2018 06:45 PM - Law.comNYCHA’s purported actions in the past, between 2012 and 2016, alleging NYCHA improperly suspended lead inspections, incorrectly certified to the United States

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: IAS PART 35 -----------------------------------------------------------------------x In the Matter of the Application of THE CITY-WIDE COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS and AT-RISK COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC., Petitioners, For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules,

-against- THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY and SHOLA OLATOYE, as Chair of the New York City Housing Authority, Respondents. -----------------------------------------------------------------------x

Index No. 100283/18 (Edmead, J.)

RESPONDENTS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

KELLY D. MACNEAL First Deputy General Counsel New York City Housing Authority Attorney for Respondents 250 Broadway, 9th Floor New York, New York 10007 (212) 776-5154

Nancy M. Harnett Seth E. Kramer Andrew M. Lupin Melissa R. Renwick, Of Counsel

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2018 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 100283/2018NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2018

1 of 29

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ...............................................................................................1

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................4

ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................................5

THE COURT SHOULD DENY PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ..................................................................5

A. Petitioners Cannot Demonstrate a Likelihood of Success on the Merits Because They Have No Private Right of Action to Enforce the Laws They Invoke ..........................................................6 1. Local Law 1 ...........................................................................................9

2. Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act .......................................10

3. Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act .........................11

4. United States Housing Act ...................................................................12

5. Federal Regulations .............................................................................13

B. Petitioners Cannot Show Irreparable Injury ....................................................14

1. NYCHA Has Already Taken the Necessary Steps to Comply with the Law .............................................................14

2. The New Issues Raised in Petitioners’ Motion Do Not Show Irreparable Injury .............................................17

a. Petitioners’ Claim That NYCHA Did Not Inspect Two Exempted Apartments Does Not Warrant the

Immediate Relief They Seek ..........................................................17

b. Petitioners’ Claims Concerning Work Orders Does Not Warrant the Immediate Relief Petitioners Seek .............19

3. Article 78 Proceedings Are Expedited Summary Proceedings............19

C. The Balance of the Equities Does Not Favor Petitioners ................................20


2 of 29

D. Petitioners Impermissibly Seek Ultimate Relief Under the Guise of a Preliminary Injunction ...................................................21

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................22

ii


3 of 29

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Federal Cases

Abrahams v. MTA Long Island Bus, 644 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2011) .........................................14 Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) ..........................................................................13 Concerned Tenants Assn. of Father Panik Vil. v. Pierce, 685 F. Supp. 316 (D. Conn. 1988) ...........................................................................................12 Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 137 S.Ct. 743 (2017) ...................................................................7 Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) .........................................................7, 10, 11

Gross v. Max, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110547 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2012) ...............................12 Harris v. United States Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9776 (S.D.N.Y. Jul 16, 1993) ............................................................13 Jefferson v. Soe, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104389 (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 6, 2017) (JS) (AYS) ............6 Johnson v. City of Detroit, 446 F.3d 614 (6th Cir. 2006) ..................................................10, 13 LaPierre v. LaValley, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112004 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2016) (MAD) (DJS) ...............................6 Lindsay by Stevens v. New York City Hous. Auth., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1893 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 1999) ..........................................................11 Mair v. City of Albany, 303 F. Supp. 2d 237 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) ..............................................12 McField v. Phila. Hous. Auth., 992 F. Supp. 2d 481 (E.D. Pa 2014) ......................................11 Perry v. Housing Authority of Charleston, 664 F.2d 1210 (4th Cir. 1981) .............................12 Santiago by Muniz v. Hernandez, 53 F. Supp. 2d 264 (E.D.N.Y. 1999).................................12 S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Clorox Co., 241 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 2001) .....................................6

iii


4 of 29

Page(s)

State Cases

Berenger v. 261 W. LLC, 93 A.D.3d 175 (1st Dep’t 2012) ......................................................7 Credit Agricole Indosuez v. Rossiyskiy Kredit Bank, 94 N.Y.2d 541 (2000) ..........................6 Doe v. Axelrod, 73 N.Y.2d 748 (1988) .....................................................................................5 Delgado v. New York City Hous. Auth., 66 A.D.3d 607 (1st Dep’t 2009) .................7, 8, 9, 12 Doe v. Dinkins, 192 A.D.2d 270 (1st Dep’t 1993) ..................................................................10 East Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist. v. King, 130 A.D.3d 19 (3d Dep’t 2015) ...................................8 George v. Bloomberg, 2 A.D.3d 294 (1st Dep’t 2003) ..............................................................8 Gibbs v. Paine, 276 A.D.2d 743 (2d Dep’t 2000)....................................................................11 Grant Co. v. Srogi, 52 N.Y.2d 496 (1981) .................................................................................5 Hedgepeth v. Wing, 29 A.D.3d 632 (2d Dep’t 2006) ................................................................5 Hill v. Guiliani, 272 A.D.2d 157 (1st Dep’t 2000) ....................................................................8 Home Care Ass’n v. Bane, 218 A.D.2d 106 (3d Dep’t 1995) ...................................................8 Housing Works, Inc. v. City of New York, 225 A.D.2d 209 (1st Dep’t 1998) ........................5 Juarez by Juarez v. Wavecrest Mgmt. Team, 88 N.Y.2d 628 (1996) ........................................9 Kerusa Co. LLC v. W10Z/515 Real Estate Ltd. Partnership, 12 N.Y.3d 236 (2009) ...............7 La Barbera v. Town of Woodstock, 29 A.D.3d 1054 (3d Dep’t 2006) .....................................5 Lee v. New York City Dep’t of Hous. Pres. & Dev., 162 Misc. 2d 901 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 1994) ............................................................................16 Lee v. New York City Dep’t of Hous. Pres. & Dev., 212 A.D.2d 453 (1st Dep’t 1995) ............................................................................................16 McCain v. Koch, 70 N.Y.2d 109 (1987)..................................................................................10 Peckman v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 125 A.D.2d 244 (1st Dep’t 1986) ......................................16

iv


5 of 29

Page(s)

State Cases (continued)

Rosa Hair Stylists v Jaber Food Corp., 218 A.D.2d 793 (2d Dep’t 1995) ................................5 St. Margaret’s Ctr. v. Novello, 23 A.D.3d 817 (3d Dep’t 2005) ...............................................8

St. Paul’s Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. York Claims Serv., Inc., 308 A.D.2d 347 (1st Dep’t 2003) ........................................................................................5, 21 Stray from the Heart, Inc. v. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene of the City of New York, 83 A.D.3d 521 (1st Dep’t 2011), aff’d, 20 N.Y.3d 946 (2012) .................................................5 Subway Surface Supervisors Assn. v. New York City Tr. Auth., 22 N.Y.3d 1182 (2014) ..............................................................................................................8 TOA Constr. Co., Inc. v. Tsitsires, 54 A.D.3d 109 (1st Dep’t 2008) ......................................16 Westside Ventura, LLC v. New York City Dep’t of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., Index No. 114471/10, 2011 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2671 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. Jun. 1, 2011) ...........9 Women’s Voices for the Earth, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 29 Misc. 3d 358 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2010) ................................................................................7

Federal Statutes and Regulations

24 C.F.R. § 35.115(a)(4) ..........................................................................................................17

24 C.F.R. § 35.125 ...................................................................................................................16

24 C.F.R. § 35.170(a)...............................................................................................................14

42 USC § 1396a(a)(30)(A) ........................................................................................................8

42 U.S.C. § 1437d ................................................................................................................6, 12

42 U.S.C. § 4822 (LPPPA) ............................................................................................6, 10, 11

42 U.S.C. § 4851 (RLBPHRA) ......................................................................................6, 11, 12

42 U.S.C. § 4852d ....................................................................................................................12

v


6 of 29

Page(s)

Other Authorities

N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 27-2056 (Local Law 1) .............................................................. passim

N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 27-2056.4 .............................................................................................6

N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 27-2056.4(a) .......................................................................................14

N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 27-2056-5(b) ......................................................................................17

N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 27-2056.9 .......................................................................................9, 14

N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 27-2056.10 .....................................................................................9, 14

N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 27-2056.18 .........................................................................................14

N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 27-2120 ..........................................................................................9, 14

N.Y.C. Charter § 1802 ...............................................................................................................9

28 RCNY 11-08 .......................................................................................................................17

28 RCNY 173.14 .....................................................................................................................21

vi


7 of 29

Respondents New York City Housing Authority (“NYCHA”) and Shola Olatoye, as

Chair of NYCHA, respectfully submit this memorandum of law in opposition to the motion of

Petitioners City-wide Council of Presidents (“CCOP”) and At-Risk Community Services Inc.

(“At Risk”) (together, “Petitioners”) for a preliminary injunction directing NYCHA to conduct

lead-based paint inspections within 90 days in certain apartments.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Although they now seek the extraordinary expedited relief of a preliminary injunction,

Petitioners brought this summary proceeding, not by order to show cause, but by notice of

petition initially returnable two months later. In their petition, Petitioners primarily focused on

NYCHA’s purported actions in the past, between 2012 and 2016, alleging NYCHA improperly

suspended lead inspections, incorrectly certified to the United States Department of Housing and

Urban Development (“HUD”) that it was complying with federal lead laws, and did not use

workers with the proper certifications to conduct visual assessments for presumed lead-based

paint hazards and remediate as required. Petitioners’ allegations echoed those already being

addressed by the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”), HUD, the New York City

Department of Investigation (“DOI”), and the New York City Council (“City Council”).

Notwithstanding Petitioners’ reliance on selective excerpts of NYCHA Chair Shola

Olatoye’s December 2017 testimony before the City Council and newspaper articles, NYCHA

already had taken corrective action long before Petitioners commenced this proceeding, as

acknowledged by a DOI report and attested to by Chair Olatoye before the City Council.

NYCHA corrected its HUD certification in July 2017 to comport with its earlier oral

representations to HUD officials about the status of NYCHA’s compliance with law; contracted

with a certified third-party vendor in July 2017 to perform the requisite visual assessments under

1


8 of 29

federal and local law; performed Local Law 1 annual visual assessments in approximately 99.9

percent of the 8,920 covered apartments since October 2017; and remediated presumed lead

paint hazards in approximately 87 percent of the apartments in which presumed lead paint

hazards were observed. NYCHA is evaluating the process used for its Local Law 1 inspections

for best practices and resources necessary to conduct the larger-scale HUD inspections in 2018.

With good reason, Petitioners therefore do not claim the historical allegations in their

petition justify a preliminary injunction. Instead, Petitioners “believe that events which occurred

subsequent to the filing of the Petition warrant holding an expedited hearing” on the issue of lead

inspections. Affirmation of Jim Walden in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, dated

March 26, 2018 (“Walden Aff.”) ¶ 2. Petitioners’ argument lacks merit and their motion should

be denied.

First, Petitioners allege NYCHA refused to inspect and remediate lead-based paint

hazards in two units at Ingersoll Houses and Melrose Houses. But federal and local laws do not

require NYCHA to conduct annual visual assessments of units at these developments. The New

York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (“HPD”) exempted buildings

at these developments from annual visual assessments required by Local Law 1 after NYCHA

tested a sampling of units in accordance with HUD guidance to rule out the presence of lead-

based paint above threshold levels. NYCHA is also exempt from the visual assessment

requirement under HUD’s regulations based on the same sampling.

Nevertheless, NYCHA did visually assess and test these units. Testing of paint chips

from the Ingersoll unit came back negative for a lead hazard. Testing of paint chips from the

Melrose unit showed lead was present on two metal window casings (painted colors not used by

NYCHA as standard paint) and NYCHA abated the lead. Out of an abundance of caution,

2


9 of 29

NYCHA will conduct lead-based paint testing in all units at Ingersoll and Melrose Houses where

a child under the age of 6 resides and where the unit was not individually tested as part of the

sampling or for other reasons. NYCHA will evaluate the results of testing at these two

developments to determine the best course of action at other exempt developments.

Second, Petitioners seek injunctive relief because an anonymous NYCHA employee

reportedly told CBS2 that NYCHA supervisors pressure employees to close out work tickets

before work is actually done. But in that same report, NYCHA’s Executive Vice President for

Operations Cathy Pennington denied this is NYCHA’s practice. In any event, NYCHA’s

processing of work order tickets is unrelated to its handling of the annual inspections that are the

subject of this proceeding.

Petitioners have not proved they are entitled to a preliminary injunction. Petitioners have

no likelihood of success on the merits because there is no private right of action under any of the

laws or regulations they seek to enforce. Instead, those laws set up regulatory schemes providing

for enforcement by HPD and HUD. Simply invoking CPLR Article 78 does not give rise to a

private right of action where none otherwise exists.

Petitioners cannot show irreparable injury because NYCHA has conducted the nearly

9,000 unit visual assessments required by Local Law 1 and the necessary remediation with

certified personnel. NYCHA also notifies residents of the results of the visual assessments

through a form generated from the inspectors’ handheld devices, and is addressing the issues

Petitioners raise concerning the apartments exempted from the visual assessment requirements in

Ingersoll and Melrose Houses. In addition, because this is an expedited summary proceeding,

this Court will be reviewing and determining the underlying Article 78 proceeding within

months, as opposed to the years plenary actions often last.

3


10 of 29

The balance of the equities does not favor granting Petitioners preliminary injunctive

relief. The injunction Petitioners seek would require NYCHA to re-inspect apartments that were

just inspected and remediated in the past months, a misallocation of scarce resources. Court

intervention is not necessary because, in addition to HPD and HUD which enforce lead paint

laws, local authorities monitor NYCHA’s progress, and the DOJ is conducting an investigation.

Even without a preliminary injunction, CCOP has an advisory role under federal regulations and

a say in selecting the state monitor under Governor Cuomo’s recent Executive Order. Adding

another level of directives with a preliminary injunction is unnecessary and will undoubtedly

result in conflicts.

Finally, Petitioners may not obtain ultimate relief by preliminary injunction. Here

Petitioners impermissibly seek even greater relief than the law could ultimately provide.

Petitioners would have this Court: impose a 90-day deadline where none exists under the law;

require multiple inspections of the same unit in a single year; and expand the scope of

inspections to apartments where children under 8 years old reside when Local law 1 applies to

units where children under the age of 6 reside.

For each of these reasons as discussed more fully below, this Court should deny

Petitioners’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

NYCHA respectfully refers this Court to the affidavit of Shireen Riazi Kermani, dated

April 12, 2018 (“Kermani Aff.”), the affirmation of Nancy M. Harnett, dated April 12, 2018

(“Harnett Aff.”), and the exhibits attached thereto for a full recitation of the facts.

4


11 of 29

ARGUMENT

THE COURT SHOULD DENY PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION1

“A mandatory injunction should not be granted, absent extraordinary circumstances,

where the status quo would be disturbed and the plaintiff would receive the ultimate relief

sought, pendente lite.” St. Paul’s Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. York Claims Serv., Inc., 308 A.D.2d

347, 349 (1st Dep’t 2003) (citing Rosa Hair Stylists v Jaber Food Corp., 218 A.D.2d 793, 794

(2d Dep’t 1995)).2 To justify early judicial intervention, a “party seeking a preliminary

injunction must clearly demonstrate (1) the likelihood of ultimate success on the merits; (2) the

prospect of irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued; and (3) a balance of equities in the

movant’s favor.” Housing Works, Inc. v. City of New York, 225 A.D.2d 209, 213 (1st Dep’t

1998) (citing Doe v. Axelrod, 73 N.Y.2d 748, 750 (1988)); see also Grant Co. v. Srogi, 52

N.Y.2d 496, 517 (1981). Petitioners fail to satisfy their burden.

1 At-Risk, described in the Petition as “a non-profit corporation dedicated to serving the needs of New York City’s low-income housing tenants” (Pet. ¶ 15), has not met its burden to prove it has standing to litigate the claims asserted in this proceeding. See La Barbera v. Town of Woodstock, 29 A.D.3d 1054, 1055 (3d Dep’t 2006); Hedgepeth v. Wing, 29 A.D.3d 632, 635 (2d Dep’t 2006). At Risk has not shown what injury it has suffered or that claims like those asserted here would not be litigated absent its participation. See Stray from the Heart, Inc. v. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene of the City of New York, 83 A.D.3d 521, 522 (1st Dep’t 2011), aff’d, 20 N.Y.3d 946 (2012). 2 Petitioners cite several cases for the proposition courts may issue preliminary injunctions that compel action rather than maintain the status quo, but none of those cases is an Article 78 proceeding where, as here, the merits of the claims would be determined in an expedited manner. See Pet. Mem. at 14-15.

5


12 of 29

https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=813a4b64-393b-445b-a158-3237c141aef3&pdsearchterms=308+A.D.2d+347&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=4trc9kk&earg=pdpsf&prid=648c2889-d027-46a7-a059-d305b15cf4d1https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=813a4b64-393b-445b-a158-3237c141aef3&pdsearchterms=308+A.D.2d+347&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=4trc9kk&earg=pdpsf&prid=648c2889-d027-46a7-a059-d305b15cf4d1https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=3f193db1-9747-4c93-a463-83035a8d1976&pdsearchterms=218+A.D.2d+793&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=813a4b64-393b-445b-a158-3237c141aef3https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=3f193db1-9747-4c93-a463-83035a8d1976&pdsearchterms=218+A.D.2d+793&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=813a4b64-393b-445b-a158-3237c141aef3https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=6f176ae4-9043-4e42-bad9-49cfca99fa48&pdsearchterms=225+A.D.2d+209&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=3f193db1-9747-4c93-a463-83035a8d1976https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=6f176ae4-9043-4e42-bad9-49cfca99fa48&pdsearchterms=225+A.D.2d+209&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=3f193db1-9747-4c93-a463-83035a8d1976https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=61aa459c-9514-4298-9e68-0371bd2d51f1&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A3S3J-XHX0-003D-G07B-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A3S3J-XHX0-003D-G07B-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=9096&pdshepid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A7XWN-JHJ1-2NSD-N404-00000-00&pdteaserkey=sr0&pditab=allpods&ecomp=Ly_fk&earg=sr0&prid=f431fbc0-4686-46c7-ac68-a2e3daf4b50chttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=105a47e4-d7ee-45fb-8570-8cd782894641&pdsearchterms=52+N.Y.2d+496&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=61aa459c-9514-4298-9e68-0371bd2d51f1https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=105a47e4-d7ee-45fb-8570-8cd782894641&pdsearchterms=52+N.Y.2d+496&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=61aa459c-9514-4298-9e68-0371bd2d51f1https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=5a4d61ea-f042-4ffb-88c6-ffe235c12277&pdsearchterms=29+A.D.3d+1054&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=105a47e4-d7ee-45fb-8570-8cd782894641https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=5a4d61ea-f042-4ffb-88c6-ffe235c12277&pdsearchterms=29+A.D.3d+1054&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=105a47e4-d7ee-45fb-8570-8cd782894641https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=46aa167d-f556-4c7a-a48e-f62b050feaad&pdsearchterms=29+A.D.3d+632&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=5a4d61ea-f042-4ffb-88c6-ffe235c12277https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=a6276164-eeee-488e-a45b-72939a714df2&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A52ND-DK41-F04J-71KP-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A52ND-DK41-F04J-71KP-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=9092&pdshepid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A52S9-D5M1-DXC7-F150-00000-00&pdteaserkey=sr0&pditab=allpods&ecomp=Ly_fk&earg=sr0&prid=961683fd-3295-4a4d-ba49-22c472589eb4https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=a6276164-eeee-488e-a45b-72939a714df2&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A52ND-DK41-F04J-71KP-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A52ND-DK41-F04J-71KP-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=9092&pdshepid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A52S9-D5M1-DXC7-F150-00000-00&pdteaserkey=sr0&pditab=allpods&ecomp=Ly_fk&earg=sr0&prid=961683fd-3295-4a4d-ba49-22c472589eb4https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=6acff44b-5f0d-4bd8-bf20-05062f872ab3&pdsearchterms=20+N.Y.3d+946&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=a6276164-eeee-488e-a45b-72939a714df2

A. Petitioners Cannot Demonstrate a Likelihood of Success on the Merits Because They Have No Private Right of Action to Enforce the Laws They Invoke

Petitioners seek an order requiring NYCHA to comply with Local Law 1 (N.Y.C. Admin.

Code § 27-2056.4) (see Petition (“Pet.”)3 ¶¶ 43-46), the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention

Act (“LPPPA”) (42 U.S.C. § 4822) (see Pet. ¶¶ 30-34), the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard

Reduction Act (“RLBPHRA”) (42 U.S.C. § 4851) (see Pet. ¶ 31), the United States Housing Act

(42 U.S.C. § 1437d) (see Pet. ¶¶ 26-29), and corresponding federal regulations (see Pet. ¶¶ 32-

37). See also Pet. ¶¶ 197-206.

Courts repeatedly have held that “‘[o]bey the law’ injunctions” – the type of injunction

Petitioners seek in this case – “are vague, do not require the defendants to do anything more than

that already imposed by law, subject the defendants to contempt rather than statutorily prescribed

sanctions, and are not readily capable of enforcement. As such, these injunctions are not

favored.” Jefferson v. Soe, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104389, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 6, 2017) (JS)

(AYS); see S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Clorox Co., 241 F.3d 232, 240 (2d Cir. 2001)

(explaining “under Rule 65(d), an injunction must be more specific than a simple command that

the defendant obey the law”); LaPierre v. LaValley, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112004, at *8

(N.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2016) (MAD) (DJS) (denying plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive

relief and noting “obey the law” injunctions are not favored); see also Credit Agricole Indosuez

v. Rossiyskiy Kredit Bank, 94 N.Y.2d 541 (2000) (explaining CPLR 6301 governing preliminary

injunctions is substantially similar to rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).

But more fundamentally, because there is no private right of action under the provisions

Petitioners invoke, Petitioners fail to state a cause of action and accordingly have no likelihood

3 The Petition is annexed to the Walden Affirmation as Exhibit A.

6


13 of 29

https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=c7541438-b71b-4e78-b1ee-fdd96baf2119&pdsearchterms=N.Y.C.+Admin.+Code+%C2%A7+27-2056.4&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=6acff44b-5f0d-4bd8-bf20-05062f872ab3https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=c7541438-b71b-4e78-b1ee-fdd96baf2119&pdsearchterms=N.Y.C.+Admin.+Code+%C2%A7+27-2056.4&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=6acff44b-5f0d-4bd8-bf20-05062f872ab3https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=8230385a-20eb-4af8-b683-7363925d42eb&pdsearchterms=42+U.S.C.+%C2%A7+4822&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=c7541438-b71b-4e78-b1ee-fdd96baf2119https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=21aa2cc9-531f-4696-be23-c000393c498b&pdsearchterms=42+U.S.C.+%C2%A7+4851&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=8230385a-20eb-4af8-b683-7363925d42ebhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=414f58e4-360f-4265-a51a-36c4175592dd&pdsearchterms=42+U.S.C.+%C2%A7+1437d&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=21aa2cc9-531f-4696-be23-c000393c498bhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=5c6ce4c0-5865-410b-bba3-90ca4ace568e&pdsearchterms=2017+U.S.+Dist.+LEXIS+104389&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=414f58e4-360f-4265-a51a-36c4175592ddhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=5c6ce4c0-5865-410b-bba3-90ca4ace568e&pdsearchterms=2017+U.S.+Dist.+LEXIS+104389&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=414f58e4-360f-4265-a51a-36c4175592ddhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=7e7e433b-5631-4d5b-936d-149fbae365c1&pdsearchterms=241+F.3d+232&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=5c6ce4c0-5865-410b-bba3-90ca4ace568ehttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=8465828f-0b5f-48eb-8e89-0af16702e23c&pdsearchterms=2016+U.S.+Dist.+LEXIS+112004&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=7e7e433b-5631-4d5b-936d-149fbae365c1https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=8465828f-0b5f-48eb-8e89-0af16702e23c&pdsearchterms=2016+U.S.+Dist.+LEXIS+112004&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=7e7e433b-5631-4d5b-936d-149fbae365c1https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=b514f29a-cf0f-40f9-9f60-4f5c55f878c6&pdsearchterms=94+N.Y.2d+541&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=8465828f-0b5f-48eb-8e89-0af16702e23chttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=b514f29a-cf0f-40f9-9f60-4f5c55f878c6&pdsearchterms=94+N.Y.2d+541&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=8465828f-0b5f-48eb-8e89-0af16702e23c

of success on the merits. In Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002), the United States

Supreme Court held that an individual could not bring an action to enforce a provision of the

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 because the statute created no personally

enforceable rights. See Gonzaga, 536 U.S. at 276. The Court found if a statute does not

explicitly provide for a private right of action, it must clearly and unambiguously evince

Congressional intent to create new individual rights. Id. at 285-86, 290. Merely being within the

“general zone of interest that the statute is intended to protect” is insufficient to create a private

right of action. Id. at 283. “[I]t is rights, not the broader or vaguer ‘benefits’ or ‘interests,’ that

may be enforced under [section 1983].” Id. at 283 (emphasis in original). No private right of

action exists where a statute “by its terms grants no private rights to any identifiable class.” Id.

at 284 (citation omitted). If a statute focuses on a regulated person (or entity) rather than on

individuals protected, it creates “no implication of an intent to confer rights on a particular class

of persons.” Id. at 287.

Where there is no private right of action under a statute, the fact “[t]hat relief is sought in

an article 78 proceeding seeking mandamus relief does not lead to a different result.” Women’s

Voices for the Earth, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 29 Misc. 3d 358, 360 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co.

2010) (Braun, J.).4 Thus, the Appellate Division, First Department and other appellate courts

routinely have dismissed Article 78 proceedings seeking mandamus relief where there is no

private cause of action based on the underlying statutes. See Delgado v. New York City Hous.

4 This decision is consistent with the well settled law parties may not denominate their claims to evade dismissal based on the lack of a private right of action. See Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 137 S.Ct. 743, 752 (2017) (holding courts should look to the substance or “gravamen” of the claim to determine whether relief is limited by the federal IDEA statute); Kerusa Co. LLC v. W10Z/515 Real Estate Ltd. Partnership, 12 N.Y.3d 236, 245 (2009) (holding acceptance of pleading of common-law fraud claim as valid would “invite a backdoor private cause of action to enforce the Martin Act,” for which there is no private right to enforce); Berenger v. 261 W. LLC, 93 A.D.3d 175, 184 (1st Dep’t 2012) (same as Kerusa).

7


14 of 29

https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=97aee8a0-0aa1-4376-b5c1-93a086be78ab&pdsearchterms=536+U.S.+273&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=b514f29a-cf0f-40f9-9f60-4f5c55f878c6https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=97aee8a0-0aa1-4376-b5c1-93a086be78ab&pdsearchterms=536+U.S.+273&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=b514f29a-cf0f-40f9-9f60-4f5c55f878c6https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=97aee8a0-0aa1-4376-b5c1-93a086be78ab&pdsearchterms=536+U.S.+273&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=b514f29a-cf0f-40f9-9f60-4f5c55f878c6https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=97aee8a0-0aa1-4376-b5c1-93a086be78ab&pdsearchterms=536+U.S.+273&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=b514f29a-cf0f-40f9-9f60-4f5c55f878c6https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=97aee8a0-0aa1-4376-b5c1-93a086be78ab&pdsearchterms=536+U.S.+273&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=b514f29a-cf0f-40f9-9f60-4f5c55f878c6https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=97aee8a0-0aa1-4376-b5c1-93a086be78ab&pdsearchterms=536+U.S.+273&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=b514f29a-cf0f-40f9-9f60-4f5c55f878c6https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=97aee8a0-0aa1-4376-b5c1-93a086be78ab&pdsearchterms=536+U.S.+273&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=b514f29a-cf0f-40f9-9f60-4f5c55f878c6https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=e5cbe6d3-5c39-4423-9d82-1ee38c9306c2&pdsearchterms=536+U.S.+273&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=or&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=4ba009ee-1915-4e43-bdc1-3ac4f2d56664https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=e974475d-b438-4011-bad0-ce6b1f596069&pdsearchterms=29+Misc.+3d+358&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=e7c573b3-f923-4ecc-9b15-443c6f7b3582https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=e974475d-b438-4011-bad0-ce6b1f596069&pdsearchterms=29+Misc.+3d+358&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=e7c573b3-f923-4ecc-9b15-443c6f7b3582https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=e974475d-b438-4011-bad0-ce6b1f596069&pdsearchterms=29+Misc.+3d+358&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=e7c573b3-f923-4ecc-9b15-443c6f7b3582https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=4ba009ee-1915-4e43-bdc1-3ac4f2d56664&pdsearchterms=66+A.D.3d+607&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=e974475d-b438-4011-bad0-ce6b1f596069https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=54e4ffe8-5402-46c8-8184-3ba84c47ef29&pdsearchterms=137+S.Ct.+743&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=89c869e4-1f84-483c-b702-531ddae8d727https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=54e4ffe8-5402-46c8-8184-3ba84c47ef29&pdsearchterms=137+S.Ct.+743&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=89c869e4-1f84-483c-b702-531ddae8d727https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=e7c573b3-f923-4ecc-9b15-443c6f7b3582&pdsearchterms=12+N.Y.3d+236&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=54e4ffe8-5402-46c8-8184-3ba84c47ef29https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=e7c573b3-f923-4ecc-9b15-443c6f7b3582&pdsearchterms=12+N.Y.3d+236&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=54e4ffe8-5402-46c8-8184-3ba84c47ef29https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=6c586f01-8f79-4560-9bed-b9a303e61b11&pdsearchterms=93+A.D.3d+175&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=e7c573b3-f923-4ecc-9b15-443c6f7b3582

Auth., 66 A.D.3d 607, 608 (1st Dep’t 2009) (upholding dismissal of Article 78 petition seeking

injunctive relief because “petitioners do not have a private right of action” inasmuch as “[o]nly

the Commissioner of [HPD] is authorized to seek such relief or other sanctions and remedies for

violations of the Housing Maintenance Code”); George v. Bloomberg, 2 A.D.3d 294, 294-95 (1st

Dep’t 2003) (upholding dismissal of Article 78 proceeding seeking mandamus relief because

there is no private right of action under the federal and state laws relied on by petitioner labor

unions); Hill v. Guiliani, 272 A.D.2d 157, 157 (1st Dep’t 2000) (holding case is essentially an

Article 78 proceeding in nature of mandamus to compel, and affirming dismissal because there is

no private right of action under laws relating to health facilities’ budget); see also Subway

Surface Supervisors Assn. v. New York City Tr. Auth., 22 N.Y.3d 1182, 1184-85 (2014)

(finding court should have dismissed Article 78 proceeding alleging the Transit Authority

violated a provision of the Civil Service Law because that provision “merely enunciate[ed] a

policy” and “no private right of action flows from it”); East Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist. v. King,

130 A.D.3d 19, 21, 23 (3d Dep’t 2015) (affirming dismissal of article 78 proceeding alleging

determination was based on an erroneous construction of federal IDEA law because there was no

private right of action to challenge respondent’s enforcement of laws under IDEA); St.

Margaret’s Ctr. v. Novello, 23 A.D.3d 817, 820 (3d Dep’t 2005) (holding federal statute

concerning reimbursement for adult day care services “creates no private right of action

enforceable in the context of a CPLR article 78 proceeding for health care providers such as

petitioners”); Home Care Ass’n v. Bane, 218 A.D.2d 106, 110-11 (3d Dep’t 1995) (rejecting

claim in Article 78 proceeding that calculation of reimbursement rate assigned to home health

care programs violated federal law because “no private right of action was created under 42 USC

§ 1396a(a)(30)(A)”).

8


15 of 29

https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=4ba009ee-1915-4e43-bdc1-3ac4f2d56664&pdsearchterms=66+A.D.3d+607&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=e974475d-b438-4011-bad0-ce6b1f596069https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=849b28f8-a6ef-4eed-b62a-028cef4d85dd&pdsearchterms=2+A.D.3d+294&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=or&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=4ba009ee-1915-4e43-bdc1-3ac4f2d56664https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=849b28f8-a6ef-4eed-b62a-028cef4d85dd&pdsearchterms=2+A.D.3d+294&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=or&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=4ba009ee-1915-4e43-bdc1-3ac4f2d56664https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=dd6d3a2b-0ae1-49bb-8851-c234fe24b4e2&pdsearchterms=272+A.D.2d+157&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=or&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=849b28f8-a6ef-4eed-b62a-028cef4d85ddhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=9b429d4a-2476-4462-9574-7dfd5dad728b&pdsearchterms=22+N.Y.3d+1182&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=dd6d3a2b-0ae1-49bb-8851-c234fe24b4e2https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=9b429d4a-2476-4462-9574-7dfd5dad728b&pdsearchterms=22+N.Y.3d+1182&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=dd6d3a2b-0ae1-49bb-8851-c234fe24b4e2https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=4bf8db15-396d-42d5-a0f5-9b4a3ec4632f&pdsearchterms=130+A.D.3d+19&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=9b429d4a-2476-4462-9574-7dfd5dad728bhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=4bf8db15-396d-42d5-a0f5-9b4a3ec4632f&pdsearchterms=130+A.D.3d+19&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=9b429d4a-2476-4462-9574-7dfd5dad728bhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=b57ba567-741b-4634-969e-51096f22852b&pdsearchterms=23+A.D.3d+817&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=4bf8db15-396d-42d5-a0f5-9b4a3ec4632fhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=b57ba567-741b-4634-969e-51096f22852b&pdsearchterms=23+A.D.3d+817&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=4bf8db15-396d-42d5-a0f5-9b4a3ec4632fhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=92f20b09-b2e7-4b60-9c16-3b79d589f51b&pdsearchterms=218+A.D.2d+106&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=b57ba567-741b-4634-969e-51096f22852b

1. Local Law 1

The New York City legislature enacted Local Law 1 as part of the New York City

Housing Maintenance Code. See Juarez by Juarez v. Wavecrest Mgmt. Team, 88 N.Y.2d 628,

641 (1996) (discussing Local Law 1 in context of claim for damages where child was allegedly

injured after landlord did not comply with Local Law 1, and finding “[a]t issue here is the lead

abatement legislation adopted by the New York City Council in 1982 and contained in the

Housing Maintenance Code”); Westside Ventura, LLC v. New York City Dep’t of Hous.

Preserv. & Dev., 2011 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2671, at *1-2 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. Jun. 1, 2011) (Jaffe,

J.) (noting Local Law 1 is part of Housing Maintenance Code).

The New York City Charter and the Housing Maintenance Code vest HPD with the

power to enforce the Code provisions on “the maintenance, use, occupancy, safety or sanitary

condition of any [residential] building” generally and on lead-based paint specifically by, among

other things, inspecting, issuing violations, and instituting actions seeking injunctive relief to

compel landlords to correct or abate Code violations. See N.Y.C. Charter § 1802; N.Y.C.

Admin. Code §§ 27-2056.9, 2056.10, & 27-2120. Because HPD is responsible for enforcement

of the Housing Maintenance Code, the Appellate Division, First Department has confirmed there

is no private enforcement action. In Delgado, 66 A.D.3d 607, the First Department denied

residents’ Article 78 petition to compel compliance with the Housing Maintenance Code because

“[o]nly the Commissioner of [HPD] is authorized to seek such relief or other sanctions and

remedies for violations.” Id. at 608; cf. Westside Ventura, LLC, 2011 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2671

(denying Article 78 petition brought by landlord challenging HPD’s imposition of emergency

repair charges pursuant to Local Law 1 violations).

9


16 of 29

https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=7d109ba7-8d25-41ab-8863-1170006cfe2b&pdsearchterms=88+N.Y.2d+628&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=4trc9kk&earg=pdpsf&prid=c0b77779-3a17-4194-9edd-2b1653a296a2https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=7d109ba7-8d25-41ab-8863-1170006cfe2b&pdsearchterms=88+N.Y.2d+628&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=4trc9kk&earg=pdpsf&prid=c0b77779-3a17-4194-9edd-2b1653a296a2https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=cbe7feaf-aaaa-43d4-a781-b04aeaff7b6c&pdsearchterms=2011+N.Y.+Misc.+LEXIS+2671&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=7d109ba7-8d25-41ab-8863-1170006cfe2bhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=cbe7feaf-aaaa-43d4-a781-b04aeaff7b6c&pdsearchterms=2011+N.Y.+Misc.+LEXIS+2671&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=7d109ba7-8d25-41ab-8863-1170006cfe2bhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=cbe7feaf-aaaa-43d4-a781-b04aeaff7b6c&pdsearchterms=2011+N.Y.+Misc.+LEXIS+2671&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=7d109ba7-8d25-41ab-8863-1170006cfe2bhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=0fb6561d-4d3d-423c-aa1f-aa5cce141faa&pdsearchterms=N.Y.C.+Charter+%C2%A7+1802&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=cbe7feaf-aaaa-43d4-a781-b04aeaff7b6chttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=748a9eab-1fb2-4dcf-84b5-e32d71543b8f&pdsearchterms=N.Y.C.+Admin.+Code+%C2%A7%C2%A7+27-2056.9&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=0fb6561d-4d3d-423c-aa1f-aa5cce141faahttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=748a9eab-1fb2-4dcf-84b5-e32d71543b8f&pdsearchterms=N.Y.C.+Admin.+Code+%C2%A7%C2%A7+27-2056.9&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=0fb6561d-4d3d-423c-aa1f-aa5cce141faahttps://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=71b6a3aa-67a3-4bdb-860b-59a62b5661ef&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fstatutes-legislation%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A5S2J-XKS1-JDSD-R1BG-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A5S2J-XKS1-JDSD-R1BG-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=160540&pdteaserkey=sr1&pditab=allpods&ecomp=Ly_fk&earg=sr1&prid=c5ba762c-a685-4546-b564-df0ec4b55327https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=e5e13c61-a3a9-4679-b174-0482e7629d0a&pdsearchterms=N.Y.C.+Admin.+Code+%C2%A7%C2%A7+27-2120&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=71b6a3aa-67a3-4bdb-860b-59a62b5661efhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=5397be90-61ea-4a25-8af9-10d5f00a100e&pdsearchterms=66+A.D.3d+607&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=e5e13c61-a3a9-4679-b174-0482e7629d0ahttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=5397be90-61ea-4a25-8af9-10d5f00a100e&pdsearchterms=66+A.D.3d+607&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=e5e13c61-a3a9-4679-b174-0482e7629d0ahttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=0b368f8b-3cb7-4990-91a0-4f25245b8b95&pdsearchterms=2011+N.Y.+Misc.+LEXIS+2671&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=5397be90-61ea-4a25-8af9-10d5f00a100e

Petitioners cite Doe v. Dinkins, 192 A.D.2d 270 (1st Dep’t 1993), and McCain v. Koch,

70 N.Y.2d 109 (1987), for the proposition courts may issue preliminary injunctive relief

compelling compliance with minimal standards of sanitation, safety, and decency. See

Petitioners’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (“Pet.

Mem.”) at 21. These decisions are inapposite, however, because they deal with claims the City

failed to comply with its obligations under the State Constitution to care for the needy based on

the poor conditions of its shelters and emergency hotels and motels, not a landlord’s obligations

under the Housing Maintenance Code. Moreover, in McCain, the Court of Appeals found the

lower court had discretion to impose minimum standards because there were no standards in

place at the time of the order (see McCain, 70 N.Y.2d at 119), whereas here, the City Council

has provided detailed requirements under the Housing Maintenance Code with regard to lead-

based paint hazards.

2. Lead Based Paint Poisoning Protection Act

In Johnson v. City of Detroit, 446 F.3d 614 (6th Cir. 2006), the Sixth Circuit Court of

Appeals applied Gonzaga to the LPPPA and found there was no private right of action for a

tenant alleging the City of Detroit Housing Commission, which owned and operated the

subsidized apartment in which she and her minor child resided, had violated her rights. See id. at

616-17. The court held that “statutory language that merely ‘benefits’ putative plaintiffs without

specific rights-creating language is insufficient to confer a personal federal right enforceable

under § 1983.” Id. at 621. The court acknowledged that prior to Gonzaga, a few courts had

found a private right of action exists under the LPPPA, but held those cases were premised on a

mere “benefits” analysis and needed to be reexamined in light of Gonzaga. See id. at 624. The

court held the LPPPA, like the statute in Gonzaga, “has an aggregate focus, it speaks in terms of

10


17 of 29

https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=97e66294-baca-4543-b57b-b9537081f6f6&pdsearchterms=192+A.D.2d+270&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=0b368f8b-3cb7-4990-91a0-4f25245b8b95https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=35a4c74c-d54d-4cc0-8b89-f086606ecd8d&pdsearchterms=70+N.Y.2d+109&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=97e66294-baca-4543-b57b-b9537081f6f6https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=35a4c74c-d54d-4cc0-8b89-f086606ecd8d&pdsearchterms=70+N.Y.2d+109&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=97e66294-baca-4543-b57b-b9537081f6f6https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=35a4c74c-d54d-4cc0-8b89-f086606ecd8d&pdsearchterms=70+N.Y.2d+109&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=97e66294-baca-4543-b57b-b9537081f6f6https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=cda7e7d6-be76-4abd-9127-3a848bc2eaaf&pdsearchterms=446+F.3d+614&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=35a4c74c-d54d-4cc0-8b89-f086606ecd8dhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=cda7e7d6-be76-4abd-9127-3a848bc2eaaf&pdsearchterms=446+F.3d+614&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=35a4c74c-d54d-4cc0-8b89-f086606ecd8dhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=cda7e7d6-be76-4abd-9127-3a848bc2eaaf&pdsearchterms=446+F.3d+614&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=35a4c74c-d54d-4cc0-8b89-f086606ecd8dhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=8bae3c52-ac33-4f87-8608-96b1d80cb00a&pdsearchterms=536+us+282&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=_g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=9a45ca5c-58ae-4256-8b80-6903ad7de52dhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=cda7e7d6-be76-4abd-9127-3a848bc2eaaf&pdsearchterms=446+F.3d+614&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=35a4c74c-d54d-4cc0-8b89-f086606ecd8dhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=cda7e7d6-be76-4abd-9127-3a848bc2eaaf&pdsearchterms=446+F.3d+614&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=35a4c74c-d54d-4cc0-8b89-f086606ecd8d

institutional policy and procedure, and fails to confer the sort of individual entitlement that is

enforceable under § 1983.” Id. at 624. The court stated the LPPPA “is, in essence a

congressional directive to the Secretary of HUD to establish and implement procedures

addressing such hazards,” and “the text and overall structure of the statute focuses on the

regulating entity’s duties, which is too far removed from the interests of individual tenants to

confer the kind of individual entitlement that is enforceable under § 1983 in accordance with

Gonzaga.” Id. at 624-25.

Other federal courts, as well as the Appellate Division, Second Department, similarly

have held there is no private right of action under the LPPPA. See Gibbs v. Paine, 276 A.D.2d

743, 744 (2d Dep’t 2000) (finding “[a] private remedy is inconsistent with the statute and its

regulatory provisions, which place primary responsibility on [HUD] to ensure that property

owners and public housing authorities comply with LPPPA”); McField v. Phila. Hous. Auth.,

992 F. Supp. 2d 481, 489 (E.D. Pa 2014) (dismissing claim under the LPPPA because “the

language of [the LPPPA] is not individual-focused”); Lindsay by Stevens v. New York City

Hous. Auth., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1893, at *13-14 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 1999) (JG) (finding no

private right of action under the LPPPA because “Congress provided an administrative scheme

to remedy violations of the LPPPA by vesting in HUD the responsibility of ensuring that owners

and PHAs comply with federal requirements”).

3. Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act

Under the RLBPHRA, the “Federal Government must take a leadership role in building

the infrastructure . . . necessary to ensure that the national goal of eliminating lead-based paint

hazards in housing can be achieved as expeditiously as possible.” 42 U.S.C. § 4851. Petitioners

do not allege NYCHA has violated any provision of the RLBPHRA. Nor can they successfully

11


18 of 29

https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=8bae3c52-ac33-4f87-8608-96b1d80cb00a&pdsearchterms=536+us+282&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=_g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=9a45ca5c-58ae-4256-8b80-6903ad7de52dhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=cda7e7d6-be76-4abd-9127-3a848bc2eaaf&pdsearchterms=446+F.3d+614&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=35a4c74c-d54d-4cc0-8b89-f086606ecd8dhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=8bae3c52-ac33-4f87-8608-96b1d80cb00a&pdsearchterms=536+us+282&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=_g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=9a45ca5c-58ae-4256-8b80-6903ad7de52dhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=cda7e7d6-be76-4abd-9127-3a848bc2eaaf&pdsearchterms=446+F.3d+614&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=35a4c74c-d54d-4cc0-8b89-f086606ecd8dhttps://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=2a236f81-0ee7-4022-a05a-1ebbab7ead55&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A41JD-YRJ0-0039-41NF-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A41JD-YRJ0-0039-41NF-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=9092&pdshepid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A7XWN-V5T1-2NSD-P34W-00000-00&pdteaserkey=sr0&pditab=allpods&ecomp=Ly_fk&earg=sr0&prid=74f3f3de-c567-4e6a-ad6c-a696f55c7c2chttps://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=2a236f81-0ee7-4022-a05a-1ebbab7ead55&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A41JD-YRJ0-0039-41NF-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A41JD-YRJ0-0039-41NF-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=9092&pdshepid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A7XWN-V5T1-2NSD-P34W-00000-00&pdteaserkey=sr0&pditab=allpods&ecomp=Ly_fk&earg=sr0&prid=74f3f3de-c567-4e6a-ad6c-a696f55c7c2chttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=7372e2b4-0737-4104-8e4e-4b8e60ed2b8b&pdsearchterms=992+F.+Supp.+2d+481&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=2a236f81-0ee7-4022-a05a-1ebbab7ead55https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=7372e2b4-0737-4104-8e4e-4b8e60ed2b8b&pdsearchterms=992+F.+Supp.+2d+481&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=2a236f81-0ee7-4022-a05a-1ebbab7ead55https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=88f35591-4286-49ee-ae84-ad3668aee261&pdsearchterms=1999+U.S.+Dist.+LEXIS+1893&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=7372e2b4-0737-4104-8e4e-4b8e60ed2b8bhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=88f35591-4286-49ee-ae84-ad3668aee261&pdsearchterms=1999+U.S.+Dist.+LEXIS+1893&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=7372e2b4-0737-4104-8e4e-4b8e60ed2b8bhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=37c7a52a-9a31-4643-b3d7-8489b960a892&pdsearchterms=42+U.S.C.+%C2%A7+4851&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=7372e2b4-0737-4104-8e4e-4b8e60ed2b8b

do so. Courts repeatedly have held there is no private right of action under section 4851 of the

RLBPHRA. See Santiago by Muniz v. Hernandez, 53 F. Supp. 2d 264, 272 (E.D.N.Y. 1999)

(FB) (holding provision was “intended to benefit the general public, rather than a special class of

persons,” and any right protected by the RLBPHRA is “vague and amorphous”); see also Mair v.

City of Albany, 303 F. Supp. 2d 237 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) (citing Santiago). Although another

provision of the RLBPHRA, 42 U.S.C. § 4852d, which relates to disclosure of lead upon the

transfer of property, explicitly provides for a private cause of action, Petitioners do not allege

NYCHA has violated that provision, and “[t]his is the only section of the Act that provides for

private civil liability.” Gross v. Max, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110547, at *9 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 2,

2012) (PPS).

4. United States Housing Act

The Appellate Division, First Department has held that section 1437d of the United States

Housing Act “which obligates public housing authorities to maintain projects ‘in a decent, safe,

and sanitary condition,’ ‘does not create a right enforceable under § 1983 to proper maintenance

of the housing project.’” Delgado, 66 A.D.3d at 608 (quoting Concerned Tenants Assn. of

Father Panik Vil. v. Pierce, 685 F. Supp. 316, 322 (D. Conn. 1988)). In Perry v. Housing

Authority of Charleston, 664 F.2d 1210 (4th Cir. 1981), in which plaintiff tenants alleged the

housing authority violated the provisions of the Housing Act because the conditions of their

apartments posed hazards to their health and safety, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found

although the plaintiffs benefit from the Housing Act, “[t]here is clearly no indication in the

legislation or in its history that Congress intended to create in public housing tenants a federal

right of action against their municipal landlords.” Id. at 1213. The Court described the statutes

as “simply precatory statements of Congress’ designs.” Id. at 1215. Similarly, in Johnson, the

12


19 of 29

https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=4ac16f1e-b5cd-4108-b822-c842d341c0e1&pdsearchterms=53+F.+Supp.+2d+264&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=37c7a52a-9a31-4643-b3d7-8489b960a892https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=4ac16f1e-b5cd-4108-b822-c842d341c0e1&pdsearchterms=53+F.+Supp.+2d+264&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=37c7a52a-9a31-4643-b3d7-8489b960a892https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=c9dfe400-2731-42f5-af97-a75d9345d76d&pdsearchterms=303+F.+Supp.+2d+237&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=88f35591-4286-49ee-ae84-ad3668aee261https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=c9dfe400-2731-42f5-af97-a75d9345d76d&pdsearchterms=303+F.+Supp.+2d+237&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=88f35591-4286-49ee-ae84-ad3668aee261https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=6002e08d-f66a-4107-b17a-b400480155f2&pdsearchterms=2012+U.S.+Dist.+LEXIS+110547&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=c9dfe400-2731-42f5-af97-a75d9345d76dhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=6002e08d-f66a-4107-b17a-b400480155f2&pdsearchterms=2012+U.S.+Dist.+LEXIS+110547&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=c9dfe400-2731-42f5-af97-a75d9345d76dhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=3da09014-80ff-4794-bf4e-80a7f39e2c8f&pdsearchterms=66+A.D.3d+at+608&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=6002e08d-f66a-4107-b17a-b400480155f2https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=d335672c-8d09-407f-8325-6b35e2f96e4a&pdsearchterms=685+F.+Supp.+316&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=3da09014-80ff-4794-bf4e-80a7f39e2c8fhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=d335672c-8d09-407f-8325-6b35e2f96e4a&pdsearchterms=685+F.+Supp.+316&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=3da09014-80ff-4794-bf4e-80a7f39e2c8fhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=8fcaec8a-1469-49cb-87b4-426fc8b91144&pdsearchterms=664+F.2d+1210&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=d335672c-8d09-407f-8325-6b35e2f96e4ahttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=8fcaec8a-1469-49cb-87b4-426fc8b91144&pdsearchterms=664+F.2d+1210&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=d335672c-8d09-407f-8325-6b35e2f96e4ahttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=8fcaec8a-1469-49cb-87b4-426fc8b91144&pdsearchterms=664+F.2d+1210&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=d335672c-8d09-407f-8325-6b35e2f96e4ahttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=8fcaec8a-1469-49cb-87b4-426fc8b91144&pdsearchterms=664+F.2d+1210&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=d335672c-8d09-407f-8325-6b35e2f96e4a&cbc=0

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found no private right of action under the Housing Act based on

its “broad policy statements regarding the federal government's goals in promoting ‘decent and

affordable housing for all citizens,’” and plaintiffs could not rely on the conditions for housing

set forth in the Annual Contributions Contract between public housing authorities and HUD to

assert a cause of action. Johnson, 446 F.3d at 626-27; see also Harris v. United States Dep’t of

Hous. & Urban Dev., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9776, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Jul 16, 1993) (PNL)

(holding plaintiff could not assert claim under Housing Act based on alleged failure to provide

“decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings” because “[t]his broad statement of policy does not create a

private right of action” and “the declaration of policy commits the United States to help the

States remedy the shortage of safe housing for low-income families, not to eliminate all danger

from such housing”).

5. Federal Regulations

Because there is no private cause of action under the federal statutes Petitioners cite,

there is no private right of action under the corresponding federal regulations. In Alexander v.

Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001), the United States Supreme Court made clear regulations cannot

“conjure up” a private right of action that Congress has not established by statute:

[W]hen a statute has provided a general authorization for private enforcement of regulations, it may perhaps be correct that the intent displayed in each regulation can determine whether or not it is privately enforceable. But it is most certainly incorrect to say that language in a regulation can conjure up a private cause of action that has not been authorized by Congress. Agencies may play the sorcerer’s apprentice but not the sorcerer himself.

Id. at 291; see Abrahams v. MTA Long Island Bus, 644 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2011).5

Accordingly, Petitioners cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.

5 The fact there is no private right of action under the lead paint laws Petitioners seek to enforce does not mean there are no consequences when landlords fail to comply. As Petitioners acknowledge, a tenant can sue his or her landlord for damages in a personal injury action. See Pet. ¶ 54. HUD or HPD

13


20 of 29

https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=5bab9a88-24a0-4a1b-9cc0-6ee0b894edb6&pdsearchterms=446+F.3d+at+626-27&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=8fcaec8a-1469-49cb-87b4-426fc8b91144https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=485a2eb7-dbb4-4f02-83e7-bf9d0a6aee3d&pdsearchterms=1993+U.S.+Dist.+LEXIS+9776&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=5bab9a88-24a0-4a1b-9cc0-6ee0b894edb6https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=485a2eb7-dbb4-4f02-83e7-bf9d0a6aee3d&pdsearchterms=1993+U.S.+Dist.+LEXIS+9776&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=5bab9a88-24a0-4a1b-9cc0-6ee0b894edb6https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=fc9cf317-7f0e-493f-b54e-881d7eecc265&pdsearchterms=532+U.S.+275&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=or&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=485a2eb7-dbb4-4f02-83e7-bf9d0a6aee3dhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=fc9cf317-7f0e-493f-b54e-881d7eecc265&pdsearchterms=532+U.S.+275&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=or&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=485a2eb7-dbb4-4f02-83e7-bf9d0a6aee3dhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=fc9cf317-7f0e-493f-b54e-881d7eecc265&pdsearchterms=532+U.S.+275&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=or&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=485a2eb7-dbb4-4f02-83e7-bf9d0a6aee3dhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=8829201e-ef36-414d-93bc-13c4da16570c&pdsearchterms=644+F.3d+110&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=fc9cf317-7f0e-493f-b54e-881d7eecc265

B. Petitioners Cannot Show Irreparable Injury

1. NYCHA Has Already Taken the Necessary Steps to Comply with the Law

Petitioners maintain they are entitled to the preliminary injunction because NYCHA has

failed to comply with the laws requiring it to conduct annual visual assessments for households

with young children and remediate using certified personnel, and NYCHA has failed to notify

residents of the results of the visual assessments. See Pet. Mem. at 8-10.6 Petitioners cannot

show irreparable injury because NYCHA had taken corrective action before Petitioners

commenced this proceeding. Indeed, in the November 2017 report of DOI, relied on by

Petitioners, DOI acknowledged NYCHA was working toward full compliance based on a phased

corrective action plan, which DOI would monitor. See Pet. Exh. 1 at 7.

New York City Local Law 1 requires, among other things, annual inspections for lead

paint hazards in apartments occupied by children under the age of 6 and where the dwelling was

built before 1960, or between 1960 and 1978 where “the owner has actual knowledge of the

presence of lead-based paint.” N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 2056.4(a) & 2056.18. In 2017, NYCHA

contracted with an outside vendor, ATC Group Services LLC (“ATC”), to conduct visual

assessments of units and common areas for presumed lead-based paint hazards. See Kermani

Aff. ¶ 6 & Exh. B. Since October 16, 2017, NYCHA has performed visual assessments in all but

also may take enforcement action against public housing authorities that have not complied with lead paint requirements. See 24 C.F.R. § 35.170(a); N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 27-2056.9, 2056.10, & 27-2120. 6 In their petition, Petitioners also seek an order enjoining NYCHA from falsely certifying compliance with lead-based paint laws. See Pet. at Wherefore clause ¶ a. Petitioners, however, acknowledge that in July 2017, NYCHA submitted a certification to HUD noting its gaps in compliance. See Pet. Mem. at 7.

14


21 of 29

https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=14bb5f90-4ba5-49de-966e-67f3eab1b2dd&pdsearchterms=NYC+Admin+Code+27-2056.4&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&ecomp=5g25k&prid=360602c6-0d35-4f63-85c2-390757020059https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=360602c6-0d35-4f63-85c2-390757020059&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fstatutes-legislation%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A5S2J-XKS1-JDSD-R1BS-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A5S2J-XKS1-JDSD-R1BS-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=160540&pdteaserkey=sr9&pditab=allpods&ecomp=Ly_fk&earg=sr9&prid=806b18b8-ad7d-4dbc-9bed-ac750dc8a28fhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=c9665cdb-0c67-4300-a8eb-faccdc8d1d51&pdsearchterms=24+C.F.R.+%C2%A7+35.170&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=14bb5f90-4ba5-49de-966e-67f3eab1b2ddhttps://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=7d96300f-9100-4c1b-a3e3-aefb4b1309a8&pdsearchterms=N.Y.C.+Admin.+Code+%C2%A7%C2%A7+27-2056.9&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=or&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=c9665cdb-0c67-4300-a8eb-faccdc8d1d51https://advance.lexis.com/document/documentslider/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=29520ba7-5c59-4e03-b02b-b20bc88f9586&config=&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fstatutes-legislation%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A5S2J-XKS1-JDSD-R1BG-00000-00&pdcomponentid=362652&pdtocnodeidentifier=AABAABABDAACAACAAPAAK&ecomp=5g85k&prid=7d96300f-9100-4c1b-a3e3-aefb4b1309a8https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=9c02461d-1b79-4a48-ae3f-0989ff8fd560&pdsearchterms=N.Y.C.+Admin.+Code+%C2%A7%C2%A7+27-2120&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdpsf=&ecomp=5g25k&earg=pdpsf&prid=09ebd878-173f-4ef0-ba27-e342468ed530

10, or approximately 99.9 percent, of the 8,9207 apartments covered under Local Law 1 and

remediated presumed lead paint hazards in approximately 87 percent of the apartments where

ATC found a presumed lead paint hazard. See Kermani Aff. ¶¶ 8, 10 & Exh. E. NYCHA also

contracted with ATC to conduct the visual assessments for the approximately 48,000 apartments

in 2018 to be inspected under federal law, which generally requires inspections of apartments

where lead-based paint has not been ruled out, irrespective of the age of occupants. See Kermani

Aff. ¶ 9 & Exh. B (contracting for inspection of apartments known or not known to contain lead).

NYCHA’s contract with ATC specifically requires ATC to use inspectors who have

completed the training required by HUD, and ATC provided NYCHA with copies of HUD

visual assessment certifications prior to beginning work. See Kermani Aff. ¶ 6 & Exh. B. In

addition, the painters used by NYCHA to remediate the presumed lead-based paint hazards are a

combination of the more than 400 NYCHA employees who have been certified by the United

States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), as well as 25-30 outside vendors who have

submitted their EPA certifications. See Kermani Aff. ¶ 10 & Exh. G. NYCHA also will provide

EPA-certified training to an additional 2,300 of its own staff members in 2018 so those

employees will be able to assist the vendors in remediating lead-based paint hazards. See

Kermani Aff. ¶ 10.

In addition, after completing a Local Law 1 inspection, ATC’s inspectors leave behind a

pre-printed form noting whether they found paint that needs correction or whether no further

action is necessary. See Kermani Aff. ¶ 8 & Exh. F. Under federal regulations, unlike Local

Law 1, “[a] visual assessment alone is not considered an evaluation” and “[i]f only a visual

7 Despite repeated attempts, NYCHA has still not been able to gain access to the remaining 10 apartments. See Kermani Aff. ¶ 8 & Exh. E.

15


22 of 29

assessment alone is required . . . and no evaluation is performed, a notice of evaluation or

presumption is not required.” 24 C.F.R. § 35.125.

Petitioners cannot refute NYCHA’s proof of its progress and meet their substantial

burden of proof for injunctive relief with hearsay statements in newspapers. See TOA Constr.

Co., Inc. v. Tsitsires, 54 A.D.3d 109, 115 (1st Dep’t 2008) (holding the “citation to recent

newspaper articles to support its assertion of facts . . . should not be countenanced,” and

“[j]udicial notice of a fact . . . may not properly be based upon a factual assertion simply

because the assertion is contained in a newspaper article”); Peckman v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 125

A.D.2d 244, 247 (1st Dep’t 1986) (“The news articles . . . are clearly hearsay in nature and . . .

insufficient to warrant summary judgment”).

Moreover, any past failure to comply with the law does not demonstrate future

noncompliance. Petitioners cite Lee v. New York City Dep’t of Hous. Pres. & Dev., 162 Misc.

2d 901 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 1994) (Arber, J.), for the proposition a failure to comply with the law

is sufficient to show a likelihood of success on the merits in an Article 78 proceeding to enjoin

compliance with the law. See Pet. Mem. at 16.8 In that decision, the petitioner challenged a

determination made by HPD to dispose of property to Croton Housing Associates, and the lower

court issued a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo and prevent the disposition of the

property pending a determination on the merits of the petition. Here, to the contrary, Petitioners

do not challenge any NYCHA determination and attempt to obtain their ultimate relief, rather

than maintain the status quo, through this preliminary injunction motion.

8 Although the subsequent history is not clear, it appears the Appellate Division, First Department reversed that decision in Lee, 212 A.D.2d 453 (1st Dep’t 1995), based on lack of standing.

16


Documents

2018 06:45 PM - Law.comNYCHA’s purported actions in the past, between 2012 and 2016, alleging NYCHA improperly suspended lead inspections, incorrectly certified to the United States