Birch Family Servs., Inc. v. Wlody

BIRCH FAMILY SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff, v. JACK WLODY and CORINNE WLODY, Defendants.

19-cv-03301 (DLI)(PK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

June 7, 2021

OPINION & ORDER

DORA L. IRIZARRY, United States District Judge:

On June 4, 2019, Birch Family Services, Inc. ("Plaintiff") commenced this action against Jack Wlody ("Jack") and Corinne Wlody ("Corinne") (collectively, "Defendants"), alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"), 42 U.S.C. § 3617, and the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(19). See generally, Complaint ("Compl."), Dkt. Entry No. 1. Defendants moved for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. See, Defs.' Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. ("Mot."), Dkt. Entry No. 22. Plaintiff opposed the motion. See, Plf.'s Mem. of Law in Opp'n to Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. ("Opp'n"), Dkt. Entry No. 24-31. Defendants replied. See, Defs.' Rep. Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. ("Rep."), Dkt. Entry No. 25-3. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is granted and this action is dismissed in its entirety.

BACKGROUND

The facts recounted below are taken from Defendants' Rule 56.1 Statement ("Defs.' 56.1," Dkt. Entry No. 23), Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Rule 56.1 Statement ("Plf.'s Resp. to Defs.' 56.1," Dkt. Entry No. 24-29, at 8-14), Plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement ("Plf.'s 56.1," Dkt. Entry No. 24-30), and Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement ("Defs.' Resp. to Plf.'s 56.1, Dkt. Entry No. 25-2). The facts are undisputed unless otherwise stated.

The Court has viewed the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving Plaintiff, considered only facts recited by the parties in their respective Rule 56.1 statements and responses that are established by admissible evidence, and disregarded conclusory allegations and legal arguments contained therein. See, Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., 258 F.3d 62, 73 (2d Cir. 2001) ("[W]here there are no citations or where the cited materials do not support the factual assertions in the [s]tatements, the Court is free to disregard the assertion.") (citations omitted).

I. The Parties and the Birch Home Development

Plaintiff is an organization that provides homes and assisted living services in Brooklyn, Queens and Manhattan for individuals with autism and developmental disabilities. Plf.'s 56.1 ¶ 3. State and city oversight programs regulate Plaintiff's homes, while regulators, residents' families and Plaintiff's quality assurance team review the quality of care provided to the residents. Id. ¶ 4.

Defendants are a married couple that have lived together in a residential property located at 137-35 80th Street, Howard Beach, New York 11414 (the "Wlody Home") since 2002. Plf.'s Resp. to Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 1-2. The Wlody Home is one half of a two-family house owned by Jack's mother, Trudy Wlody. Id. ¶ 3; Plf.'s 56.1 ¶ 11. In 2013, Plaintiff purchased the other half of the house located at 137-31 80th Street, Howard Beach, New York, 11414 (the "Birch Home") and converted the Birch Home to a community residence for six individuals with developmental disabilities. Plf.'s 56.1 ¶ 6; Plf.'s Resp. to Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 4. Plaintiff has operated the Birch Home since 2014 and its staff provides 24/7 support to the residents in carrying out their daily activities. Plf.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 7, 10. The staff is predominately African-American. Id. ¶ 10.

II. Disputes Regarding Plaintiff's Use of the Birch Home

Defendants initially did not object to the conversion of the Birch Home to a residential facility for adults with developmental disabilities. Plf.'s Resp. to Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 5. However, therelationship between the parties deteriorated quickly and Defendants want the facility closed. Plf.'s 56.1 ¶ 44. Two of the residents suffer from behavioral problems and Plaintiff's staff is not trained to work with them. Plf.'s Resp. to Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 6. The women are violent and disruptive. Id. ¶ 7. One of the women spit at and punched a police officer, threw bleach in a staff member's face, pulled the fire alarm and assaulted the other Birch Home residents and staff. Id. On September 26, 2014, Defendants informed Plaintiff that one of the women threatened to kill Corinne. Id. ¶ 8. Plaintiff responded that it could do nothing about her threat. Id.

Defendants also experienced problems with Plaintiff's staff. Plaintiff's staff would block Defendants' driveway when they parked their cars, hold parties and play loud music at all hours of the night and leave garbage on the Defendants' lawn. See, Affidavit of Corinne Wlody ("Corinne Aff."), Dkt. Entry No. 21-2, at ¶ 7. Defendants heard Plaintiff's staff screaming and berating the residents. Id. Moreover, the staff did not supervise the residents properly allowing them to wander throughout the neighborhood or sit unattended in running cars. Id. ¶ 8. Defendants reported these ongoing problems to Plaintiff, but there was no improvement. Plf.'s Resp. to Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 9-10. In September 2014, Defendants began to videotape and photograph Plaintiff's staff and residents to document these issues. Id. ¶ 10. Defendants took the videos and photographs from their balcony, driveway and backyard and captured conduct that was visible from the Wlody Home or the street. See, Affidavit of Jack Wlody ("Jack Aff."), Dkt. Entry No. 21-3, at ¶ 7; Affidavit of Cheryl Martin-Walker, ("Cheryl Aff."), Dkt. Entry No. 24-5, at ¶ 9.

Defendants have been videotaping the Birch Home almost daily since September 18, 2014 and have taken thousands of videotapes and photographs of Plaintiff's staff and residents. Plf.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 34-36. Defendants kept a written log of the videos documenting the date, time and issues they observed at the Birch Home. See, Ex. G to Affidavit of Robert Schonfeld ("Schonfeld Aff."),Dkt. Entry No. 24-15. Defendants recorded in the log, among other issues, noise complaints, littering, alarms, idle running vehicles, double-parked cars, and cars blocking Defendants' driveway. Id. Defendants provided the videotapes to Plaintiff as evidence of their complaints. Plf.'s Resp. to Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 12.

In 2018 and 2019, Defendants contacted municipal authorities, including the New York City Police Department and the New York City Sanitation Department, to report Plaintiff's littering, noise, idle running vehicles and cars blocking Defendants' driveway. Plf.'s 56.1 ¶ 42-43; Ex. R to Schonfeld Aff., Dkt. Entry No. 24-26; Cheryl Aff. ¶¶ 16-21. In October 2018, Defendants also emailed their state senator, the borough president, and the state attorney general to report that Plaintiff's staff was abusing and neglecting the Birch Home residents and requested their help to get the Birch Home "shut down[.]" Plf.'s 56.1 ¶ 44; Ex. S to Schonfeld Aff., Dkt. Entry No. 24-27, at 2-4. Defendants provided their videotapes to the New York Justice Center, which investigates allegations of abuse against disabled individuals. Plf.'s Resp. to Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 12.

III. Defendants' Comments Regarding Plaintiff's Staff and Residents

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants harbor discriminatory animus against Plaintiff's African-American staff and disabled residents. Plaintiff relies on a number of comments made by Defendants over roughly a three-and-a-half-year period from September 2014 through February 2018. In September 2014, Corinne sent text messages to Plaintiff stating that "your staff are not civilized[,]" "you are ruining our neighborhood[,]" and "it is as though we have been moved into a psych ward of a hospital." Plf.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 22-23. In November 2014, Corinne texted Plaintiff that "[w]e feel like we live next to an asylum[,]" "[f]rom our perspective[] you have NOT BLENDED into the neighborhood . . . you are trying to take over[,]" "our neighborhood is not going to acceptyour way of blending[,]" and "[y]ou are destroying [our] neighborhood[.]" Id. ¶¶ 24-26.

Corinne also expressed her frustration with the Birch Home in emails to Plaintiff. In May 2015, Corinne stated that "this is a residential neighborhood[] and you are a business." Id. ¶ 27. In October 2015, Corinne added, "we shouldn't have to hear loud institutional sounds in our residential neighborhood." Id. ¶ 29. In February 2016, Corinne requested that Plaintiff change its staff because "they have attitudes[.]" Id. ¶ 30. In February 2017, Corinne complained that she felt unsafe because "people act thuggy[.]" Id. ¶ 31. Defendants also referred to unnamed staff members in 2018 entries from their video log as "hyena[,]" "thug" and "hejab [sic]." Id. ¶ 32.

The parties dispute whether Jack made discriminatory comments about Plaintiff's African-American staff. In November 2014, staff member Laury King heard Jack call staff member Wyking Kennard a "fucking nigger[.]" Id. ¶ 14; Deposition of Laury King, Ex. B to Schonfeld Aff., Dkt. Entry No. 24-10, at 24-25, 35. In November 2015, Jack sprayed staff member Stephen Agiamoh with a hose. Plf.'s 56.1 ¶ 16. In February 2018, Jack shouted at staff member Amanda Findlay, "[w]hose fucking car is this? You niggers don't learn." Affidavit of Amanda Findlay, Dkt. Entry No. 24-2 at ¶ 6. Jack denies these incidents. Defs.' Resp. to Plf.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 14, 16, 18.¹

IV. The Instant Action

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of its African-American staff and the disabled residents in the Birch Home, alleging that Defendants' videotaping and photographing are motivated by their animus towards these groups. Compl. ¶¶ 66, 74. Plaintiff claims that Defendants have violated its rights under Section 3617 of the FHA and Section 8-107(19) of NYCHRL to be free from threats, intimidation and interference in its use of the Birch Home. Id.¶¶ 7, 70, 75. Specifically, Plaintiff's staff and residents have a right to work and live in the Birch Home free from discrimination. Id.

As a threshold matter, Defendants claim Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action on behalf of its staff and residents and that at least two...