Cooperatives & Condominiums

Human Rights Law May Require Mitchell-Lama Co-Op to Consider Income of Guarantor

Hirsch v. Park Reservoir Housing Corp.

NYLJ 5/7/08, p. 30, col. 1

Supreme Ct., N.Y. Cty

(Goodman, J.)

In a disabled applicant's action for an injunction prohibiting a Mitchell-Lama co-op from refusing to consider a non-resident guarantor when evaluating whether the applicant qualifies for housing, applicant moved for a preliminary injunction. Although the court denied the preliminary injunction, it expressed an intention to convert the motion to one for summary judgment, and gave the parties 30 days to submit papers concerning the obligations imposed on the co-op corporation by the federal fair housing amendments act, and the state and city human rights laws.

Applicant has been disabled all of his life and lives with his 86-year-old mother. Landowner has long been on the waiting list for housing at the subject Mitchell-Lama co-operative, and was recently notified that he had reached the top of the waiting list. The co-op, however, rejected him as financially unqualified, even though his friend and physician had agreed to act as guarantor for the apartment. The co-op corporation's position is that it will only permit guarantors who live within the building. Applicant then brought this action for a declaration that the co-op's position violates the state and city human rights law, and sought an injunction prohibiting the co-op from refusing to consider non-resident guarantors when evaluating financial qualifications.

The court noted that it was inappropriate to grant a preliminary mandatory injunction when the injunction would in effect give the plaintiff the ultimate relief sought. But the court indicated that it would convert the motion into one for summary judgment, and solicited papers for resolution of that summary judgment motion.

Human Rights Law May Require Mitchell-Lama Co-Op to Consider Income of Guarantor

Hirsch v. Park Reservoir Housing Corp.

NYLJ 5/7/08, p. 30, col. 1

Supreme Ct., N.Y. Cty

(Goodman, J.)

In a disabled applicant's action for an injunction prohibiting a Mitchell-Lama co-op from refusing to consider a non-resident guarantor when evaluating whether the applicant qualifies for housing, applicant moved for a preliminary injunction. Although the court denied the preliminary injunction, it expressed an intention to convert the motion to one for summary judgment, and gave the parties 30 days to submit papers concerning the obligations imposed on the co-op corporation by the federal fair housing amendments act, and the state and city human rights laws.

Applicant has been disabled all of his life and lives with his 86-year-old mother. Landowner has long been on the waiting list for housing at the subject Mitchell-Lama co-operative, and was recently notified that he had reached the top of the waiting list. The co-op, however, rejected him as financially unqualified, even though his friend and physician had agreed to act as guarantor for the apartment. The co-op corporation's position is that it will only permit guarantors who live within the building. Applicant then brought this action for a declaration that the co-op's position violates the state and city human rights law, and sought an injunction prohibiting the co-op from refusing to consider non-resident guarantors when evaluating financial qualifications.

The court noted that it was inappropriate to grant a preliminary mandatory injunction when the injunction would in effect give the plaintiff the ultimate relief sought. But the court indicated that it would convert the motion into one for summary judgment, and solicited papers for resolution of that summary judgment motion.