Mhany Management Inc. et al v. County Of Nassau et al
| 2:2005cv02301 |
| May 12, 2005 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Central Islip Office |
| Joseph F. Bianco |
| William D. Wall |
| Civil Rights: Accomodations |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 Fair Housing Act |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
550
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER re 510 , 514 , 516 - For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs met their burden at trial in establishing that Garden City's legitimate, substantial, non-discriminatory interests in not over burdening public schools and reducing traffic could have been served by R-M zoning. The Court confirms its finding, that the adoption of R-T zoning instead of R-M zoning had a disparate impact on minorities in Garden City. This matter is respectfully referred to Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay for the conclusion of discovery on the Plaintiffs "steering" claims under the FHA and Title VII. SEE ATTACHED DECISION for details. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 9/19/2017. (Coleman, Laurie)
|
|
Filing
423
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER - For the foregoing reasons, within ten days of the date of this order, the Plaintiffs are directed to submit a proposed final judgment in accordance with the terms set forth in this decision and order. The Defendants shall then have ten days to file objections or an alternative proposed judgment. The Court will subsequently enter a final judgment. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 3/17/2014. (Coleman, Laurie)
|
|
Filing
413
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER - For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not established liability on the part of the Garden City Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1982 and the amended complaint is dismissed as to that cause of action. However, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have established by, a preponderance of the evidence, the liability on the part of the Garden City Defendants under (1) the FHA, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., based on a theory of dispara te treatment and disparate impact; (2) 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (3) 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (4) the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. As noted above, the Court finds that the Garden City Defendan ts acted with discriminatory intent when they eliminated R-M zoning and endorsed R-T zoning after they received public opposition to the prospect of affordable housing in Garden City. The Court notes that R-T zoning banned the development of multi-fa mily housing on all but a small portion of the Social Services site -- the 3.03 acres located on the western side of County Seat Drive and then only by special permit. The Court also notes the negative remarks by Garden City residents at public hea rings and the flyer against multi-family housing on the Social Services Site. Set against the underlying sequence of events and the considerable impact that this zoning decision would have had on minorities in that community, the Court concludes that some of the expressions by Garden City residents of disapproval for affordable housing reflected race-based animus or at least could have been construed as such by the Board. Furthermore, the Court finds that the adoption of R-T zoning instead of R- M zoning had a disparate impact on minorities in Garden City and tended to perpetuate segregation in that community. Accordingly, the Court directs the Plaintiffs to submit a proposed remedial plan to be incorporated in the final judgment in this cas e within thirty days of the date of this order. The Garden City Defendants shall then have thirty days to respond with objections. The Plaintiffs shall then have 15 days to reply to the Garden City Defendants objections. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 12/6/2013. (Coleman, Laurie)
|
|
Filing
345
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER - It is hereby: ORDERED, that the Plaintiffs 338 motion to amend the joint pretrial order is granted as set forth above; and it is further ORDERED, that the Plaintiffs are directed to file an amended joint pretrial order in accordance with this decision on or before May 6, 2013; and it is further ORDERED, that the Plaintiffs request for a telephone conference is denied as unnecessary; and it is further ORDERED, that every party may depose the four additional individuals that will be included in the amended joint pretrial order, with each party paying the costs of their own depositions. Signed by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 4/29/13. (Coleman, Laurie)
|
|
Filing
315
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER - It is hereby ORDERED that the Defendant Countys 283 motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims against it is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the Garden City Defendants 278 motion for summary judgm ent dismissing all claims against it is DENIED in all respects; and it is further ORDERED that the Inventor-Plaintiff NYCCs 290 motion to amend the intervenor complaint to include a cause of action for violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is GRANTED. NYCC is directed to file an amended complaint only as against the Garden City Defendants in conformance with the rulings set forth in this Memorandum of Decisi on and Order within 20 days of the date of this Order; and it is further ORDERED that the Plaintiffs and the Garden City Defendants are directed to appear on Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 9:00am for a conference to set a trial date. Signed by Senior Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 2/15/2012. (Coleman, Laurie)
|
|
Filing
190
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum & Order, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion seeking to set aside the September 5, 2007 discovery order of Magistrate Judge Wall is denied. Magistrate Judge Wall can now expeditiously review in camera the twenty-two documents submitted by the Garden City defendants. The documents will be reviewed within the framework set forth in the September 25, 2007 Order, with the additional instruction that any documents illustrating that racial considerations were part of the legislative deliberations must also be produced. SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 9/10/2009. (Howard, Timothy)
|
|
Filing
142
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 116 Motion for Sanctions. See attached order. Ordered by Judge William D. Wall on 3/9/2009. (Disbrow, Sandra)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Mhany Management Inc. et al v. County Of Nassau et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
