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: Heyer v. New York City Housing Authority and Bennett v. New York City Housing Authority

1:80-cv-01196 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Filed Date: Feb. 29, 1980

Closed Date: 2014

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This Clearinghouse record combines two cases, Heyer v. City of New York (S.D.N.Y., filed 1980), and Bennett v. New York City Housing Authority (originally E.D.N.Y., filed 2002; transferred to S.D.N.Y. in 2005 and consolidated with Heyer). On February 20, 1980, individuals with mobility impairments who were eligible for the Section 8 program commenced a class action lawsuit, Heyer v. City of New York Housing Authority, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plainti…

This Clearinghouse record combines two cases, Heyer v. City of New York (S.D.N.Y., filed 1980), and Bennett v. New York City Housing Authority (originally E.D.N.Y., filed 2002; transferred to S.D.N.Y. in 2005 and consolidated with Heyer).

On February 20, 1980, individuals with mobility impairments who were eligible for the Section 8 program commenced a class action lawsuit, Heyer v. City of New York Housing Authority, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs sued the New York City Housing Authority under the United States Housing Act of 1937, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act alleging that the New York City Housing Authority failed to provide individuals with mobility impairments, who have been, are, or will be qualified for the Section 8 program, with effective assistance in finding accessible housing.

The District Court certified a class, and in 1982 ordered a settlement agreement that required the defendant to take certain remedial steps under the supervision of the District Court. However, the settlement had no termination provision, and at some point the settlement fell into disuse.

Then on June 17, 2002, a class of individuals with mobility impairment who were eligible for the Section 8 program filed Bennett v. New York City Housing Authority in the Eastern District of New York challenging similar violations by the Housing Authority. In Bennett, the plaintiffs sued under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Fair Housing Act, alleging that the New York City Housing Authority failed or refused to assist them in finding housing so that they can make use of their housing vouchers. More specifically, they claimed that the defendants failed or refused to assist them in finding housing with accommodations for individuals with mobility impairments. Represented by the New York Legal Assistance Group, the Bennett plaintiffs asked the Court for injunctive and declaratory relief.

Unaware of the Heyer case and settlement agreement, the parties fully litigated a motion to dismiss, which was granted in a December 16, 2002 Memorandum and Order by U.S. District Judge Charles P. Sifton. The Judge agreed with the defendant that there was no subject matter jurisdiction, and denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint as futile. 248 F.Supp.2d 166. Shortly thereafter, the parties began negotiating a settlement and on May 4, 2005, the parties signed a Stipulation and Order of Settlement in which the defendants agreed to: make accommodations for disabled individuals in the application process for public housing, regularly update its lists of available apartments, work with approved real estate brokers to locate apartments that may be suitable for individuals with mobility impairments, and recommend that landlords modify apartments to suit individuals with mobility impairments. The issue of attorneys' fees was handled privately by the parties.

It was not until 2005, three years after Bennett was filed, that the parties became aware of the earlier Heyer case. The Bennett case was then transferred from the Eastern District of New York to the Southern District of New York so that the new (Bennett) litigation could be consolidated with the old (Heyer) litigation.

The two consolidated cases were settled in 2006, which dissolved the 1982 Heyer stipulation and substituted a new stipulation imposing certain obligations, including a reporting requirement, on the Housing Authority for a three year period to begin on April 27, 2006. However, after the Housing Authority failed to fulfill its obligations during that three year period, the Court extended its jurisdiction over the consolidated cases from 2009 to 2011.

On January 30, 2012, after the plaintiffs complained about the Housing Authority's continued failure to meet the monitoring requirements, the parties negotiated the terms of yet another revised stipulation, which imposed additional obligations on the Housing Authority, including monitoring by the attorneys for the plaintiffs for three months after signing the Stipulation. This stipulation was set to run until April 30, 2014 unless extended by consent of the parties or order of the Court. There has been no further movement on the case; presumably the case is now closed.

Summary Authors

Saeeda Joseph-Charles (9/22/2016)

People


Judge(s)

Sifton, Charles Proctor (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Kirklin, John E. (New York)

Lane, Howard (New York)

Mitchell, Catherine (New York)

Rosenbloom, Nancy (New York)

Russell, Julia Grossman (New York)

Schulman, Yisroel (New York)

Stevens, Jane Greengold (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Kaloyanides, Sonya M (New York)

Kleinberg, Charles (New York)

Judge(s)

Sifton, Charles Proctor (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Kirklin, John E. (New York)

Lane, Howard (New York)

Mitchell, Catherine (New York)

Rosenbloom, Nancy (New York)

Russell, Julia Grossman (New York)

Schulman, Yisroel (New York)

Stevens, Jane Greengold (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Kaloyanides, Sonya M (New York)

Kleinberg, Charles (New York)

Morales, Ricardo Elias (New York)

Scgatz, Donald (New York)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:02-cv-03499

Docket [PACER]

Bennett v. New York City Housing Authority

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York

June 2, 2005

June 2, 2005

Docket
1

1:80-cv-01196

Docket [1]

Heyer v. New York City Housing Authority

April 28, 2006

April 28, 2006

Docket

1:80-cv-01196

Docket [2]

Heyer v. New York City Housing Authority

Feb. 1, 2012

Feb. 1, 2012

Docket

1:05-cv-05286

Docket [PACER]

Bennett v. New York City Housing Authority

March 30, 2012

March 30, 2012

Docket
1

1:02-cv-03499

Complaint

Bennett v. New York City Housing Authority

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York

June 17, 2002

June 17, 2002

Complaint
22

1:02-cv-03499

Memorandum and Order

Bennett v. New York City Housing Authority

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York

Dec. 18, 2002

Dec. 18, 2002

Order/Opinion
41

1:02-cv-03499

Stipulation and Order of Settlement

Bennett v. New York City Housing Authority

May 4, 2005

May 4, 2005

Settlement Agreement
10

1:05-cv-05286

Stipulation and Order of Settlement 2

Bennett v. City of New York Housing Authority

Jan. 30, 2012

Jan. 30, 2012

Settlement Agreement

Docket

Last updated Nov. 22, 2022, 3:01 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link

CASE TRANSFERRED IN from the United States District Court − Eastern District of New York; Case Number: 02 − cv − 3499 (CPS). Original file with documents numbered 1 − 43, certified copy of transfer order and docket entries received.Document filed by Karen Bennett, Susana Lopez Lira, Deborah Paulin(individually), Deborah Paulin(on behalf of all others similarly situated).(laq, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/6/2005 (laq, ). (Entered: 06/06/2005)

June 3, 2005

June 3, 2005

CASE REFERRED TO Judge Robert W. Sweet as possibly related to 1:80 − cv − 1196. (laq, ) (Entered: 06/06/2005)

June 3, 2005

June 3, 2005

1

NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT to Judge Robert W. Sweet. Judge Unassigned no longer assigned to the case. (laq, ) (Entered: 06/17/2005)

June 13, 2005

June 13, 2005

Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman is so designated. (laq, ) (Entered: 06/17/2005)

June 13, 2005

June 13, 2005

CASE ACCEPTED AS RELATED to 1:80 − cv − 1196. Notice of Assignment to follow. (laq, ) (Entered: 06/17/2005)

June 13, 2005

June 13, 2005

Mailed notice to the attorney(s) of record. (laq, ) (Entered: 06/17/2005)

June 17, 2005

June 17, 2005

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Sweet from Jane Greengold Stevens dated 10/6/05 re: Requesting the Court's approval of a Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement. Notice is approved. It is suggested that the objections be filed on December 2 and the hearing scheduled for January 18.(Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 10/11/05) ORIGINAL DOCUMENT ENTERED IN CASE #80cv1196(RWS), DOC. #51. (tp, ) (Entered: 10/18/2005)

Oct. 17, 2005

Oct. 17, 2005

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to The Honorable Robert W. Sweet from Steven J. Rappaport dated 11/10/05 re: that the court is granting the Mr. Rappaport's request for adjournment, to 2/23/06 or later, the hearing on the fairness of the proposed settlement in the entitled cases [80cv1196, 02cv3499, 05cv5286] and reset, to 1/23/06, the date by which commennts of class members must be postmarked. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT ENTERED IN CASE #80cv1196(RWS), DOC. #52. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 11/15/05)(tp, ) (Entered: 12/14/2005)

Nov. 18, 2005

Nov. 18, 2005

OPINION AND ORDER #93055; It appears to the Court, based on the Court's reading of the Settlement and hearing from members of the class, that pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(e), the Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the class. The Stipulation and Order of Settlement between the parties, attached hereto, and made a part hereof, is therefore approved. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT ENTERED IN CASE #80cv1196, DOC. #53. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/27/06) (tp,) (Entered: 05/05/2006)

April 28, 2006

April 28, 2006

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT ENTERED IN CASE #80cv1196, DOC. #54. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/27/06)(tp, ) (Entered: 05/05/2006)

April 28, 2006

April 28, 2006

2

STIPULATION EXTENDING STIPULATION OF 2006: The Stipulation Period established in the 2006 Stipulation is hereby extended from April 27, 2009 to November 30, 2010, with all rights and obligations set forth in the 2006 Stipulation continuing in full throughout the period. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/16/2009) (tve) (Entered: 04/20/2009)

April 20, 2009

April 20, 2009

3

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Jane Greengold Stevens on behalf of Karen Bennett, Susana Lopez Lira, Deborah Paulin(individually), Deborah Paulin(on behalf of all others similarly situated) (Stevens, Jane) (Entered: 10/08/2010)

Oct. 8, 2010

Oct. 8, 2010

4

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Julia Grossman Russell on behalf of Karen Bennett, Susana Lopez Lira, Deborah Paulin(individually), Deborah Paulin(on behalf of all others similarly situated) (Russell, Julia) (Entered: 10/08/2010)

Oct. 8, 2010

Oct. 8, 2010

5

STIPULATION TO EXTEND STIPULATIONS OF 2006 &2009. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the plaintiffs in the Heyer action and in the Bennett action and the Housing Authority, that: The Stipulation Period established in the 2009 Stipulation is hereby extended from November 30, 2010 to March 31, 2011, with all rights and obligations set forth in the 2006 Stipulation, as extended by the 2009 Stipulation, continuing in full throughout the period. Electronic or faxed signatures on this Stipulation shall have the same force and effect as original signatures. Relates to 05 − 5286, 80 − 1196. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 10/11/10) (rjm) (Entered: 10/12/2010)

Oct. 12, 2010

Oct. 12, 2010

7

STIPULATION TO EXTEND STIPULATIONS OF 2006 &2009, that the Stipulation Period established in the 2009 Stipulation is hereby extended from March 31, 2011 until June 30, 2011, with all rights and obligations set forth in the 2006 Stipulation, as extended by the 2009 Stipulation. continuing in full throughout the period. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/29/11) (pl) (Entered: 05/02/2011)

May 2, 2011

May 2, 2011

8

STIPULATION TO EXTEND STIPULATIONS OF 2006 &2009: The Stipulation Period established in the 2009 Stipulation is hereby extended from June 30,2011 to December 30,2011, with all rights and obligations set forth in the 2006 Stipulation, as extended by the 2009 Stipulation, continuing in full throughout the period. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 6/21/2011) (jar) (Entered: 06/24/2011)

June 24, 2011

June 24, 2011

9

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND STIPULATIONS OF 2006 &2009: The Stipulation Period established in the 2009 Stipulation is hereby extended from 12/30/2011 until 1/31/2012, with all rights and obligations set forth in the 2006 Stipulation, as extended by the 2009 Stipulation, continuing in full throughout the period. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 12/21/2011) (tro) (Entered: 12/28/2011)

Dec. 28, 2011

Dec. 28, 2011

10

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT: The 2006 Stipulation and the 2009 Stipulation are hereby dissolved and extinguished; all rights, duties, and obligations of the parties created thereunder shall cease to exist; and this Stipulation and Order of Settlement (the "Stipulation") is substituted therefor. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 1/31/2012) (ft) (Entered: 02/01/2012)

Feb. 1, 2012

Feb. 1, 2012

11

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W Sweet from Julia Russell dated 3/29/2012 re: The parties have agreed to extend the time to negotiate fees until 5/18/2012. ENDORSEMENT: So Ordered. (unable to docket in 80 cv 1198) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/30/2012) (cd) (Entered: 03/30/2012)

March 30, 2012

March 30, 2012

Case Details

State / Territory: New York

Case Type(s):

Public Housing

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Feb. 29, 1980

Closing Date: 2014

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

A group of disabled individuals who receive Section 8 housing vouchers.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

New York Housing Authority (New York, New York), City

Defendant Type(s):

Housing Authority

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.

Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1982 - 2014

Content of Injunction:

Comply with advertising/recruiting requirements

Monitoring

Issues

General:

Buildings

Disparate Treatment

Housing

Housing assistance

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

Discrimination-area:

Housing Sales/Rental

Discrimination-basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Disability:

Mobility impairment

Type of Facility:

Government-run