Support the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?

Support the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?

Thank you!

DONATE

Case: United States v. L&M 93rd Street LLC

1:10-cv-07495 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Filed Date: Sept. 30, 2010

Closed Date: 2014

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On September 30, 2010, the United States Department of Justice (U.S. Attorney's Office) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §3601-3619, against the developer and designer/builder of the Melar, a large apartment building on the Upper West Side of New York City. The U.S. alleged the defendants designed and constructed the Melar to be inaccessible to persons with disabilities, especially people who use wheelchair…

On September 30, 2010, the United States Department of Justice (U.S. Attorney's Office) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §3601-3619, against the developer and designer/builder of the Melar, a large apartment building on the Upper West Side of New York City. The U.S. alleged the defendants designed and constructed the Melar to be inaccessible to persons with disabilities, especially people who use wheelchairs, both in its common areas and in individual apartments. The complaint sought a declaratory judgment, injunction, money damages, and civil penalties.

The United States submitted two consent decrees a few days apart in September 2010, one with the architect and the other the developer. The consent decree with the architect included education/training for all employees; payment of a $40,000 penalty to the United States; and an injunction from discriminating against individuals on the basis of disability. The consent decree with the developer was more comprehensive. It not only enjoined the defendant from discriminating on the basis of disability, it required substantial modifications and retrofitting of the Melar--both in common and other areas--at the builder's expense. It also directed notification of all residents of the property to ensure that they would be aware of the modifications being made to the property, provided for the payment of $180,000 to individuals impacted by the building's inaccessibility by the developer; and required the developer to create an Accessibility Payment Fund of $288,300.

On October 22, 2010, the Court (Judge Richard Berman) filed an administrative order requesting additional information about the proposed consent decree between the United States and Defendant L&M 93rd Street LLC. Judge Berman explained his concern that the consent decree would create unnecessary expense to the Developer-Defendant. He expressed skepticism about the appropriateness of numerous provisions of the decree: the Developer-Defendant's agreement to compensate individuals affected by the building defects of the Melar; the Accessibility Project Fund; the list of names and addresses of buildings constructed by the Developer-Defendant; training; and the three-year compliance period. The Court requested that the parties respond to the administrative order by October 29, 2010.

The U.S. response was to urge the Court to approve the decree as submitted; the U.S. filing focused on the fact that the decree was an arms' length agreement resulting from two years of negotiations. Beginning with filings in early November 2010, the defendants' response (unsurprisingly) was to express misgivings about the Decree it had previously signed, agreeing with the Court that the decree was probably too onerous. Several additional entities then weighed in: The Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) filed a letter with the Court arguing against the agreed-upon consent decree out of concern that this settlement would create heightened building requirements for the real estate industry in New York City. In addition, the defendant provided the Court with a letter written by the Corporation Counsel for New York City, Michael Cardozo, to the U.S. Attorney, expressing the view that compliance with the relevant local law constituted compliance with the Fair Housing Act.

The U.S. disagreed, but to resolve this part of the dispute, the City contacted the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development to discuss the interrelationship between New York City's current local accessibility code and the FHA. HUD offered to provide

technical assistance to the City upon request.

The parties reopened negotiations, but were, at least at first, unable to come to a different agreement. Judge Berman expressed the view that a private settlement agreement--entirely outside the Court's enforcement--might be an appropriate way to proceed, and the government then proposed to split the settlement into an enforceable consent decree and a private settlement agreement that contained just the provisions of concern to the Court. It appears that this approach was either unsatisfactory to the Court or to the developer.

According to a motion filed by the U.S. in July 2011, what happened next is that In March 2011, the Developer informally sought leave to withdraw its consent to the Original Developer Decree. In addition, REBNY filed a motion to intervene as a defendant to this case because of its extensive presence and wide membership in the real estate industry. The motion was opposed by the U.S., and on April 5, 2011, Judge Berman denied intervention. Both the Developer and the Architect then filed motions seeking to withdraw their consent to the still-unapproved decrees.

While this motion was pending, settlement negotiations resumed. The parties then agreed on a revised consent decree. The revisions each made the decree slightly more favorable to the developer. For example, where the original Decree required the Developer to pay to a disability rights organization any portion of the Aggrieved Persons Fund not distributed to aggrieved persons by the end of that decree's term, the revised decree returned the unpaid money to the developer. Similarly, the rules governing the Accessibility Project Fund gave the developer more control over the expenditure of that $288,000. The retrofits required were also scaled back in some particulars. In total, though, it does not appear that the Decree was scaled back very much. On July 22, 2011, Judge Berman approved the revised decree, and on July 25, 2011, Judge Berman approved the architect decree as well.

In February 2012, some of the deadlines in the Decree were extended by 150 days. The docket does not include any other post-decree activity. The decree was scheduled to expire in July 2014. The extended deadline passed without any further litigation, and the case is now closed.

Summary Authors

Megan Richardson (4/21/2014)

Clearinghouse (12/2/2018)

People


Judge(s)

Berman, Richard M. (New York)

Dolinger, Michael H. (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bharara, Preetinder S. (New York)

Feldman, Brian M. (New York)

Light, Sarah E. (New York)

Perez, Thomas E. (District of Columbia)

Schoenberger, Carina H. (New York)

Yu, Li (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Albanese, Christopher A. (New York)

Cardozo, Michael A. (New York)

Judge(s)

Berman, Richard M. (New York)

Dolinger, Michael H. (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bharara, Preetinder S. (New York)

Feldman, Brian M. (New York)

Light, Sarah E. (New York)

Perez, Thomas E. (District of Columbia)

Schoenberger, Carina H. (New York)

Yu, Li (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Albanese, Christopher A. (New York)

Cardozo, Michael A. (New York)

Hadlock, John (New York)

Underberg, Neil (New York)

Other Attorney(s)

Sloan, Clifford M (New York)

Spiegel, Lawrence Steve (New York)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:10-cv-07495

Docket [PACER]

Feb. 9, 2012

Feb. 9, 2012

Docket
1

1:10-cv-07495

Complaint

Sept. 30, 2010

Sept. 30, 2010

Complaint
2

1:10-cv-07495

Administrative Order

Oct. 22, 2010

Oct. 22, 2010

Order/Opinion
9

1:10-cv-07495

[Letter Brief]

Oct. 29, 2010

Oct. 29, 2010

Pleading / Motion / Brief
5

1:10-cv-07495

Memo Endorsed

Nov. 4, 2010

Nov. 4, 2010

Findings Letter/Report
10

1:10-cv-07495

[Letter Brief]

Nov. 9, 2010

Nov. 9, 2010

Pleading / Motion / Brief
7

1:10-cv-07495

[Letter Brief]

Nov. 15, 2010

Nov. 15, 2010

Pleading / Motion / Brief
14

1:10-cv-07495

[Motion]

Dec. 10, 2010

Dec. 10, 2010

Pleading / Motion / Brief
27

1:10-cv-07495

Memo Endorsed

Jan. 26, 2011

Jan. 26, 2011

Correspondence
43

1:10-cv-07495

Decision and Order

April 5, 2011

April 5, 2011

Order/Opinion

Docket

Last updated Dec. 5, 2022, 3:07 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT against Costas Kondylis &Partners, LLP, LM93rd Street LLC. Document filed by United States Of America.(ama) (Entered: 10/01/2010)

Sept. 30, 2010

Sept. 30, 2010

Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dolinger is so designated. (ama) (Entered: 10/01/2010)

Sept. 30, 2010

Sept. 30, 2010

SUMMONS ISSUED as to Costas Kondylis &Partners, LLP, LM93rd Street LLC. (ama) (Entered: 10/01/2010)

Sept. 30, 2010

Sept. 30, 2010

Case Designated ECF. (ama) (Entered: 10/01/2010)

Sept. 30, 2010

Sept. 30, 2010

2

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER the Court finds that it needs more information as set forth below in order to approve the Consent Decree. The core provisions of the Consent Decree are certainly appropriate and as further set forth in this document. The Court would appreciate the parties' submission(s) by 10/29/10. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 10/22/10) (cd) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/1/2010: # 1 Exhibit) (jfe). (Entered: 10/22/2010)

Oct. 22, 2010

Oct. 22, 2010

3

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from John M. Hadlock dated 10/29/2010 re: Counsel request an extension of time to file their responsive letter until 11/2/2010 and further request that before counsel release their letter and expose their client to a possible breach of confidentiality counsel receive direction from the Court on this important issue. ENDORSEMENT: Extension to 11/2/10 at 4:00 P.M. granted. Include in any response copies of any building completion approvals by, e.g; any building inspections such as certification of occupancy, etc. Responses to Court's Order are not mandatory − but extension is Final. So Ordered (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 11/1/2010) (jfe) (Entered: 11/01/2010)

Nov. 1, 2010

Nov. 1, 2010

4

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Sarah Light dated 11/2/10 re: The Government requests the opportunity for a conference with the Court in Chambers. ENDORSEMENT: Let's discuss all these issues at the 11/16/10 conference @10:00 am (including the architect defendant's cd if it is received in advance.) The Court does not perceive the need for a meeting in chambers at this time, although that may become appropriate in the future. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 11/3/10) (cd) (Entered: 11/03/2010)

Nov. 3, 2010

Nov. 3, 2010

5

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Steven Spinola dated 11/3/2010 re: submitting this letter to bring to the Court's attention the grave concerns of New York City's real estate industry regarding the proposed consent decree that has recently been submitted for the Court's approval. ENDORSEMENT: If the parties here (Govt + Developer + Architect) wish to comment, they are respectfully request to do so by 11/9/2010 at noon. They are not required to do so. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 11/4/2010) (jar) (Entered: 11/04/2010)

Nov. 4, 2010

Nov. 4, 2010

6

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Li Yu on behalf of United States Of America (Yu, Li) (Entered: 11/05/2010)

Nov. 5, 2010

Nov. 5, 2010

7

Letter addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from John M. Hadlock dated 11/15/10 re: We believe the issues raised by the Corporation Counsel Cardozo are critical to the Developer's dispute with the USAO and will be a critical issue to be resolved in this litigation. (mro) (Entered: 11/16/2010)

Nov. 16, 2010

Nov. 16, 2010

8

Letter addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Brian M. Feldman dated 11/15/10 re: We request that the Court advise the parties as to whether it would consider a resolution presented to the Court in this form. Document filed by United States Of America.(mro) (Entered: 11/16/2010)

Nov. 16, 2010

Nov. 16, 2010

9

Letter addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Brian M. Feldman dated 10/29/10 re: The Government submits this letter in response to the Court's Administrative Order, dated October 22, 2010. Document filed by United States Of America.(mro) (Entered: 11/16/2010)

Nov. 16, 2010

Nov. 16, 2010

10

Letter addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Sarah E. Light dated 11/9/10 re: The Government writes in response to the letter submitted by the Real Estate Board of New York on 11/3/10. Document filed by United States Of America.(mro) (Entered: 11/16/2010)

Nov. 16, 2010

Nov. 16, 2010

11

Letter addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Sarah E. Light, Brian M. Feldman, Li Yu, Carina Schoenberger dated 10/29/2010 re: Submits this letter in response to the Court's Administrative Order. Document filed by United States Of America.(mbe) (Entered: 11/16/2010)

Nov. 16, 2010

Nov. 16, 2010

12

Letter addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Sarah E. Light, Brian M. Feldman, Li Yu, Carina Schoenberger dated 11/15/2010 re: To advise the Court of a potential resolution of this matter. Document filed by United States Of America.(mbe) (Entered: 11/16/2010)

Nov. 16, 2010

Nov. 16, 2010

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard M. Berman: Status Conference held on 11/16/2010, ( Status Conference set for 12/16/2010 at 10:30 AM before Judge Richard M. Berman.) (mbe) (Entered: 11/18/2010)

Nov. 16, 2010

Nov. 16, 2010

13

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on November 10, 2010 4:50 p.m. before Judge Richard M. Berman. (ajc) (Entered: 11/19/2010)

Nov. 17, 2010

Nov. 17, 2010

14

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Lawrence S. Spiegel, dated 12/10/10 re: counsel submits this letter to advise the Court that REBNY plans to move to intervene as a defendant in this action. ENDORSEMENT: We can discuss at the conference on 12/16. The principal issue at that time will be proposed consent decree. Plaintiff and Defendants are directed to submit a brief (joint) status letter by noon on Tuesday, 12/14/10. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 12/10/10); (djc) Modified on 12/22/2010 (djc). Modified on 12/28/2010 (djc). (Entered: 12/13/2010)

Dec. 10, 2010

Dec. 10, 2010

15

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from United States Attorney, Southern District of New York, dated 12/14/2010, re: The Government writes, jointly with Costas Kondylis &Partners, LLP (the "Architect Defendant") and LM93rd Street LLC (the "Developer Defendant") to report that the parties today recommenced settlement discussions regarding the proposed consent decrees. We anticipate that those discussions will either conclude successfully or reach an impasse within the next 45 days. The parties therefore jointly and respectfully request that the Court: (l) adjourn the conference currently scheduled for Thursday, December 16, 2010, by 45 days; and (2) extend by 45 days the time period in which the Architect Defendant and Developer Defendant must respond to the Govemment's complaint in this action. ENDORSEMENT: Application granted. The conference on 12/16/2010 is adjourned to 2/1/2011 at 10:00 a.m. SO ORDERED. (Status Conference set for 2/1/2011 at 10:00 AM before Judge Richard M. Berman) (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman, Not dated) (lnl) (Entered: 12/14/2010)

Dec. 14, 2010

Dec. 14, 2010

16

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER: The Court has reviewed the record and letter submissions, dated December 10, 2010, from the Real Estate Board of New York, December 13, 2010, from the Government and LM93rd Street LLC, respectively, and the joint status letter dated, December 14, 2010, from the Government and Costas Kondylis &Partners, LLP. Following this review, the conference scheduled for December 16, 2010 has been adjourned to February 1, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. It is the Court's understanding that, in the interim, the parties are attempting to achieve a (more) global resolution, one which endeavors to harmonize New York City and Federal housing construction obligations. Without in any way commenting upon the merits or outcome of the parties' positions, the Court fully supports this effort. Please let me know if I can be of help in achieving a resolution. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 12/15/10) (mro) (Entered: 12/15/2010)

Dec. 15, 2010

Dec. 15, 2010

17

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Lawrence S. Spiegel dated 12/14/10 re: Counsel for the Real Estate Board of New York reasserts its intention to file a formal motion to intervene. ENDORSEMENT: It's not ripe for motion practice of this time. Focus on good faith negotiations, instead. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 12/15/10) (mro) Modified on 12/15/2010 (mro). (Entered: 12/15/2010)

Dec. 15, 2010

Dec. 15, 2010

18

Letter addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Brian M. Feldman dated 12/13/10 re: For the reasons listed herein and in the absence of any ground supporting intervention, the Government opposes REBNY's motion to intervene. Document filed by United States Of America.(mro) (Entered: 12/15/2010)

Dec. 15, 2010

Dec. 15, 2010

19

Letter addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Brian M. Feldman dated 12/14/10 re: The Government writes, jointly with Costas Kondylis &Partners, LLP to provide a brief letter as to the status of settlement discussions in this proceeding. Document filed by Costas Kondylis &Partners, LLP, United States Of America.(mro) (Entered: 12/15/2010)

Dec. 15, 2010

Dec. 15, 2010

20

Letter addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from John M. Hadlock dated 12/13/2010 re: Ls position is that discovery or other activity in this case should be deferred until it is determined whether REBNY will become a party.(mbe) (Entered: 12/20/2010)

Dec. 15, 2010

Dec. 15, 2010

21

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 11/16/10, 11:30 a.m. before Judge Richard M. Berman. (rjm) (Entered: 12/21/2010)

Dec. 20, 2010

Dec. 20, 2010

22

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 11/16/10 before Judge Richard M. Berman. (jw) (Entered: 01/06/2011)

Jan. 6, 2011

Jan. 6, 2011

23

WAIVER OF SERVICE RETURNED EXECUTED. LM93rd Street LLC waiver sent on 12/7/2010, answer due 2/7/2011. Document filed by United States Of America. (Feldman, Brian) (Entered: 01/10/2011)

Jan. 10, 2011

Jan. 10, 2011

24

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER: The parties are hereby directed to file a joint letter on or before January 25, 2011 updating the Court as to the status of the parties' settlement negotiations. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 1/18/2011) (jpo) (Entered: 01/18/2011)

Jan. 18, 2011

Jan. 18, 2011

25

STATUS REPORT. Letter to Judge Berman providing update concerning status of this matter Document filed by Costas Kondylis &Partners, LLP.(Albanese, Christopher) (Entered: 01/25/2011)

Jan. 25, 2011

Jan. 25, 2011

27

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Brian M. Feldman dated 1/25/2011 re: Unless the Court grants the Government's outstanding request to enter the consent decrees formerly signed by all parties, to which the defendants now object, this litigation must proceed. ENDORSEMENT: The matter is referred to Magistrate Dolinger for settlement. February 1, 2011 conference adjourned to March 1, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 1/26/2011) (jpo) (Entered: 01/26/2011)

Jan. 26, 2011

Jan. 26, 2011

28

Letter addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from John M. Hadlock dated 1/25/11 re: We request that you entertain REBNY's request for a briefing schedule for its expressed desire to intervene in the case. (mro) (Entered: 01/31/2011)

Jan. 31, 2011

Jan. 31, 2011

29

Letter addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Lawrence S. Spiegel dated 1/25/11 re: Counsel for REBNY requests that the Court set a briefing schedule for REBNY's motion to intervene. (mro) (Entered: 01/31/2011)

Jan. 31, 2011

Jan. 31, 2011

30

Letter addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Christopher A. Albanese dated 1/25/11 re: CKP has no objection to the Parties' request to recommence litigation. Document filed by Costas Kondylis &Partners, LLP.(mro) (Entered: 01/31/2011)

Jan. 31, 2011

Jan. 31, 2011

31

ORDER, that a settlement conference has been scheduled in the above captioned action on MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2011, at 10:00 A.M., at which time you are directed to appear in Courtroom 17D, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007−1312. Additional relief as set forth in this Order. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dolinger on 2/2/11) Copies Sent By Chambers. (pl) (Entered: 02/03/2011)

Feb. 3, 2011

Feb. 3, 2011

32

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from The Government, dated 2/25/2011, re: The Government writes to respectfully request a brief adjournment of the conference scheduled before Your Honor on March 1, 2011. By orders dated January 26, 2011, the Court referred the parties to Magistrate Judge Dolinger for settlement discussions and for general pretrial. Magistrate Judge Dolinger has scheduled a settlement conference for February 28, 20l1, i.e., just One day prior to the scheduled March 1 conference before Your Honor. The parties will likely require more than a single day to consummate, and prepare for Your Honor's review, any settlement agreements reached at the February 28 settlement conference. Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests a brief adjournment of the March 1 conference. The defendants consent to this request. ENDORSEMENT: Application granted. The status conference on 3/1/11 is adjourned to 3/14/11 at 9:00 a.m. SO ORDERED. (Status Conference set for 3/14/2011 at 09:00 AM before Judge Richard M. Berman) (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 2/25/2011) (lnl) (Entered: 02/25/2011)

Feb. 25, 2011

Feb. 25, 2011

33

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Carina Hyatt Schoenberger on behalf of United States Of America. (mbe) (Entered: 02/28/2011)

Feb. 25, 2011

Feb. 25, 2011

34

ORDER, that initial disclosures are to be made by no later than FRIDAY, APRIL 8, 2011. All fact discovery is to be completed by FRIDAY, JULY 29, 2011. All remaining expert witness discovery is to be completed by FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2011. The parties are to submit a joint pre−trial order by FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2011, unless a potentially dispositive motion has been served by that date. ( Discovery due by 9/16/2011., Pretrial Order due by 9/30/2011.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dolinger on 2/28/11) Copies Sent By Chambers. (pl) (Entered: 02/28/2011)

Feb. 28, 2011

Feb. 28, 2011

35

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Lawrence Spiegel and Sara Shadofsky dated 3/10/11 re: Request that the Court set a briefing schedule for REBNY's motion to intervene. ENDORSEMENT: We can discuss at the conference on 3/14/11. Discovery should proceed (vigorously). (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 3/11/11) (cd) (Entered: 03/11/2011)

March 11, 2011

March 11, 2011

36

MOTION to Intervene. Document filed by Real Estate Board of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Service)(Abrams, Robert) (Entered: 03/21/2011)

March 21, 2011

March 21, 2011

37

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 36 MOTION to Intervene.. Document filed by Real Estate Board of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Service)(Abrams, Robert) (Entered: 03/21/2011)

March 21, 2011

March 21, 2011

38

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 3/14/2011 before Judge Richard M. Berman. (ama) (Entered: 03/28/2011)

March 24, 2011

March 24, 2011

39

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 36 MOTION to Intervene.. Document filed by United States Of America. (Schoenberger, Carina) (Entered: 03/28/2011)

March 28, 2011

March 28, 2011

40

DECLARATION of Carina H. Schoenberger in Opposition re: 36 MOTION to Intervene.. Document filed by United States Of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Schoenberger, Carina) (Entered: 03/28/2011)

March 28, 2011

March 28, 2011

41

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Lawrence Steve Spiegel on behalf of Real Estate Board of New York (Spiegel, Lawrence) (Entered: 03/31/2011)

March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

42

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 36 MOTION to Intervene.. Document filed by Real Estate Board of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Service)(Spiegel, Lawrence) (Entered: 04/01/2011)

April 1, 2011

April 1, 2011

43

DECISION &ORDER: REBNY's motion to intervene [#36] is respectfully denied. (See DECISION &ORDER as set forth) (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 4/5/2011) (lnl) (Entered: 04/05/2011)

April 5, 2011

April 5, 2011

44

MOTION to Withdraw from the Consent Decree . Document filed by LM93rd Street LLC.(Hadlock, John) (Entered: 04/15/2011)

April 15, 2011

April 15, 2011

45

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 44 MOTION to Withdraw from the Consent Decree .. Document filed by LM93rd Street LLC. (Hadlock, John) (Entered: 04/15/2011)

April 15, 2011

April 15, 2011

46

DECLARATION of John M. Hadlock in Support re: 44 MOTION to Withdraw from the Consent Decree .. Document filed by LM93rd Street LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Complaint, # 2 Exhibit B − Consent Decree, # 3 Exhibit C − 10/22/2010 Administrative Order, # 4 Exhibit D − 11/10/2010 Transcript, # 5 Exhibit E − 11/16/2010 Transcript, # 6 Exhibit F − 12/15/2010 Administrative Order, # 7 Exhibit G − 03/14/2011 Transcript, # 8 Exhibit H − 07/14/2008 letter, # 9 Exhibit I − Temporary Certificate of Occupancy)(Hadlock, John) (Entered: 04/15/2011)

April 15, 2011

April 15, 2011

47

FILING ERROR − ELECTRONIC FILING FOR NON−ECF DOCUMENT − MOTION to Add Costas Kondylis &Partners in Ls Motion to Withdraw . Document filed by Costas Kondylis &Partners, LLP. Return Date set for 5/13/2011 at 09:30 AM.(Albanese, Christopher) Modified on 4/19/2011 (ldi). (Entered: 04/18/2011)

April 18, 2011

April 18, 2011

***NOTE TO ATTORNEY THAT THE ATTEMPTED FILING OF Document No. 47 HAS BEEN REJECTED. Note to Attorney Christopher A. Albanese : THE CLERK'S OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT LETTERS FOR FILING, either through ECF or otherwise, except where the judge has ordered that a particular letter be docketed. Letters may be sent directly to a judge. (ldi) (Entered: 04/19/2011)

April 18, 2011

April 18, 2011

48

ENDORSED LETTER: addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Christopher A. Albanese dated 4/18/2011 re: Counsel for the defendants write that the following is respectfully being submitted as a formal application by CKP to join in LM's pending Motion to withdraw from the Consent Decree. As this Court is aware, CKP entered into its proposed Consent Decree with separate terms and conditions based exclusively on the terms and conditions set forth in Ls proposed Consent Decree with the United States. Based upon Ls arguments and to the extent that LMseeks withdrawal from its Consent Decree, CKP similarly seeks to withdraw its consent to entry of the proposed Consent Decree with the United States. Therefore, to the extent the Court finds that LMbe permitted to withdraw from the proposed Consent Decree of its own accord or, in the alternative, that the Court decline to approve the Consent Decree, CKP similarly should be permitted to withdraw and proceed with the litigation.. ENDORSEMENT: See transcript of Proceedings dated 3/14/11 where the Court indicated that defendants motion should be "joint". It appears that the attached letter affects that the motion submitted by LMis a joint motion. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 4/19/11) (js) (Entered: 04/19/2011)

April 19, 2011

April 19, 2011

49

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Brian M. Feldman dated 4/26/11 Re: The Government writes respectfully to request a one−week extension of the briefing schedule regarding defendants' motion to withdraw from the proposed consent decree. ENDORSEMENT: Extension(s) granted. The Court encourages the parties to achieve mutually acceptable resolution. So ordered. (Responses due by 5/6/2011. Replies due by 5/20/2011.) (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 4/27/2011) (rjm) (Entered: 04/27/2011)

April 27, 2011

April 27, 2011

50

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Sarah E. Light dated 5/4/2011 re: The Government respectfully requests that the Court permit the Government to file its opposition papers by 5/13/11, and the defendants to file their reply papers by 5/27/11. ENDORSEMENT: Application granted. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 5/4/2011) (jfe) (Entered: 05/05/2011)

May 5, 2011

May 5, 2011

51

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Li Yu dated 5/12/2011 re: Counsel requests an extension of time regarding the briefing schedule for defendants' motion to withdraw as follows: response due by 5/27/2011 and reply due by 6/10/2011. ENDORSEMENT: Application granted. Set Deadlines/Hearing as to 44 MOTION to Withdraw from the Consent Decree :( Responses due by 5/27/2011, Replies due by 6/10/2011.) (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 5/12/2011) (tro) (Entered: 05/13/2011)

May 13, 2011

May 13, 2011

52

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Brian M. Feldman dated 5/25/11 re: Request for an extension of time until June 10, 2011, to file the Government's response to the motion, with reply due by June 24, 2011. ENDORSEMENT: Application granted. So ordered. (Responses due by 6/10/2011. Replies due by 6/24/2011.) (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 5/25/11) (rjm) (Entered: 05/26/2011)

May 25, 2011

May 25, 2011

53

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Li Yu dated 6/8/11 re: We write respectfully to request an extension of the briefing schedule for defendants' motion to withdraw from the proposed consent decrees. ENDORSEMENT: Application granted. (Responses due by 6/21/2011. Replies due by 7/13/2011.) (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 6/8/11) (rjm) (Entered: 06/09/2011)

June 9, 2011

June 9, 2011

54

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Li Yu dated 6/20/2011 re: Counsel requests that the briefing schedule for defendants' motion to withdraw be adjourned indefinitely. ENDORSEMENT: The briefing schedule is suspended without prejudice. A status conference is scheduled for 6/30/11 at 10:00 a.m. (Status Conference set for 6/30/2011 at 10:00 AM before Judge Richard M. Berman.) (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 6/21/2011) (tro) (Entered: 06/22/2011)

June 22, 2011

June 22, 2011

55

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Christopher A. Albanese dated 6/28/2011 re: This office represents the Defendant Costas Kondylis &Partners, LLP ("CKP") in connection with the above referenced action. Due to prior commitment that this office cannot reschedule, we respectfully request that the conference presently scheduled for Thursday 6/30/2011 be adjourned to a date and time on or after 7/15/2011. The plaintiff and developer Defendants consent to this request. ENDORSEMENT: Application respectfully denied. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 6/28/2011) (mbe) (Entered: 06/28/2011)

June 28, 2011

June 28, 2011

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard M. Berman: Status Conference held on 6/30/2011. Government submission is due 7/13/11. Status Conference set for 7/20/2011 at 11:00 AM before Judge Richard M. Berman. (ft) (Entered: 06/30/2011)

June 30, 2011

June 30, 2011

56

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from John M. Hadlock dated 7/12/11 re: We request, with the consent of the Government and the respondent Costas, Kondylis &Partners, LLP, that the deadline for the Government to submit the revised consent decree be extended from July 13, 2011, to July 22, 2011, and that the conference, which currently is scheduled for July 20, 2011, be rescheduled to a date after the submission of the revised consent decree that is convenient for the Court. ENDORSEMENT: Application granted. The status conference on 7/20/11 is adjourned to 8/8/11 at 9:15 a.m. So ordered. (Conference set for 8/8/2011 at 09:15 AM before Judge Richard M. Berman.) (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 7/13/11) (rjm) (Entered: 07/14/2011)

July 14, 2011

July 14, 2011

57

ENDORSED LETTER: addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Brian M. Feldmen dated 7/21/2011 re: respectfully submit that the terms of these decrees are procedurally and substantively fair, further the purposes of the FHA's design and construction provisions, address the questions and concerns that the Court has raised, and allow the parties to achieve a consensual resolution of this matter without the expenditure of additional resources. Accordingly, on behalf of all parties, we respectfully request that the Court approve the Revised Developer Decree and the Architect Decree. ENDORSEMENT: As the parties have been advised, the Court is approving the consent decree (relating to the developer and the architect) as modified,following by the parties good job August 8 conference vacated. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 7/22/2011) (js) (Entered: 07/22/2011)

July 22, 2011

July 22, 2011

58

JUDGMENT CONSENT DECREE BETWWEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND DEFENDANT LM93RD STREET LLC Settling action. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 7/22/11) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Right to Appeal)(dt) (Entered: 07/25/2011)

July 22, 2011

July 22, 2011

59

JUDGMENT CONSENT DECREE BETWWEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND DEFENDANT COSTAS KONDYLIS &PARTNERS, LLP Settling action. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 7/22/11) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Right to Appeal)(dt) (Entered: 07/25/2011)

July 25, 2011

July 25, 2011

60

Letter addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Marvin Wasserman dated 11/12/2010 re: A proposed Consent Decree submitted by the parties on September 30, 2010. (lmb) (Entered: 07/26/2011)

July 26, 2011

July 26, 2011

61

STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING CERTAIN DEADLINES IN AND THE DURATION OF CONSENT DECREE: It is hereby Stipulated, Agreed and Ordered that: 1. The following deadlines for performance by the Developer Defendants under the Consent Decree are hereby extended, nunc pro tunc, by 150 days: (A) The date by which the Developer Defendant must distribute the Reetrofit Notices, as set forth in paragraphs 7, 8, and 12 of the Consent Decree; (B) The date by which the Developer Defendant must publish the Aggrieved Persons Notice, place an electronic version of the Aggrieved Persons Notice on The Melar's website, and send a copy of the Aggrieved Persons Notice to the Fair Housing Justice Center, the United Spinal Association, and current and past residents of The Melar, in accordance wit paragraph 26, 27, 28, and 29 of the Consent Decree; (C) The date by which the Developer Defendant must comply with the requirements of the Educational Program, in accordance with paragraphs 38 and 40 of the Consent Decree; (D) The date by which the Developer Defendant shall comply with the requirements of the Non−Discrimination Policy provisions of the Consent Decree, as set forth in paragraph 46 of the Consent Decree; as further set forth in this Stipulation and Order. ENDORSEMENT: On consent. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 2/9/2012) (mro) Modified on 2/10/2012 (mro). (Entered: 02/10/2012)

Feb. 9, 2012

Feb. 9, 2012

Case Details

State / Territory: New York

Case Type(s):

Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 30, 2010

Closing Date: 2014

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

United States Department of Justice, on behalf of residents with disabilities.

Plaintiff Type(s):

U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Costa Kondylis & Partner LLP (New York), Private Entity/Person

L&M 93rd Street LLC (New York), Private Entity/Person

Defendant Type(s):

Multi-family housing provider

Case Details

Causes of Action:

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

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: $328,300

Order Duration: 2011 - 2014

Content of Injunction:

Discrimination Prohibition

Issues

General:

Barrier Removal

Bathrooms

Buildings

Disparate Treatment

Housing

Reasonable Accommodations

Discrimination-area:

Housing Sales/Rental

Discrimination-basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Disability:

Mobility impairment

Type of Facility:

Non-government for-profit