Response 1

Case 2:06-cv-02613-DRH-ARL Document 82 Filed 07/08/2008 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
ISIDORO RIVERA, et al.,
- against Plaintiffs,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
06-CV-2613 (DRH) (ARL)
THE INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF
FARMINGDALE, et al.,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
A P P E A R A N C E S :
For the Plaintiffs:
Community Legal Assistance Corporation
108 Hofstra University
Hempstead, New York 11549
By: Stefan Hillel Krieger

For the Defendant the Incorporated Village of Farmingdale:
Walsh Marjus McDougal & DeBellis, LLP

229 Seventh Street
Garden City, New York 11530
By: Stephen Paul Markus, Esq.

Claudio DeBellis, Esq.

HURLEY, Senior District Judge:

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs bring this action alleging that defendants engaged in discriminatory
housing practices in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq. (the “FHA”).
Defendant the Incorporated Village of Farmingdale (the “Village”) moves to dismiss the
Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6). On
December 7, 2007, the Court referred the Village’s motion to Magistrate Judge Arlene R.
Lindsay for a Report and Recommendation. On June 16, 2008, Judge Lindsay issued a Report
and Recommendation (the “Report”) that the Village’s motion be denied. The Village has filed

Case 2:06-cv-02613-DRH-ARL Document 82 Filed 07/08/2008 Page 2 of 3

timely objections. For the reasons stated below, the Court adopts the Report in its entirety.
Accordingly, the Village’s motion is denied.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review
FRCP 72(b) provides that when a magistrate judge issues a report and
recommendation on a matter “dispositive of a claim or defense of a party,” the district court
judge shall make a de novo determination of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to
which specific written objection has been made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Accordingly, the Court
applies de novo review to the Village’s objections. See id.

II. The Report is Adopted
In the Report, Judge Lindsay found that plaintiffs adequately pled that they had
suffered a distinct injury (the lack of affordable housing) as a result of the Village’s actions and,
therefore, had standing to bring suit. She further found that plaintiffs had stated a valid cause of
action under the FHA under both a disparate treatment theory as well as a disparate impact
theory.

The Village objects to the Report, essentially raising the same arguments it made
in its motion papers. Upon a de novo review of the record, the Court adopts the Report in its
entirety, for substantially the reasons stated in Judge Lindsay’s thorough Report. In doing so,
the Court finds that: (1) plaintiffs have standing as they have alleged that the Village, with
discriminatory animus, initiated and assisted with the Secatogue Avenue Redevelopment Plan
which resulted in, inter alia, the termination of plaintiffs’ leases; (2) plaintiffs have stated a
plausible claim under the FHA for disparate treatment as the allegations are sufficient to give the