Click for FDALE Classifieds
To have your banner listed here -- Need a website? Check our fees!

Magistrate Ruling (1)


Re : Response 2 - h gold
Posted by Cristina ® , Jul 21,2008,12:29 Post Reply Forum
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------X
ISIDORO RIVERA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-against
CV 06-2613 (DRH)(ARL)
THE INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF
FARMINGDALE, et al.,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------X
- REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
LINDSAY, Magistrate Judge:
Before the undersigned, on referral from District Judge Hurley, is the Incorporated
Village of Farmingdale’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The defendant contends that (1) the plaintiffs do not have standing and (2) the amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that the motion to dismiss be denied.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The plaintiffs, Isidoro Rivera, Lorena Umana, Jose Alvarado, Juan Bustillo, Noberto
Alvarez, Elsa Mejia Villalobo, Brian Fredericks, Oscar Ramirez and Eli Chavez, commenced this action against the defendants, the Incorporated Village of Farmingdale (the “Village”), Secatogue Realty, LLC (“Secatogue”), and Fairfield Farmingdale, LLC (“Fairfield”), alleging that the defendants had engaged in discriminatory housing practices in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a)1 Complaint at 1. The plaintiffs, who are all low-income Latinos, are the former residents of 150 Secatogue Avenue, a 54-unit apartment building that was owned by the defendant Secatogue
until December 2006. Amended Complaint at 7. The apartment building is currently owned by Fairfield. Id. at 33. The plaintiffs claim that the Village’s adoption of a plan to redevelop the area encompassing 150 Secatogue Avenue was aimed at displacing Latinos from the Village by creating housing that was not affordable to them. Id. at 1.
According to the plaintiffs, since 1999, the Village has become increasingly hostile
toward Latinos due to the activities of day laborers within the Village. Id. at 21, 22, 26, 27. The plaintiffs claim that the Village has repeatedly tried to curb the activities of day laborers by, among other things, fencing in day laborer hiring sites and enacting traffic ordinances aimed at preventing contractors from picking up day laborers. Id. at 27-29. The plaintiffs further claim that when the traffic ordinances and the closing of hiring sites failed to abate day laborer activities, the Village adopted a plan intended to make housing unavailable to Latino day laborers in the Village. Id. at 30.
Specifically, in 2002, the Village began to investigate the possibility of redeveloping the
6.69 acre area in the Village that surrounds the plaintiffs’ former residence. Id. at 31. Although only 12.6% of the population of the Village is Latino, the proposed redevelopment area has a Latino population of 56.2%; a population that requires low-cost housing.2 Id. at 14, 18. As such, the redevelopment plan is expected to displace 21% of the Village’s Latino’s while only displacing 1.2% of the Village’s White residents. Id. at 36. In furtherance of this plan, the Village authorized the preparation of feasibility studies and environmental impact statements. Id. at 31. According to the amended complaint, while the environmental impact statements were being completed, the Village also created a committee to solicit a private developer to “effectuate” the redevelopment plan. Id. at 32. Sometime in July 2005, the committee recruited Fairfield to purchase and renovate 150 Secatogue Avenue. Id. at 33. One year later, Fairfield closed on the purchase and, that day, received a building permit from the Village for the renovations. Id.
The building permit issued by the Village covered renovation for the interior, the facade,
the landscaping and the parking lots surrounding the apartment building. Id. The plaintiffs contend that the Village failed to follow its own Code when it issued the permit. Id. at 40- 63. Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that the permit was issued in violation of the provisions that limit the amount of structural alterations that can be made to a nonconforming building. Id. at 41- 46. The plaintiffs also contend that Village ignored certain procedural rules concerning
amended applications for building permits and failed to thoroughly prosecute summons issued tothe defendant Secatogue for housing standards violations. Id. at 47-51; 58-63. Finally, the plaintiffs contend that the Village violated a local law barring the creation of additional housing units. Id. at 52-57. However, this local law appears to have been enacted after the building permit was issued.
In December 2006, Fairfield terminated the leases of all of its tenants and the plaintiffs
were forced to move into new housing in the Village with higher rental rates and less space. Id. at 7, 33. Renovations are currently being undertaken by Fairfield and it is believed that Fairfield will be seeking an additional $500 in rent. Id. at 38.


Registered Users who believe this post is NOT appropriate for this Forum may cast their vote to have it removed by simply clicking the Rate it! button (below). Users may rate each post only once. Rating results are not immediate, and are based on the total number of votes received from other Registered Users.
Edit Post Reply Where am I?
ForumAuthor email

Replies to this message