Paynes El-Bey v. ADT Security Services, Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 28, 2021·No. 1:21-cv-05211·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK QUEEN PRINYAH GODIAH P. PAYNES EL- BEY, Plaintiff, 21-CV-5211(LTS) -against- ORDERTO AMEND ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, alleging that Defendants violated her rights in her rental apartment, located in Poughkeepsie, New York. By order dated June 21, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is,in forma pauperis (IFP). For the reasons set forth in this order, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint against Defendants Sheila L. Robinson-Zenon(Robinson-Zenon), ADT Security Services, Inc. (ADT), and the Federal Savings Bank(FSB) within sixty days of the date of this order; and (2) dismisses all claims brought against Defendants 25 Lent Street,Poughkeepsie, NY 12601(25 Lent Street) and23 Lent Street Poughkeepsie, NY 12601(23 Lent Street). STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss anIFPcomplaint, or portion thereof, 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 dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.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. Bureauof Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). BACKGROUND This action arises out ofa dispute concerningPlaintiff’s rental apartment in

Poughkeepsie, New York. She names as Defendants ADT; Robinson-Zenon,who was Plaintiff’s landlord; the rental property, 25 Lent Street, another property located at 23 Lent Street; and the FSB.Plaintiff alleges that her landlord installed cameras made by Defendant ADT to surveil Plaintiff. She asserts claims of invasion of privacy andseeks money damages. The following facts are taken from the complaint: In the winter of 2020, Plaintiff temporarily moved from the City of NewYork to an apartment located at 25 Lent Street in Poughkeepsie, New York.Defendant Robinson-Zenon, the landlord of the rental property, “refused to take care of her landlord issues/duties[,] [and] [f]rom Nov 2020 till end of Febr. 2021, [Plaintiff] was in a cold room that ha[d] [a] hole outside where cold air[ ] enter[ed].” (ECF 2, at 5.) After Robinson-Zenon did not fix the hole, Plaintiff contacted a building inspector, who

informed Robinson-Zenon that “she need[ed] to fix the issue[ ].” (Id.) After this incident, Robinson-Zenon “change[d] on [Plaintiff] [and] put cameras to watch [her].” (Id.) The cameras, also installed by 23 Lent Street (at Robinson-Zenon’s request), faced Plaintiff’s bedroom where she slept. During this time, Robinson-Zenon and her boyfriend harassed and bullied Plaintiff. For example, the boyfriend “curs[ed] [Plaintiff] out [and] refused to move [so that Plaintiff] had [to] clos[e] the door on his face.” (Id.at 6.) At some other point, Robinson-Zenon “had Janelle [Amico, Plaintiff’s roommate,] come to attack [Plaintiff] in the room that [didnot have a] lock on [it].” (Id.) Plaintiff attaches to the complaint:(1) email correspondence between her and ADT representatives regarding the installation of the cameras, in which Plaintiff states that she “know[s] Spanish people stick together and that brown skin Spanish rep [from ADT] caused ADT” to take part in the alleged “privacy violations,” id.at 43; (2) a copy of Plaintiff’s order of protection against Janelle Amico, who shared anapartment with Plaintiff, issued by the

Poughkeepsie City Court; (3) City of Poughkeepsie Police Department records regarding Janelle’s arrest for “displaying a knife” after Plaintiff complained about Janelle’s leaving a door open to their apartment, id.at 16; (4) Plaintiff’s “Affidavit of Noise Complaint, Landlord threaten me,” filed in the “D[]utchess County District of Court[ ],” in which Plaintiff states that she is “disable[d] with health issue[s]” and generally complains of Robinson-Zenon’s management of the property,id.at 25; (5) email correspondence with Robinson-Zenon; (6) a “Notice of Violation and Order to Abate,” issued against Defendant Robinson-Zenon by the City of Poughkeepsie Building Department, id.at 31; and (7) several photographs. Based on the attachments to the complaint, the Court understands that Plaintiff names

Defendant FSBbecause it provided financing for the building located at 25 Lent. (See id.at 2) (“[Two] weeks after [Robinson-Zenon] signed and agree[d] on the Federal Saving[s] Bank[ ] agreement contract she rented to the house by room[;] she turned the living-room into a bedroom and she planned to turn the Din[ ]ing-room into another bedroom.”). DISCUSSION A. Claims against Robinson-Zenon Because Plaintiff attaches documents to her complaint suggestingthat (1) she is disabled and (2) Robison-Zenon ignored Plaintiff’s complaints regarding her apartment,because Plaintiff is not “Spanish,” the Court construes the complaint as asserting claims under the Fair Housing Act (FHA),42 U.S.C. § 3604.1 The FHA “broadly prohibits discrimination in housing.” Gladstone Realtors v. Vill. of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 93 (1979). Specifically, it prohibits discrimination “against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services

or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status . . . national origin,” or disability. 42 U.S.C.§ 3604(b), (f). The FHA also prohibits retaliation against persons who have asserted their rights under the FHA. See id.§ 3617(unlawful “to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by [among others, §§3604 and 3605] of this title” ). Here, Plaintiff’s complaint does not expressly allege any facts suggesting a violation of the FHA. But because Plaintiff states in one of her attachments that (1) she is disabled and

(2) with respect to her complaints regarding her apartment, “Spanish people stick together,” suggesting that Robinson-Zenon treated Plaintiff differently because she is not “Spanish” (ECF 2, at 43),the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to allege any facts supporting an FHA claim against Robinson-Zenon.

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

Paynes El-Bey v. ADT Security Services, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Paynes El-Bey v. ADT Security Services, Inc. (Paynes El-Bey v. ADT Security Services, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood
441 U.S. 91 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)