Case: United States v. NYC Housing Authority, Davis v. NYC Housing Authority

1:90-cv-00628 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Filed Date: Jan. 31, 1990

Closed Date: Dec. 24, 2002

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

These are two cases about housing segregation in New York City.On January 31, 1990, two black and Hispanic individuals residing in or eligible for New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) housing ("the Davis plaintiffs") filed a class action lawsuit against the NYCHA under the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (FHA), Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-83. Represented by the Legal Aid Society, the Davis plaintiffs alleged that, since 1983, the Housing Authority discriminat…

These are two cases about housing segregation in New York City.

On January 31, 1990, two black and Hispanic individuals residing in or eligible for New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) housing ("the Davis plaintiffs") filed a class action lawsuit against the NYCHA under the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (FHA), Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-83. Represented by the Legal Aid Society, the Davis plaintiffs alleged that, since 1983, the Housing Authority discriminated on the basis of race, color, and national origin against black and Hispanic tenants in the selection and assignment of public housing by restricting certain housing projects to white tenants, using racial goals or targets for new projects, and assigning families to projects with no vacancies.

The case was assigned to Judge Pierre N. Leval. The Davis plaintiffs amended their complaint on May 31, 1990, and the defendants answered February 28, 1991. We do not have access to these early trial documents.

On July 1, 1992, the U.S. filed its own lawsuit against the NYCHA. Besides the initial trial documents in the U.S. government's case, all of the filings in U.S. v. NYC Housing Authority were originally filed in Davis v. NYC Housing Authority.

Also on July 1, 1992, the parties filed a proposed consent decree resolving all of the plaintiffs' claims. Under the decree, the NYCHA would agree to certify a class, provide priority placement for 1,990 adversely affected families at 31 public housing projects, and pay for moving expenses. HUD would also provide 200 Section 8 housing vouchers for use in the private housing market by families who were adversely affected during 1983-1984. The consent decree also stipulated that a "Tenant Selection and Assignment Plan" (TSAP) would be created to prohibit past practices and provide more information for black and Hispanic families would might be otherwise unaware of certain housing opportunities. In exchange, the plaintiffs waived monetary damages to unnamed class members, partial relief for 1983-1984, and relief for some largely non-white housing projects in East Harlem. 1992 WL 420923.

As part of the class certification process, the court held a hearing on November 6, 1992, to determine if certifying the proposed plaintiff class would be "fair, reasonable, and adequate." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). We don't have access to documents specifying how the parties defined the class. Shortly after, the court approved the consent decree on November 16. The court also issued a judgment that the defendant would pay monetary damages of $60,000 and attorneys' fees of $40,000 plus the cost of a toll-free telephone. On December 31, the court published its findings of fact and conclusions of law. In its opinion, it found that the consent decree was a reasonable compromise because of the value provided to the plaintiffs and the potential risks and delays associated with litigation. 1992 WL 420923.

The defendant filed a motion to clarify the consent decree. In response, the U.S. moved to enjoin the defendant from moving forward with its tenanting plan at its Berry Street Project on October 19, 1993, and the Davis plaintiffs followed with a cross motion for a permanent injunction the next day. The U.S. also filed a motion on November 4 in support of enforcing the consent decree. On December 2, the court granted the defendant's motion and clarified some procedural questions surrounding the TSAP and transfer applications. However, the court also found that the defendant's plan to use dual lists for "Larger Apartments" at its the Berry Street Project were not consistent with the consent decree, and issued a preliminary injunction. 839 F.Supp.215 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). The court's order was filed on December 30.

Three days earlier, on December 27, 1993, the defendant submitted a proposed settlement to answer the motions filed in the preceding months. Both the Davis plaintiffs and the U.S. replied with a counterproposal on January 4, 1994.

In October 1996, letters from the plaintiffs and defendant were filed in both cases regarding proposed changes to the TSAP from the NYCHA, resulting in a pre-trial conference on October 28. On November 15, the Davis plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the NYCHA from implementing those modifications to the TSAP.

On July 18, 1997, the court issued an opinion in response to a motion from the plaintiffs. The court enjoined the NYCHA from implementing a "Working Family Preference" (WFP), which altered the factors determining whether an applicant would be granted an interview and gave preference to families who could pay the most. However, the court did permit the NYCHA to expand its "Project Choice" to allow larger families to specify preferences for projects. 1997 WL 407250. The defendants filed a motion on August 4 for the district court to reconsider, but the court denied the motion on November 17, with an amended opinion filed on November 20. However, the court did modify the preliminary injunction so that the NYCHA was permitted to implement the WFP in projects where fewer than 30% of the families were white. 1997 WL 711360.

Later that year, the defendant appealed the court's denial of their reconsider motion to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, with an amended notice dated December 3, 1997. On January 22, 1999, the Court of Appeals vacated the district court's opinion from July 18, 1997, citing the district court's lack of detail in concluding that the NYCHA's proposed plan would perpetuate segregation. It left the preliminary injunction intact, but remanded the case. For the remand, the Second Circuit requested that the district court develop sufficient precision around which parts of the proposed modifications would perpetuate segregation and what exactly the impact would be. The appeals court also asked for more detail regarding the data and methodology used in the statistical analysis that showed the potential impact of the proposed changes. 60 F.Supp.2d 220 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).

The remand was filed on February 18, 1999, and a hearing in the district court was held on June 18. The district court issued its opinion on August 11, denying the defendant's motion to lift the preliminary injunction and granting the plaintiff's motion to make the preliminary injunction a permanent injunction. Id.

In response, the defendant appealed on September 3, 1999. The Court of Appeals issued an order in the case on February 23, 2000. It asked for move-out figures under the WFP, how the WFP would affect each housing project's speed at which it achieved a white occupancy rate under 30%, and a more accurate estimate for the white admissions rate under the WFP. 205 F.Supp.3d 1322 (2d Cir. 2000). On remand in June 2000, the district court found that the updated numbers did not change the conclusion that the WFP would significantly perpetuate discrimination. 103 F.Supp.2d 228 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).

After this district court ruling, the defendant appealed again. On January 3, 2002, the Court of Appeals found the district court's updated numbers and analysis to be satisfactory, and determined that the district court was correct in concluding that the WFP would cause legally significant delays in desegregation. As a result, the Court of Appeals affirmed the injunction. 278 F.Supp.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2002).

On March 7, 2002, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, which denied the petition for writ of certiorari on June 10, 2002.

In addition to the permanent injunction, the court awarded monetary relief. On August 2, 2002, the plaintiff filed for $568,725.81 in attorneys' fees, costs, and other expenses. On December 11, the district court awarded $306,467.75 in attorneys' fees, $2,273.74 in Westlaw fees, $70.33 in long distance telephone charges, and $84.50 in travel and postage charges. This total amounted to $308,896.32 in attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.

This case has finished.

Summary Authors

Lauren Yu (2/23/2021)

People


Judge(s)

Kearse, Amalya Lyle (New York)

Leval, Pierre Nelson (New York)

Pooler, Rosemary S. (New York)

Sweet, Robert Workman (New York)

Walker, John Mercer Jr. (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Gorenstein, Gabriel W. (New York)

Millman, Claude M (New York)

Rosenberg, Scott Alan (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Schanback, Jeffrey (New York)

Scheindlin, Shira A. (New York)

Judge(s)

Kearse, Amalya Lyle (New York)

Leval, Pierre Nelson (New York)

Pooler, Rosemary S. (New York)

Sweet, Robert Workman (New York)

Walker, John Mercer Jr. (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Gorenstein, Gabriel W. (New York)

Millman, Claude M (New York)

Rosenberg, Scott Alan (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Schanback, Jeffrey (New York)

Scheindlin, Shira A. (New York)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket [PACER]

United States v. NYC Housing Authority

Dec. 11, 2002 Docket

Docket [PACER]

Davis v. NYC Housing Authority

Dec. 24, 2002 Docket

Opinion and Order [Approving Settlement]

Davis v. NYC Housing Authority, United States v. NYC Housing Authority

1992 WL 420923

Dec. 31, 1992 Order/Opinion

Opinion [Granting Preliminary Injunctive Relief]

Davis v. NYC Housing Authority, United States v. NYC Housing Authority

839 F.Supp. 215

Dec. 2, 1993 Order/Opinion
454

Memorandum and Order

Davis v. NYC Housing Authority, United States v. NYC Housing Authority

940 F.Supp. 80

Sept. 30, 1996 Order/Opinion

Opinion [Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs' Motion to Enjoin]

Davis v. NYC Housing Authority, United States v. NYC Housing Authority

1997 WL 407250

July 18, 1997 Order/Opinion

Opinion [Modifying Preliminary Injunction]

Davis v. NYC Housing Authority, United States v. NYC Housing Authority

1997 WL 711360

Nov. 20, 1997 Order/Opinion

Opinion

Davis v. NYC Housing Authority, United States v. NYC Housing Authority

60 F.Supp.2d 220

Aug. 11, 1999 Order/Opinion

Summary Order [Remanding Case]

Davis v. NYC Housing Authority, United States v. NYC Housing Authority

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

205 F.3d 1322

Feb. 23, 2000 Order/Opinion

Opinion

Davis v. NYC Housing Authority, United States v. NYC Housing Authority

103 F.Supp.2d 228

June 20, 2000 Order/Opinion

Resources

Title Description External URL

Urban Institute Baseline Assessment of Public Housing Desegregation Cases

George Galster et al.

Over several generations, many local public housing authorities have established and perpetuated racially segregated and discriminatory systems for delivering public housing and other housing assista… Jan. 1, 2000

Docket

Last updated May 12, 2022, 8 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link
1

COMPLAINT filed; Summons issued and Notice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c); (jh) (Entered: 01/29/1992)

Jan. 31, 1990
4

AMENDED COMPLAINT by Cynthia Williams, Pauline Davis , (Answer due 6/11/90 for New York City Housin ) amending [1−1] complaint against Cornelia Simmons, Kim Rivera; Summons issued. (jh) (Entered: 01/29/1992)

May 31, 1990
17

Intervenor's COMPLAINT by Blanca Iris Hernandez, Gina Campbell, Jeanette Vargas against New York City Housin (jh) (Entered: 01/29/1992)

Jan. 18, 1991
21

ANSWER by New York City Housin (Attorney Shira A. Scheindlin) to amended complaint ; Firm of: Herzfeld &Rubin by attorney Shira A. Scheindlin for defendant New York City Housin (jh) (Entered: 01/29/1992)

Feb. 28, 1991
39

STIPULATION and ORDER Regarding Notice of Proposed Settlement &Hearing Purs. to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), that a hearing on the fairness and adequacy of the Consent Decree shall be held on 11/6/92 at the United States Courthouse, Room 402, Foley Square, New York, New York. So Ordered. ( signed by Judge Pierre N. Leval ). (sc) (Entered: 07/30/1992)

July 30, 1992
40

DECLARATION in support of entry of consent decree (cd) (Entered: 11/02/1992)

Oct. 30, 1992
41

MEMORANDUM by New York City Housin in support of entry of consent decree (cd) (Entered: 11/02/1992)

Oct. 30, 1992
42

DECLARATION in support of fairness and adequacy of consent decree by Cynthia Williams, Pauline Davis, Cornelia Simmons, Kim Rivera (cd) (Entered: 11/02/1992)

Nov. 2, 1992
43

MEMORANDUM by New York City Housin in support of the fairness and adequacy of the Davis settlement and the entry of the consent decree and in response to comments submitted by interested persons (cd) (Entered: 11/02/1992)

Nov. 2, 1992
46

Exhibit list by Cynthia Williams, Pauline Davis, Cornelia Simmons, Kim Rivera; exhibits to declaration of S. Rosenberg (cd) (Entered: 11/19/1992)

Nov. 2, 1992
47

Exhibit list by Cynthia Williams, Pauline Davis, Cornelia Simmons, Kim Rivera; exhibits to declaration of S. Rosenberg, vol 2 (cd) (Entered: 11/19/1992)

Nov. 2, 1992
48

Exhibit list by Cynthia Williams, Pauline Davis, Cornelia Simmons, Kim Rivera; exhibits to declaration of S. Rosenberg, vol 3 (cd) (Entered: 11/19/1992)

Nov. 2, 1992
44

ORDER, that arguments in opposition to the proposed settlemnt have been considered, and being without merit, the consent decree is approved. ( signed by Judge Pierre N. Leval ); Copies mailed (cd) (Entered: 11/17/1992)

Nov. 16, 1992
45

JUDGMENT # 92,2560, consent decree that within 30 days after entry of this consent decree, the Housing Authority shall pay to the Legal Aid Society, on behalf of the named plntf, $60,000 in satisfaction of the named plntfs claims for monetary damages in Davis v NYC Housing Authority; the housing authority shall pay to counsel for the Davis plntf $40,000 plus the cost of atoll−free telephone line .... ( signed by Judge Pierre N. Leval ); Mailed copies and notice of right to appeal. (cd) (Entered: 11/17/1992)

Nov. 16, 1992

Case closed (cd) (Entered: 11/17/1992)

Nov. 16, 1992
49

OPINION AND ORDER# 70868, approving the proposed Consent Decree ( Signed by Judge Pierre N. Leval ); Copies mailed. (jr) (Entered: 12/31/1992)

Dec. 30, 1992
50

RESPONSE by New York City Housin Re: [49−2] order (jr) (Entered: 01/06/1993)

Jan. 6, 1993
51

Letter filed dated November 10, 1992 re Objection to proposed Consent Decree. (jr) (Entered: 01/06/1993)

Jan. 6, 1993
52

Letter filed by Jawandi R. Pender to Judge Leval dated November 10, 1992 re Proposed Consent Decree (jr) (Entered: 01/06/1993)

Jan. 6, 1993
53

Letter filed from Steven M. Bernstein to Judge Leval by New York City Housin dated September 21, 1992 re Comment on Tenant Selection and Assignment Plan (jr) (Entered: 01/06/1993)

Jan. 6, 1993
54

Filed Public Comments of the Honorable Alfred C. Cerullo, III on the Consent Decree. (jr) (Entered: 01/06/1993)

Jan. 6, 1993
55

Testimony of New York City Counsilman John A. Fusco in opposition to the above captioned consent decree. (jr) (Entered: 01/06/1993)

Jan. 6, 1993
56

Letter filed from John A. Fusco to Judge Leval dated September 22, 1992 re Census statistics as to Mr. Fusco's Public Comments. (jr) (Entered: 01/06/1993)

Jan. 6, 1993
57

Filed Statement of Manhattan Borough President Ruth W. Messinger in support of the Proposed Consent Decree. (jr) (Entered: 01/06/1993)

Jan. 6, 1993
58

Comments of New York City counsil Member jerome X. O'Donovan in opposition to the proposed Consent Decree. (jr) (Entered: 01/06/1993)

Jan. 6, 1993
59

Letter filed by Larry and Anna Hayes to Pauline Davis dated August 27, 1992 re Proposed Settlement (jr) (Entered: 01/06/1993)

Jan. 6, 1993
60

Letter filed by Jacqueline Franks to Judge Leval dated August 30, 1992 re In support of Consent Decree (jr) (Entered: 01/06/1993)

Jan. 6, 1993
61

Transcript of record of proceedings filed for dates of November 6, 1992 (jr) (Entered: 02/25/1993)

Feb. 25, 1993
62

NOTICE OF MOTION by the United States of America for an enjoing New York City Housing Authority from proceeding with its plan for tenanting the Berry Street Project as set forth in the papers submitted to this Court on October 8, 1993 , Return date 11/5/93 (jr) (Entered: 10/20/1993)

Oct. 19, 1993
63

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in support of [62−1] motion for an enjoing New York City Housing Authority from proceeding with its plan for tenanting the Berry Street Project as set forth in the papers submitted to this Court on October 8, 1993 (jr) (Entered: 10/20/1993)

Oct. 19, 1993
64

NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION by Kim Rivera, Cornelia Simmons, Cynthia Williams, Pauline Davis for permanent injunction , Return date 11/5/93 (jr) (Entered: 10/22/1993)

Oct. 20, 1993
65

MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Kim Rivera, Cornelia Simmons, Cynthia Williams, Pauline Davis in support of [64−1] cross motion for permanent injunction (jr) (Entered: 10/22/1993)

Oct. 20, 1993
66

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW by New York City Housin re: Defendant's motion to clarify the consent decress and opposition to plaintiffs' cross−motion to enjoin defendant's plan to tenant the Berry Street Project. (jr) (Entered: 10/29/1993)

Oct. 29, 1993
67

AFFIDAVIT in support of Shira A. Scheindlin by New York City Housin Re: Motion to clarify the Consent Decree and in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to enjoin the Housing Authority's Plan to Tenant the Berry STreet project. (jr) (Entered: 10/29/1993)

Oct. 29, 1993
68

NOTICE OF MOTION by United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg, Inc. for leave to appear as amicus curiae and serve and filed the afirmation of Paul M. Giddins, Esq., dated 10/29/93 , Return date 11/8/93 (jr) (Entered: 10/29/1993)

Oct. 29, 1993
69

MEMORANDUM OF LAW by United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg, Inc. in support of [68−1] motion for leave to appear as amicus curiae and serve and filed the afirmation of Paul M. Giddins, Esq., dated 10/29/93 (jr) (Entered: 10/29/1993)

Oct. 29, 1993
70

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by New York City Housin Show Cause Hearing set for 10/19/93 as to why defendant New York City Housing Authority's motion to clarify the Consent Decree dated 12/30/92 should not be granted ; Copies mailed. (jr) (Entered: 11/02/1993)

Oct. 29, 1993
72

AFFIDAVIT of Kenneth K. Fisher by New York City Housin Re: to correct the record to the extent that affidavits and exhibits have mischaracterized my positions and discussions in which I participated.... (ys) (Entered: 11/12/1993)

Oct. 29, 1993
71

NOTICE OF MOTION for an order granting leave to the United Jewish Organizations of Willamsburg, Inc. to appear amicus curiae and serve and file the affirmation of Paul M. Giddins, Esq., dated 10/29/93 , Return date 11/5/93 (jr) (Entered: 11/12/1993)

Nov. 4, 1993
73

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Kim Rivera, Cornelia Simmons, Cynthia Williams, Pauline Davis re: [64−1] cross motion for permanent injunction (jr) (Entered: 11/16/1993)

Nov. 16, 1993
74

DECLARATION of Martha Dusenberry Pohl in support by Kim Rivera, Cornelia Simmons, Cynthia Williams, Pauline Davis [64−1] cross motion for permanent injunction (jr) (Entered: 11/16/1993)

Nov. 16, 1993
75

AFFIDAVIT in support of Shira A. Scheindlin by New York City Housin Re: [70−1] motion as to why defendant New York City Housing Authority's motion to clarify the Consent Decree dated 12/30/92 should not be granted (jr) (Entered: 11/18/1993)

Nov. 17, 1993
76

MEMORANDUM OF LAW by New York City Housin in support of [70−1] motion as to why defendant New York City Housing Authority's motion to clarify the Consent Decree dated 12/30/92 should not be granted (jr) (Entered: 11/19/1993)

Nov. 17, 1993
77

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION in opposition by Kim Rivera, Cornelia Simmons, Cynthia Williams, Pauline Davis [75−1] affidavit (jr) (Entered: 11/19/1993)

Nov. 18, 1993
78

AFFIDAVIT of Shira A. Scheindlin by New York City Housin Re: Updating original affirmation of October 28, 1993. (jr) (Entered: 11/22/1993)

Nov. 19, 1993
79

OPINION # 72444 granting [70−1] motion as to why defendant New York City Housing Authority's motion to clarify the Consent Decree dated 12/30/92 should not be granted granting [64−1] cross motion for permanent injunction, to prohibit the deft's use of dual lists for "Larger Apartments" in the tenanting of the Berry Street project. Settle order on notice ( Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet ); Copies mailed. (mk) Modified on 12/08/1993 (Entered: 12/08/1993)

Dec. 3, 1993
80

Letter filed by Shira A. Scheindlin for New York City Housin dated 11/19/93 re submitting the enclosed supplemental affirmation (Dktd. &fld. per instr. of Chambers) (mk) (Entered: 12/21/1993)

Dec. 6, 1993
81

ORDER, Submit Order for settlement on 12−27−93 ( signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet ); Copies mailed (Also fld. in 90 civ 4873) (mk) (Entered: 12/28/1993)

Dec. 27, 1993
82

ORDER, Deft's motion fto clarify the terms of the Consent Decree to permit the deft to use transfer applicants in tenanting new projects is granted granting [62−1] motion for an enjoing New York City Housing Authority from proceeding with its plan for tenanting the Berry Street Project as set forth in the papers submitted to this Court on October 8, 1993, etc... ( signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet ); Copies mailed (mk) Modified on 07/23/2001 (Entered: 01/03/1994)

Dec. 30, 1993
83

Letter filed by Kim Rivera, Cornelia Simmons, Cynthia Williams, Pauline Davis dated 12/20/93 re counterproposal to defts' proposed order (sc) (Entered: 01/06/1994)

Jan. 4, 1994
84

Fld. Defendant's Proposed Order. (sc) (Entered: 01/06/1994)

Jan. 4, 1994
85

Transcript of record of proceedings filed for dates of November 18, 1993 (dd) (Entered: 05/03/1994)

May 2, 1994
86

Transcript of record of proceedings filed for dates of 12/21/93 (rag) (Entered: 05/04/1994)

May 4, 1994
87

Letter filed addressed to Judge Sweet from counsel for pltff class, dated 8/23/96 re letter of Nather Evans (emil) (Entered: 09/24/1996)

Sept. 23, 1996
88

Letter filed addressed to Judge Sweet from Nather Evans, date not indicated re to inform the Court of termination of lease (emil) (Entered: 09/24/1996)

Sept. 23, 1996
89

Filed Memo_Endorsement on letter, in view of the letter of cousnel for the class of 8/23, no further action seems appropriate at this time and to the extent that this letter represents siuch a request it is denied ( signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet ) (cd) (Entered: 09/26/1996)

Sept. 24, 1996
90

MEMORANDUM &ORDER the Pltffs are hereby granted 30 days from the date this order is filed to make objections to the proposed changes to the TSAP. ( signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet ); Copies mailed (lam) (Entered: 10/02/1996)

Oct. 1, 1996
91

Letter filed to Judge Sweet from Scott A. Rosenberg for pltff. Class in Davis v. NY City Housing Auth. dated 7/19/96 re Accordingly, HUD's failure to complete its review of NYCH's proposed changes constitutes good cause for extending the time for filing formal objections to them w/in the meaning of par. 6(b). Since NYCHA has not consented to such an extension, are requesting that the Court so−order an extension of 60 days bedyond the date that HUD renders a decisionon NYCHA's request for modifications. (docket &file as per chmbrs.) (ls) Modified on 10/02/1996 (Entered: 10/02/1996)

Oct. 1, 1996
92

Letter filed to Judge Sweet from Neil M. Corwin, Asst. U.S. Attny. for pltff. (in related case no. 92 civ 4873) U.S.A. dated 7/26/96 re For the reasons stated in the 7/19/96 letter, the U.S. respectfully supports the request to afford the pltff. class additional time to respond to NYCHA's proposed modifications to the TSAP. (docket &file as per chmbrs.) the (ls) (Entered: 10/02/1996)

Oct. 1, 1996
93

Letter filed to Judge Sweet from Scott A. Rosenberg for pltff. class in Davis v. NYCHA dated 8/29/96 re ...If these proposals are agreeable, we would consent to disposition of the motion along these lines. Otherwise, we request 60 days from the return date of the motion to file any objections to the change concerning local preferences, and an extension of time to file objections, if any, to the change concerning project choice to 60 days after we receive any notice that HUD approved it. We request prompt notification of any such change approved by HUD. In either event, of course, we reserve our right to bring to the Court's attention any instance in whcih NYCHA fails to comply w/ the terms of the HUD letter dtd. 7/31/96. (docket and file as per chmbrs.) (ls) (Entered: 10/02/1996)

Oct. 1, 1996
94

Letter filed to Judge Sweet from Stephen W. Goodman for New York City Housin dated 9/4/96 re Due to HUD's delay, the Housing Auth. has been forced to wait more than a yr. to begin implementing changes essential to its statutory mission and its cont'd. vitality. Pltffs. now ask the Court to rewrite the consent decree to give them a second opportunity to oppose these changes. For all the reasons set forth above, tahe Court should deny their motion. (docket and file as per chmbrs.) (ls) (Entered: 10/02/1996)

Oct. 1, 1996
95

Letter filed by Pauline Davis dated 9/9/96 re Accordingly, we ask that the C (ls) (Entered: 10/02/1996)

Oct. 1, 1996
97

Letter filed to Judge Sweet from Stephen W. Goodman for New York City Housin dated 9/12/96 re This is to supplement my letter to the Court from yesturday....In my rush to prepare that letter for the Clurt before oral argument, I did not have time to explain why the housing Authority changed its mind between 11/18/94, and 7/13/95, about the timing of its notice to pltffs. Since that explanation goes to the heart of the issue before the Court, it is important for the Court to have that explanation before rendering a decision... (docket &file as per chmbrs.) (ls) Modified on 10/02/1996 (Entered: 10/02/1996)

Oct. 1, 1996
98

Letter filed to Judge Sweet from Scott A. Rosenberg for pltff. Class in Davis v. NYCHA dated 9/17/96 re I write in brief reply to what has blossomed into a full flowering of surreply letters in these actions from the NYC Housing Auth. NYCHA now admits that it "changed its mind" about the timing of judicial review over TSAP changes... (docket and file as per chmbrs.) (ls) (Entered: 10/02/1996)

Oct. 1, 1996

Before J Sweet; Pre−trial conference held (cd) (Entered: 10/29/1996)

Oct. 28, 1996
99

NOTICE OF MOTION by Kim Rivera, Cornelia Simmons, Cynthia Williams, Pauline Davis preliminarily enjoining modifications to the Tenant Selection and Assignment Plan ("TSAP") of the New York city Housing Authority until plaintiffs' objections to such modifications can be resolved.... , Return date 12/18/96 (pl) (Entered: 11/19/1996)

Nov. 15, 1996
99

AFFIDAVIT of Leonard A. Cupingood, Ph.D Re: [99−1] motion preliminarily enjoining modifications to the Tenant Selection and Assignment Plan ("TSAP") of the New York city Housing Authority until plaintiffs' objections to such modifications can be resolved.... (pl) (Entered: 11/19/1996)

Nov. 15, 1996
99

DECLARATION of Scott A. Rosenberg Re: [99−1] motion preliminarily enjoining modifications to the Tenant Selection and Assignment Plan ("TSAP") of the New York city Housing Authority until plaintiffs' objections to such modifications can be resolved.... . (pl) (Entered: 11/19/1996)

Nov. 15, 1996
100

MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff Class in Davis in support of [99−1] motion preliminarily enjoining modifications to the Tenant Selection and Assignment Plan ("TSAP") of the New York city Housing Authority until plaintiffs' objections to such modifications can be resolved.... (pl) (Entered: 11/19/1996)

Nov. 15, 1996
101

Letter filed dated 12/03/96 to Judge Sweet from Scott A. Rosenberg (djc) (Entered: 12/04/1996)

Dec. 4, 1996
102

ORDER, reset NYCHA's opposition to plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction service deadline for 1/8/97 , reset Plaintiffs reply papers service deadline for 1/29/97 , reset oral argument set for 12:00 2/5/97 ...So Ordered....( signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet ); Copies mailed (pl) (Entered: 12/06/1996)

Dec. 5, 1996
103

AFFIDAVIT of David W. Peterson, Phd. by New York City Housing Authority in response to the 11/14/96 affidavit of Leonard A. Cupingood re [99−1] affidavit (lam) (Entered: 01/15/1997)

Jan. 15, 1997
104

AFFIDAVIT of Ruben Franco, Chairman of the Board of the New York City Housing Authority. (lam) (Entered: 01/15/1997)

Jan. 15, 1997
105

MEMORANDUM OF LAW by New York City Housin in opposition to Plaintiffs' Objections to the Tenant Selection and Assignment Plan and Motionfor a Preliminary Injunction. (djc) (Entered: 01/15/1997)

Jan. 15, 1997
106

REPLY MEMORANDUM by Pauline Davis re: objections to and motin to enjoin proposed chnages by deft (cd) (Entered: 02/04/1997)

Jan. 30, 1997
108

ORDER, NYCHA is ordered to provide a courtesy copy of its papers to the Court on 2/26/97 , NYCHA's Response to motion reset to 3/5/96 for [99−1] motion preliminarily enjoining modifications to the Tenant Selection and Assignment Plan ("TSAP") of the New York city Housing Authority until plaintiffs' objections to such modifications can be resolved.... , Pltffs. Reply to Response to Motion reset to 3/10/97 for [99−1] motion preliminarily enjoining modifications to the Tenant Selection and Assignment Plan ("TSAP") of the New York city Housing Authority until plaintiffs' objections to such can be resolved.... , reset oral argument set for 4/2/97 ( signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet ); Copies mailed (ls) (Entered: 02/13/1997)

Feb. 13, 1997
109

SECOND MEMORANDUM by New York City Housin in opposition to plntfs' objections to the tenant selection and assignment plan and motion for a preliminary injunction (cd) (Entered: 03/10/1997)

March 7, 1997
110

AFFIDAVIT in support of W. Steinmann by New York City Housin Re: [109−1] opposition memorandum (cd) (Entered: 03/10/1997)

March 7, 1997
111

AFFIDAVIT in support of D. Peterson by New York City Housin Re: [109−1] opposition memorandum (cd) (Entered: 03/10/1997)

March 7, 1997
112

SECOND REPLY MEMORANDUM by Kim Rivera, Cornelia Simmons, Cynthia Williams, Pauline Davis re: in opposition to proposed tenant selection and assignment plan charges. Fld in night deposit on 3/10/97 at 9:07 p.m. (emil) Modified on 03/11/1997 (Entered: 03/11/1997)

March 10, 1997
113

DECLARATION of Martha Cruz Re: in support of [99−1] motion preliminarily enjoining modifications to the Tenant Selection and Assignment Plan ("TSAP") of the New York city Housing Authority until plaintiffs' objections to such can be resolved; in support of pltffs' objections to proposed changes by the NYCHA to its Tenant Selection and Assignment Plan. Fld in night deposit on 3/10/97 at 9:07 p.m. (emil) (Entered: 03/11/1997)

March 10, 1997

Before J Sweet; Pre−trial conference held (cd) (Entered: 04/02/1997)

April 2, 1997
114

OPINION # 78950 denying [99−1] motion preliminarily enjoining modifications to the Tenant Selection and Assignment Plan ("TSAP") of the New York city Housing Authority until plaintiffs' objections to such modifications can be resolved.... ( Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet ); Copies mailed. (ae) (Entered: 07/21/1997)

July 18, 1997
115

Faxed Letter filed by Scott A. Rosenberg, Director of Litigation at The Legal Aid Society, attys for pltffs dated 2/4/97 re urging that oral argument on the preliminary injunction proceed on schedule tomorrow 2/5/97. (lam) Modified on 08/05/1997 (Entered: 08/05/1997)

Aug. 1, 1997
116

Letter filed by Stephen W. Goodman, atty for New York City Housing Authority dated 4/11/97 re responding more fully to inquiries posed by Judge Sweet at oral argument and to statements made by pltffs' counsel in his rebuttal. (lam) (Entered: 08/05/1997)

Aug. 1, 1997
117

Letter filed by Scott A. Rosenberg of The Legal Aid Society, attys for Pauline Davis, Jeanette Vargas, Gina Campbell, Blanca Iris Hernandez, Kim Rivera, Cornelia Simmons, Cynthia Williams dated 4/17/97 re in response to the letter, dated 4/11/97, submitted by deft NYC Housing Authority without leave of court 9 days after oral argument in this case. (lam) (Entered: 08/05/1997)

Aug. 1, 1997
118

NOTICE OF MOTION by New York City Housing Authority for reconsideration of [114−1] order . (kw) Modified on 08/08/1997 (Entered: 08/06/1997)

Aug. 4, 1997
119

MEMORANDUM by New York City Housing in support of [118−1] motion for reconsideration of [114−1] order. (kw) (Entered: 08/06/1997)

Aug. 4, 1997
120

NOTICE OF APPEAL by New York City Housin ; from [114−1] order . Copies of notice of appeal mailed to Attorney(s) of Record: Scott A. Rosenberg, Valerie R. O'Brian, Esq. and Neil M. Corwin, Esq. $105.00 Appeal filing fee paid on receipt #

Aug. 15, 1997
122

REPLY MEMORANDUM of LAW by New York City Housin re: in Further Support of [118−1] motion for reconsideration of [114−1] order (djc) (Entered: 08/27/1997)

Aug. 25, 1997
123

Filed Memo Endorsement on letter to Judge Sweet from Scott Rosenberg, dated 10/23/97, extending time to 10/30/97 for plntf to respond to defts' Notice of Settlement and Proposed Order ( signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet ) (cd) Modified on 10/28/1997 (Entered: 10/27/1997)

Oct. 24, 1997
124

MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Kim Rivera, Cornelia Simmons, Cynthia Williams, Pauline Davis in opposition to defendant's proposed order and in support of plaintiffs' proposed order. (ae) (Entered: 11/05/1997)

Oct. 31, 1997
125

AFFIDAVIT in further support of Leonard A. Cupingood by Kim Rivera, Cornelia Simmons, Cynthia Williams, Pauline Davis to Re: plaintiffs' objections to proposed charges to the N.Y.C.H.A's (TSAP). (ae) Modified on 11/05/1997 (Entered: 11/05/1997)

Oct. 31, 1997
126

Letter filed dated 09/18/97 to Judge Sweet from Stephen W. Goodman in re: response to plaintiff's letter of September 5, 1997. (djc) (Entered: 11/17/1997)

Nov. 13, 1997
127

Letter filed by New York City Housing to Judge Sweet dated 11/5/97, re: opposing plaintiffs' proposed order submitted to the Court on 10/30/97, accompanied by a memorandum of law and a new affidavit from Leonard Cupingood (ae) (Entered: 11/17/1997)

Nov. 13, 1997
128

UNSIGNED ORDER, regarding steps to be taken by Housing Authority. (ae) (Entered: 11/17/1997)

Nov. 13, 1997
129

Letter filed by Henry Schoenfeld, attorney for New York City Housing dated 10/16/97 regarding proposed order. (kw) (Entered: 11/17/1997)

Nov. 13, 1997
130

Letter filed by Henry Schoenfeld New York City Housing dated 10/24/97 regarding objection to Davis plaintiffs' 10/243/97 letter application for another extension of the deadline to respond to the Housing Authority's proposed order in the litigation. (kw) (Entered: 11/17/1997)

Nov. 13, 1997
132

Letter filed by New York City Housin dated 9/5/97 re in support of NYCHA's pending motion to reargue (ls) (Entered: 11/17/1997)

Nov. 13, 1997
133

UNSIGNED ORDER, the Housing Authority may implement the working−family preference as proposed, provided that families with priority codes L3 and F3 may not select or be certified to any project where white families constitute more than 30% of the families at the project; the Housing Authority may extend limited project choice to families requiring three of four−bedroom apartments ; (docket &filed as per instructions of chambers) (sac) Modified on 11/20/1997 (Entered: 11/17/1997)

Nov. 13, 1997

State / Territory: New York

Case Type(s):

Public Housing

Key Dates

Filing Date: Jan. 31, 1990

Closing Date: Dec. 24, 2002

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Black and Hispanic individuals residing in or eligible for New York City Housing Authority housing.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Non-DOJ federal government plaintiff

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Legal Services/Legal Aid

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

New York City Housing Authority (New York), City

Defendant Type(s):

Housing Authority

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

42 U.S.C. § 1981

Fair Housing Act/Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.

42 U.S.C. § 1982

Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: 308,896.32

Content of Injunction:

Comply with advertising/recruiting requirements

Develop anti-discrimination policy

Discrimination Prohibition

Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)

Preliminary relief granted

Issues

General:

Disparate Treatment

Housing

Housing assistance

Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)

Racial segregation

Discrimination-area:

Housing Sales/Rental

Discrimination-basis:

Race discrimination

Race:

Black

National Origin/Ethnicity:

Hispanic