On June 11, 2018, the U.S. Government filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff sued the New York City Housing Authority ("NYCHA") under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. § 1437d(j)(3)), the federal Anti-Fraud Injunction Act (18 U.S.C. § 1345), and the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. § 2616(a)(1)). The government sought injunctive relief, appointment of a monitor, and equitable relief. The plaintiff claimed that NYCHA violated the basic health and safety regulations of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and repeatedly engaged in deceptive practices. Specifically, they claimed that NYCHA failed to protect the residents from lead paint, failed to provide "decent, safe, and sanitary" housing per HUD's regulations, falsely said that they comply with HUD's regulations by disguising the true conditions of its properties, provided inadequate heat to the homes, and did not fix leaks, peeling paint, and other deteriorations. The plaintiff also claimed that NYCHA's typical response to external inquiries is to cover up or minimize problems that it knows to exist and make false statements to HUD and the public. The case was assigned to Judge William H. Pauley III.

On the same day of filing their complaint (June 11, 2018), the plaintiff also submitted a proposed consent decree calling for a non-judicial monitor, and among other injunctive and monetary agreements:

(1) a requirement that NYCHA comply with federal, state, and local lead paint statutes and regulations;
(2) a requirement that NYCHA comply with federal regulations requiring HUD housing to be decent, safe, sanitary, and in good repair;
(3) injunctive relief requiring NYCHA to establish a Compliance Department, Environmental Health and Safety Department, and Quality Assurance Unit in consultation with the monitor; and
(4) injunctive relief requiring NYCHA to comply with federal regulations and rules relating to lead-safe work practices, lead abatement, lead paint disclosure and notification, and prioritization of lead paint hazards.

On November 14, 2018, Judge Pauley III denied consent decree for not being fair, reasonable, or consistent with the public interest. He also claimed that it had fatal procedural flaws, including unrealistic enforcement mechanisms. 347 F.Supp.3d 182.

On January 31, the parties signed an agreement that called for the appointment of a non-judicial monitor. The parties also filed a joint motion to stay the proceedings for forty-five days in order to prepare for dismissal of case without prejudice, presumably to modify the proposed consent decree. On February 1, 2019, Judge Pauley III approved this motion.

Lisa Koo - 02/18/2019


compress summary