Recent Court Rulings

RSS

Facts: Seventeen Hasidic Jews who had applied for or lived in public housing operated by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) challenged NYCHA's Tenant Selection and Assignment Plan (TSAP) as discriminatory in its treatment of Hasidic applicants at three public housing developments in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn.

Facts: Five fair housing organizations sued the builders and owners of 82 multifamily apartment complexes, alleging that the builders constructed the complexes in a manner that denied access to disabled persons, in violation of the Fair Housing Amendments Act. The builders and owners designed and built the apartment complexes, with over 22,000 units, in 10 states between 1991 and 2007.

Facts: A New York City resident who occupied two single room occupancy (SRO) units with her minor children challenged a local ordinance prohibiting children under 16 from occupying SROs, arguing that the restriction violates the Fair Housing Act. She sued the City of New York on the ground that the restriction constitutes discrimination on the basis of familial status.

Decision: The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled for the City of New York.

Facts: The Maine State Housing Authority (MSHA) discovered that one of its residents had been convicted of child molestation in Washington State in 1996, but was not registered as a sex offender, as the law requires. The resident had been receiving rental assistance through a voucher he obtained initially in Massachusetts. MSHA notified the resident that it was ending his voucher benefits on the ground of program fraud and for other reasons.

Facts: A homeless family was declared eligible for a Section 8 housing voucher. The New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) later denied the family continuation of the voucher because they didn't provide access for a Housing Quality Standards inspection. The residents appealed HPD's decision, claiming that it was arbitrary and unreasonable.

Decision: The court ruled for the residents.

Facts: A New Jersey public housing authority (PHA) and an owner of private housing sued the United States for breaching its obligations under a housing assistance payments (HAP) contract for a housing project. The PHA claimed that the federal government didn't provide rent increases from 2001 to 2007. The PHA sought damages for the portion of the year beginning on Sept. 4, 2001. The federal government argued that rent adjustments take place only on the anniversary date, so no damages should be awarded for any portion of that year.

Facts: After a resident at an Ohio assisted site had racially harassed another resident, the owner took no action. The harassed resident sued the site, claiming that the owner was responsible for allowing the harassment to continue. A lower court ruled that the owner could be sued for permitting a hostile housing environment to exist. The owner appealed.

Decision: The Ohio Supreme Court ruled for the owner.

Facts: A resident of a Delaware assisted site paid her monthly rent late three times in one year. Claiming that chronic late payment was a lease violation, the Delaware State Housing Authority (DSHA) sought to evict her. A judicial panel ruled for the resident, stating that the lease provision giving DSHA authority to terminate her rental assistance was not enforceable because it violated state law.

Decision: The Delaware Superior Court ruled that the DSHA was entitled to evict the resident because of her chronic late payments.

Facts: On April 28, 2005, an insurance company notified a Mississippi site owner that her policy had expired on April 25, but could be reinstated without any lapse in coverage if she paid the company $1,464 within 30 days. The owner did not pay on time. Instead, on Aug. 23, 2005, she submitted a new application for flood insurance, paying $317 for another policy. On August 30, the company issued the new policy, giving it an effective date of Sept. 22, 2005.