b8e60ed2b8b&pdsearchterms=992+F.+Supp.+2d+481&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=2a236f81-0ee7-4022-a05a-1ebbab7ead55https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=88f35591-4286-49ee-ae84-ad3668aee261&pdsearchterms=1999+U.S.+Dist.+LEXIS+1893&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=7372e2b4-0737-4104-8e4e-4b8e60ed2b8bhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=88f35591-4286-49ee-ae84-ad3668aee261&pdsearchterms=1999+U.S.+Dist.+LEXIS+1893&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=7372e2b4-0737-4104-8e4e-4b8e60ed2b8bhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=37c7a52a-9a31-4643-b3d7-8489b960a892&pdsearchterms=42+U.S.C.+%C2%A7+4851&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=7372e2b4-0737-4104-8e4e-4b8e60ed2b8b
-
do so. Courts repeatedly have held there is no private right of action under section 4851 of the
RLBPHRA. See Santiago by Muniz v. Hernandez, 53 F. Supp. 2d 264, 272 (E.D.N.Y. 1999)
(FB) (holding provision was “intended to benefit the general public, rather than a special class of
persons,” and any right protected by the RLBPHRA is “vague and amorphous”); see also Mair v.
City of Albany, 303 F. Supp. 2d 237 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) (citing Santiago). Although another
provision of the RLBPHRA, 42 U.S.C. § 4852d, which relates to disclosure of lead upon the
transfer of property, explicitly provides for a private cause of action, Petitioners do not allege
NYCHA has violated that provision, and “[t]his is the only section of the Act that provides for
private civil liability.” Gross v. Max, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110547, at *9 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 2,
2012) (PPS).
4. United States Housing Act
The Appellate Division, First Department has held that section 1437d of the United States
Housing Act “which obligates public housing authorities to maintain projects ‘in a decent, safe,
and sanitary condition,’ ‘does not create a right enforceable under § 1983 to proper maintenance
of the housing project.’” Delgado, 66 A.D.3d at 608 (quoting Concerned Tenants Assn. of
Father Panik Vil. v. Pierce, 685 F. Supp. 316, 322 (D. Conn. 1988)). In Perry v. Housing
Authority of Charleston, 664 F.2d 1210 (4th Cir. 1981), in which plaintiff tenants alleged the
housing authority violated the provisions of the Housing Act because the conditions of their
apartments posed hazards to their health and safety, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found
although the plaintiffs benefit from the Housing Act, “[t]here is clearly no indication in the
legislation or in its history that Congress intended to create in public housing tenants a federal
right of action against their municipal landlords.” Id. at 1213. The Court described the statutes
as “simply precatory statements of Congress’ designs.” Id. at 1215. Similarly, in Johnson, the
12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2018 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 100283/2018NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2018
19 of 29
https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=4ac16f1e-b5cd-4108-b822-c842d341c0e1&pdsearchterms=53+F.+Supp.+2d+264&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=37c7a52a-9a31-4643-b3d7-8489b960a892https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=4ac16f1e-b5cd-4108-b822-c842d341c0e1&pdsearchterms=53+F.+Supp.+2d+264&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=37c7a52a-9a31-4643-b3d7-8489b960a892https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=c9dfe400-2731-42f5-af97-a75d9345d76d&pdsearchterms=303+F.+Supp.+2d+237&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=88f35591-4286-49ee-ae84-ad3668aee261https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=c9dfe400-2731-42f5-af97-a75d9345d76d&pdsearchterms=303+F.+Supp.+2d+237&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=88f35591-4286-49ee-ae84-ad3668aee261https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=6002e08d-f66a-4107-b17a-b400480155f2&pdsearchterms=2012+U.S.+Dist.+LEXIS+110547&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=c9dfe400-2731-42f5-af97-a75d9345d76dhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=6002e08d-f66a-4107-b17a-b400480155f2&pdsearchterms=2012+U.S.+Dist.+LEXIS+110547&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=c9dfe400-2731-42f5-af97-a75d9345d76dhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=3da09014-80ff-4794-bf4e-80a7f39e2c8f&pdsearchterms=66+A.D.3d+at+608&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=6002e08d-f66a-4107-b17a-b400480155f2https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=d335672c-8d09-407f-8325-6b35e2f96e4a&pdsearchterms=685+F.+Supp.+316&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=3da09014-80ff-4794-bf4e-80a7f39e2c8fhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=d335672c-8d09-407f-8325-6b35e2f96e4a&pdsearchterms=685+F.+Supp.+316&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=3da09014-80ff-4794-bf4e-80a7f39e2c8fhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=8fcaec8a-1469-49cb-87b4-426fc8b91144&pdsearchterms=664+F.2d+1210&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=d335672c-8d09-407f-8325-6b35e2f96e4ahttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=8fcaec8a-1469-49cb-87b4-426fc8b91144&pdsearchterms=664+F.2d+1210&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=d335672c-8d09-407f-8325-6b35e2f96e4ahttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=8fcaec8a-1469-49cb-87b4-426fc8b91144&pdsearchterms=664+F.2d+1210&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=d335672c-8d09-407f-8325-6b35e2f96e4ahttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=8fcaec8a-1469-49cb-87b4-426fc8b91144&pdsearchterms=664+F.2d+1210&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=d335672c-8d09-407f-8325-6b35e2f96e4a&cbc=0
-
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found no private right of action under the Housing Act based on
its “broad policy statements regarding the federal government's goals in promoting ‘decent and
affordable housing for all citizens,’” and plaintiffs could not rely on the conditions for housing
set forth in the Annual Contributions Contract between public housing authorities and HUD to
assert a cause of action. Johnson, 446 F.3d at 626-27; see also Harris v. United States Dep’t of
Hous. & Urban Dev., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9776, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Jul 16, 1993) (PNL)
(holding plaintiff could not assert claim under Housing Act based on alleged failure to provide
“decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings” because “[t]his broad statement of policy does not create a
private right of action” and “the declaration of policy commits the United States to help the
States remedy the shortage of safe housing for low-income families, not to eliminate all danger
from such housing”).
5. Federal Regulations
Because there is no private cause of action under the federal statutes Petitioners cite,
there is no private right of action under the corresponding federal regulations. In Alexander v.
Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001), the United States Supreme Court made clear regulations cannot
“conjure up” a private right of action that Congress has not established by statute:
[W]hen a statute has provided a general authorization for private enforcement of regulations, it may perhaps be correct that the intent displayed in each regulation can determine whether or not it is privately enforceable. But it is most certainly incorrect to say that language in a regulation can conjure up a private cause of action that has not been authorized by Congress. Agencies may play the sorcerer’s apprentice but not the sorcerer himself.
Id. at 291; see Abrahams v. MTA Long Island Bus, 644 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2011).5
Accordingly, Petitioners cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.
5 The fact there is no private right of action under the lead paint laws Petitioners seek to enforce does not mean there are no consequences when landlords fail to comply. As Petitioners acknowledge, a tenant can sue his or her landlord for damages in a personal injury action. See Pet. ¶ 54. HUD or HPD
13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2018 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 100283/2018NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2018
20 of 29
https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=5bab9a88-24a0-4a1b-9cc0-6ee0b894edb6&pdsearchterms=446+F.3d+at+626-27&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=8fcaec8a-1469-49cb-87b4-426fc8b91144https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=485a2eb7-dbb4-4f02-83e7-bf9d0a6aee3d&pdsearchterms=1993+U.S.+Dist.+LEXIS+9776&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=5bab9a88-24a0-4a1b-9cc0-6ee0b894edb6https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=485a2eb7-dbb4-4f02-83e7-bf9d0a6aee3d&pdsearchterms=1993+U.S.+Dist.+LEXIS+9776&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=5bab9a88-24a0-4a1b-9cc0-6ee0b894edb6https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=fc9cf317-7f0e-493f-b54e-881d7eecc265&pdsearchterms=532+U.S.+275&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=or&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=485a2eb7-dbb4-4f02-83e7-bf9d0a6aee3dhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=fc9cf317-7f0e-493f-b54e-881d7eecc265&pdsearchterms=532+U.S.+275&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=or&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=485a2eb7-dbb4-4f02-83e7-bf9d0a6aee3dhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=fc9cf317-7f0e-493f-b54e-881d7eecc265&pdsearchterms=532+U.S.+275&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=or&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=485a2eb7-dbb4-4f02-83e7-bf9d0a6aee3dhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=8829201e-ef36-414d-93bc-13c4da16570c&pdsearchterms=644+F.3d+110&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=fc9cf317-7f0e-493f-b54e-881d7eecc265
-
B. Petitioners Cannot Show Irreparable Injury
1. NYCHA Has Already Taken the Necessary Steps to Comply with the Law
Petitioners maintain they are entitled to the preliminary injunction because NYCHA has
failed to comply with the laws requiring it to conduct annual visual assessments for households
with young children and remediate using certified personnel, and NYCHA has failed to notify
residents of the results of the visual assessments. See Pet. Mem. at 8-10.6 Petitioners cannot
show irreparable injury because NYCHA had taken corrective action before Petitioners
commenced this proceeding. Indeed, in the November 2017 report of DOI, relied on by
Petitioners, DOI acknowledged NYCHA was working toward full compliance based on a phased
corrective action plan, which DOI would monitor. See Pet. Exh. 1 at 7.
New York City Local Law 1 requires, among other things, annual inspections for lead
paint hazards in apartments occupied by children under the age of 6 and where the dwelling was
built before 1960, or between 1960 and 1978 where “the owner has actual knowledge of the
presence of lead-based paint.” N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 2056.4(a) & 2056.18. In 2017, NYCHA
contracted with an outside vendor, ATC Group Services LLC (“ATC”), to conduct visual
assessments of units and common areas for presumed lead-based paint hazards. See Kermani
Aff. ¶ 6 & Exh. B. Since October 16, 2017, NYCHA has performed visual assessments in all but
also may take enforcement action against public housing authorities that have not complied with lead paint requirements. See 24 C.F.R. § 35.170(a); N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 27-2056.9, 2056.10, & 27-2120. 6 In their petition, Petitioners also seek an order enjoining NYCHA from falsely certifying compliance with lead-based paint laws. See Pet. at Wherefore clause ¶ a. Petitioners, however, acknowledge that in July 2017, NYCHA submitted a certification to HUD noting its gaps in compliance. See Pet. Mem. at 7.
14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2018 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 100283/2018NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2018
21 of 29
https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=14bb5f90-4ba5-49de-966e-67f3eab1b2dd&pdsearchterms=NYC+Admin+Code+27-2056.4&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&ecomp=5g25k&prid=360602c6-0d35-4f63-85c2-390757020059https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=360602c6-0d35-4f63-85c2-390757020059&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fstatutes-legislation%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A5S2J-XKS1-JDSD-R1BS-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A5S2J-XKS1-JDSD-R1BS-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=160540&pdteaserkey=sr9&pditab=allpods&ecomp=Ly_fk&earg=sr9&prid=806b18b8-ad7d-4dbc-9bed-ac750dc8a28fhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=c9665cdb-0c67-4300-a8eb-faccdc8d1d51&pdsearchterms=24+C.F.R.+%C2%A7+35.170&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=14bb5f90-4ba5-49de-966e-67f3eab1b2ddhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=7d96300f-9100-4c1b-a3e3-aefb4b1309a8&pdsearchterms=N.Y.C.+Admin.+Code+%C2%A7%C2%A7+27-2056.9&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=or&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=c9665cdb-0c67-4300-a8eb-faccdc8d1d51https://advance.lexis.com/document/documentslider/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=29520ba7-5c59-4e03-b02b-b20bc88f9586&config=&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fstatutes-legislation%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A5S2J-XKS1-JDSD-R1BG-00000-00&pdcomponentid=362652&pdtocnodeidentifier=AABAABABDAACAACAAPAAK&ecomp=5g85k&prid=7d96300f-9100-4c1b-a3e3-aefb4b1309a8https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=9c02461d-1b79-4a48-ae3f-0989ff8fd560&pdsearchterms=N.Y.C.+Admin.+Code+%C2%A7%C2%A7+27-2120&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=09ebd878-173f-4ef0-ba27-e342468ed530
-
10, or approximately 99.9 percent, of the 8,9207 apartments covered under Local Law 1 and
remediated presumed lead paint hazards in approximately 87 percent of the apartments where
ATC found a presumed lead paint hazard. See Kermani Aff. ¶¶ 8, 10 & Exh. E. NYCHA also
contracted with ATC to conduct the visual assessments for the approximately 48,000 apartments
in 2018 to be inspected under federal law, which generally requires inspections of apartments
where lead-based paint has not been ruled out, irrespective of the age of occupants. See Kermani
Aff. ¶ 9 & Exh. B (contracting for inspection of apartments known or not known to contain lead).
NYCHA’s contract with ATC specifically requires ATC to use inspectors who have
completed the training required by HUD, and ATC provided NYCHA with copies of HUD
visual assessment certifications prior to beginning work. See Kermani Aff. ¶ 6 & Exh. B. In
addition, the painters used by NYCHA to remediate the presumed lead-based paint hazards are a
combination of the more than 400 NYCHA employees who have been certified by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), as well as 25-30 outside vendors who have
submitted their EPA certifications. See Kermani Aff. ¶ 10 & Exh. G. NYCHA also will provide
EPA-certified training to an additional 2,300 of its own staff members in 2018 so those
employees will be able to assist the vendors in remediating lead-based paint hazards. See
Kermani Aff. ¶ 10.
In addition, after completing a Local Law 1 inspection, ATC’s inspectors leave behind a
pre-printed form noting whether they found paint that needs correction or whether no further
action is necessary. See Kermani Aff. ¶ 8 & Exh. F. Under federal regulations, unlike Local
Law 1, “[a] visual assessment alone is not considered an evaluation” and “[i]f only a visual
7 Despite repeated attempts, NYCHA has still not been able to gain access to the remaining 10 apartments. See Kermani Aff. ¶ 8 & Exh. E.
15
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2018 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 100283/2018NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2018
22 of 29
-
assessment alone is required . . . and no evaluation is performed, a notice of evaluation or
presumption is not required.” 24 C.F.R. § 35.125.
Petitioners cannot refute NYCHA’s proof of its progress and meet their substantial
burden of proof for injunctive relief with hearsay statements in newspapers. See TOA Constr.
Co., Inc. v. Tsitsires, 54 A.D.3d 109, 115 (1st Dep’t 2008) (holding the “citation to recent
newspaper articles to support its assertion of facts . . . should not be countenanced,” and
“[j]udicial notice of a fact . . . may not properly be based upon a factual assertion simply
because the assertion is contained in a newspaper article”); Peckman v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 125
A.D.2d 244, 247 (1st Dep’t 1986) (“The news articles . . . are clearly hearsay in nature and . . .
insufficient to warrant summary judgment”).
Moreover, any past failure to comply with the law does not demonstrate future
noncompliance. Petitioners cite Lee v. New York City Dep’t of Hous. Pres. & Dev., 162 Misc.
2d 901 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 1994) (Arber, J.), for the proposition a failure to comply with the law
is sufficient to show a likelihood of success on the merits in an Article 78 proceeding to enjoin
compliance with the law. See Pet. Mem. at 16.8 In that decision, the petitioner challenged a
determination made by HPD to dispose of property to Croton Housing Associates, and the lower
court issued a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo and prevent the disposition of the
property pending a determination on the merits of the petition. Here, to the contrary, Petitioners
do not challenge any NYCHA determination and attempt to obtain their ultimate relief, rather
than maintain the status quo, through this preliminary injunction motion.
8 Although the subsequent history is not clear, it appears the Appellate Division, First Department reversed that decision in Lee, 212 A.D.2d 453 (1st Dep’t 1995), based on lack of standing.
16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2018 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 100283/2018NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2018