United States District Court Eastern District of New York, No. CV 02-2787
This case seeks a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and damages pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq., the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1982 and 1983, the Civil Rights Act of 1064, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq., and the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Among other things, the complaint alleges that despite the Branch's prior efforts through litigation [i.e. Huntington Branch, NAACP v. Huntington, 844 F.2d 926 (2d Cir.), aff'd per curium, 488 U.S. 15 (1988)], the Town of Huntington ("Town") has continued to develop exclusive, high priced properties in predominately white neighborhoods in a manner that exacerbates racial housing segregation. The complaint seeks "to enjoin the Town's conduct in connection with a 382-acre parcel of land comprising the single largest remaining tract of undeveloped, residentially zoned property in Huntington's White Areas." Complaint at 3.
In addition to the named organizational plaintiffs, NAACP and the Fair Housing in Huntington Committee, Inc., the case involves three individual plaintiffs as follows: Senaye M. Green (African American), Bernard "Bud" Peyton (White) and Robert W. Ralph (White). The primary injury alleged is the ability to live in an integrated community. The complaint alleges that the dearth of affordable housing in Huntington is only furthered by recent efforts to develop the Greens and that the lack of affordable housing disproportionately affects minorities.
The NAACP joined this case to protect precedent that the Association's efforts established in Huntington Branch, NAACP v. Huntington, 844 F.2d 926 (2d Cir.), aff'd per curium, 488 U.S. 15 (1988). According to the complaint and the Branch's accounts, the Town's continued conduct violates the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution and several civil rights statutes.
On March 23, 2005, the Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss. On April 6, 2005, our attorneys filed a motion for reconsideration. On November 29, 2005, the Court granted the NAACP's motion for reconsideration. Upon reconsideration, the Court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court found that reconsideration was "necessary to correct error or prevent manifest injustice as plaintiffs' allegations do indeed state claims" under the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Protection clause and 42 U.S.C. Sections 1982 and 1983.
NAACP National Headquarters
4805 Mt. Hope Drive
Baltimore MD 21215
Toll Free:
(877) NAACP-98
Local:
(410) 580-5777
© 2009 NAACP
All Rights Reserved