In New York State Division of Human Rights v 153rd Street Associates, LLC, No. 2020-04593, 705427/18, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 01017, 2024 WL 820932 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept., Feb. 28, 2024), the court affirmed the denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of plaintiff’s claim of housing discrimination asserted under the New York State Human Rights Law.
From the decision:
NYSHRL prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, creed, or familial status (see Executive Law § 296[2–a][a], [b]). “A complainant has the burden of establishing a violation. To establish a prima facie case, a complainant must demonstrate that he or she is a member of a protected class and that he or she applied for and was qualified to rent housing which was denied to him or her under circumstances which give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination. The burden then shifts to the [defendant] to show that the rejection was for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons” (Matter of New York State Div. of Human Rights v. Caprarella, 82 A.D.3d 773, 774, 917 N.Y.S.2d 704).
“In order to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action alleging housing discrimination, the defendants had to ‘demonstrate either plaintiff’s failure to establish every element of intentional discrimination, or, having offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their challenged actions, the absence of a material issue of fact as to whether their explanations were pretextual’ ” (Maun v. Edgemont at Tarrytown Condominium, 156 A.D.3d 873, 874, 67 N.Y.S.3d 660, quoting Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d 295, 305, 786 N.Y.S.2d 382, 819 N.E.2d 998).
Here, the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint. The defendant’s submissions failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant’s proffered explanations for not leasing the last affordable three-bedroom apartment to the complainant and, instead, leasing the apartment to a white, Jewish family, were a pretext for intentional discrimination based on race, color, creed, or familial status (see Blackman v. Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 206 A.D.3d 602, 604, 169 N.Y.S.3d 653).
The court concluded that since the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint, it was not necessary for it to consider the sufficiency of plaintiff’s opposition papers.