Lauren Rose Spencer v. City Towers Ltd; Robert Berookhim; Barry Berookhim

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedApril 23, 2026
Docket1:25-cv-08474
StatusUnknown

This text of Lauren Rose Spencer v. City Towers Ltd; Robert Berookhim; Barry Berookhim (Lauren Rose Spencer v. City Towers Ltd; Robert Berookhim; Barry Berookhim) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lauren Rose Spencer v. City Towers Ltd; Robert Berookhim; Barry Berookhim, (S.D.N.Y. 2026).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LAUREN ROSE SPENCER, Plaintiff, 25-CV-8474 (LLS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND CITY TOWERS LTD; ROBERT BEROOKHIM; BARRY BEROOKHIM, Defendants. LOUIS L. STANTON, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and the Violence Against Women’s Act (“VAWA”). She alleges that Defendants City Towers LTD, Robert Berookhim, and Barry Berookhim, who are the co-owners of City Towers, rented her an illegal apartment and then discriminated against her. By order dated November 7, 2025, the court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. On March 16, 2026, this action was reassigned to the undersigned.1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff 60 days’ leave to file an amended complaint. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also

1 This matter was reassigned pursuant to the Rules for the Division of Business Among District Judges of the Southern District of New York. dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the claims raised. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470

F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits – to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Rule 8 requires a complaint to include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must

accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those facts make it plausible – not merely possible – that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. BACKGROUND The following facts are drawn from the complaint.2 In 2020, Plaintiff moved into Defendants’ illegally converted apartment, located at 41 West 36th Street, New York. (ECF 1, at 8.) At the time Plaintiff signed her lease agreement, she “was mentally inadequate to make agreements or to comprehend legal documents and procedures[,] making [her] vulnerable to terms and conditions of the transaction altogether.”3 (Id. at 9.) On August 20, 2025, the New

York City Department of Buildings inspected the apartment and determined that it was an illegal conversion. (Id. at 8.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Robert Berookhim (“Robert”) raised her rent and she “agreed to this under pressure as he intimidated me, and told me ‘the building property rates increase yearly.’” (Id. at 9.) Robert asked Plaintiff to clean out other apartments, and one time, offered a month’s rent. (Id. at 10, 11.) Plaintiff indicates that “[t]he first violation of harassment and retaliation against me occurred on December 23rd, 2022 when Robert Berookhim turned off the water to my apartment.” (Id. at 11.) After Plaintiff complained to Robert’s brother, Barry Berookhim

(“Barry”), Robert “came to the building . . . to allow me to shower on the 2nd floor[.]” (Id.) “Because of the Christian holiday, Robert Berookhim wouldn’t hire anyone to have the . . . water turned back on, and wasn’t able to turn on the water until the next available business day which was December 27th, 2022.” (Id.) In 2023, Defendants moved their business to the location of Plaintiff’s apartment building, and “the methods they used to intimidate, harass and terrorize me only worsened.” (Id.

2 The Court quotes from the complaint verbatim. All spelling, grammar, and punctuation are as in the original unless noted otherwise. 3 Plaintiff alleges that she suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. at 12.) For example, they “would linger in the common areas, and outside of the building, and come up to the 5th Floor for no reason, to harass me.” (Id.) Plaintiff also experienced harassment from another tenant, who she called the police to report that the other tenant was trespassing in a “restricted area of the attic.” (Id.) Plaintiff notified Robert, but [n]othing was done.” (Id.)

In 2024 and 2025, “[t]he most serious and malicious method of harassment and retaliation began,” which included Defendants and others “conspir[ing] together to inflict absolute chaos in the building[] by hosting illegal parties overnight, selling alcohol without a license and hiring a live band to perform in the apartment on the 4th Floor, and offering the rooftop as a means to host groups of 20-30 people.” (Id.) These events “coincided with the . . . City Towers . . . shut[ting] off the heat in the building . . . [which resulted in Plaintiff being] without heat for the duration of the weekend.” (Id.) Plaintiff “would denounce this method of harassment as domestic terrorism.” (Id.) In August 2024, Plaintiff sustained a concussion, after being assaulted, which resulted in

her hospitalization. She then “stopped paying rent . . . [and] [a]s a result of the stop payment, the defendant(s) continued to aggravatingly harass, threaten, and retaliate against me in attempt to illegally evict me.” (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff told Robert, however, about the assault and her “medical condition,” but he “discriminated against me, by discrediting [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder] PTSD being legal disability, and retaliated by attempting to illegally evict me on November 26th, 2024.” (Id. at 13.) On that day, Robert “told me I had 5 days to pay him the arrears or vacate the premises.” (Id.) Plaintiff accused Robert of fraud after he stated to Plaintiff, “‘I have been really nice to you.’” (Id.) On February 25, 2025, Barry “sexually harassed [Plaintiff] . . . [when he] grabbed my right buttocks and proceeded to harass me for the rent arrears.” (Id.) Barry also grabbed Plaintiff’s wrist when walking with her. Plaintiff reported the incident to the police.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood
441 U.S. 91 (Supreme Court, 1979)
United States v. Morrison
529 U.S. 598 (Supreme Court, 2000)
PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin
532 U.S. 661 (Supreme Court, 2001)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Glover v. Jones
522 F. Supp. 2d 496 (W.D. New York, 2007)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Littlejohn v. City of New York
795 F.3d 297 (Second Circuit, 2015)
Vega v. Hempstead Union Free School District
801 F.3d 72 (Second Circuit, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Lauren Rose Spencer v. City Towers Ltd; Robert Berookhim; Barry Berookhim, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lauren-rose-spencer-v-city-towers-ltd-robert-berookhim-barry-berookhim-nysd-2026.