SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU HOUSING RIGHTS INITIATIVE Plaintiff, ve BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESERVICES LAFFEY INTERNATIONAL REALTY; BAXTER REAL ESTATE INC.; ROWAN REALTY, INC.; 137 POST AVENUE, INC.; DESIMONE REAL ESTATE, INC; KAYA HOMES; LAFFEY REAL ESTATE LLC; ECF Case COLDWELL BANKER AMERICAN HOMES FORMERLY KNOWN AS CENTURY 21 AMERICAN HOMES; A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED JENNY MEDINA; KINGS HOMES & ASSOCIATES INC.; ANDERSON MINAYA; HOMES BY MARA INC. VERIFIED COMPLAINT Index No. Defendants. Plaintiff, HOUSING RIGHTS INITIATIVE by its attorneys, HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC and THE LAW OFFICES OF FREDERICK K. BREWINGTON, hereby alleges the following: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Housing Choice Vouchers (“Vouchers”) are critically important government subsidies that enable low-income renters to offset their rent with a subsidy. Vouchers often reduce racial segregation and enable renters to secure housing outside of areas of ethnically concentrated poverty and in areas that may offer greater access to jobs and better resourced schools. ‘This is the case in Nassau County, New York. In the midst of an ongoing affordable housing crisis in the greater New York City metropolitan area, Vouchers play an important role in expandinghousing choice and ensuring low-income renters can afford safe and decent housing, so long as housing providers are willing to accept them. In Nassau County, itis illegal for landlords and brokers to reject rental applicants for using a Voucher. Yet, Nassau County landlords and brokers have done just that, Not only is the failure to accept Voucher holders morally reprehensible, itis fiscally, economically, and socially irresponsible. When a landlord fails to accept a Voucher, the rent burden (percentage of household income being spent on rent) increases, as does homelessness. These changes directly and indirectly lead to higher costs of health care, law enforcement, sanitation, unemployment, and more. Unstable housing leads to family separations, higher rates of domestie violence, and poor school performance. Housing unaffordability increases job loss and undermines economic growth. Housing Rights Initiative (“HRI”) brings this action against Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices Laffey International Realty, Baxter Real Estate Inc., Rowan Realty, Inc., 137 Post Avenue, LLC, DeSimone Real Estate, Inc., Kaya Homes, Laffey Real Estate LLC, Coldwell Banker American Homes formerly known as Century 21 American Homes, Jenny Medina; Kings Homes & Associates Inc., Anderson Minaya, and Homes By Mara Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) to challenge Defendants’ unlawful refusal to accept Vouchers at their Nassau County properties. Defendants’ refusal to accept Vouchers, and Defendants” statements in connection with such refusals, constitute unlawful source of income discrimination under the Nassau County Administrative Code § 21-9.0 et seg. The resulting impact of Defendants’ refusal to accept Housing Choice Vouchers and Defendants’ statements in connection with such refusals is staggering reduction in the available inventory of safe and affordable housing available to some of the most vulnerable residents of Nassau County.JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1, This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to CPLR 301 et seq. because Defendants are domiciled and regularly transact business in the State of New York, and because the wrongful conduct alleged in the Complaint took place in the State of New York. 2. Venue is proper pursuant to CPLR 503(a) and $02(d) because at least one of the Defendants resides in Nassau County. PARTIES 3. Housing Rights Initiative. HRI is a national nonprofit housing watchdog group headquartered in New York, NY. HRI is dedicated to promoting fair and lawful housing practices. A core part of HRI’s mission has been preserving affordable housing in the greater New York City metropolitan area and assisting tenants in securing and maintaining access to affordably priced housing. It has historically done this by counseling and organizing tenants in New York about their rights (o affordable housing and transparency by landlords, such as rights guaranteed by rent-stabilization laws, tax reporting requirements and other laws. HRI further ists these tenants by referring them to legal counsel who advise and assist tenants to bring legal actions against landlords who seek to evade these affordable housing laws and reporting requirements. Through HRI's counseling, organizing and referral efforts, it has successfully and substantially increased the inventory of affordably-priced housing in the greater New York City ‘metropolitan area. These gains, however, have been jeopardized and offset by the epidemic of source of income discrimination uncovered by HRI’s investigation, which has effectively placed thousands of affordable units effectively off limits to voucher-holding tenants, HRI expended staff time and other resources to investigate and respond to Defendants’ discriminatory rental practices, which has led to an increased demand and need for its organizing, counseling andreferral services, while simultaneously diverting resources away from these activi s in order to address the rampant source of income discrimination that is epidemic in the greater New York City metropolitan area, Additionally, Defendants’ discriminatory rental practices frustrated HRI’s mission to preserve and maintain affordable housing in the greater New York City metropolitan area by making apartments unavailable to renters using Vouchers. 4. Defendant Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices Laffey International Realty is a corporation registered to do business in New York. At all relevant times, Defendant Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices Laffey International Realty was in the real estate business, and among. other things, was brokering the rental of apartments in Nassau County, New York. 5. Defendant Baxter Real Estate Inc. is an entity doing business in New York. Atall relevant times, Defendant Baxter Real Estate Ine. was in the real estate business, and among. other things, was brokering the rental of apartments in Nassau County, New York, 6. Defendant Rowan Realty, Inc. is a corporation registered to do business in New York. At all relevant times, Defendant Rowan Realty, Inc. was in the real estate business, and among other things, was brokering the rental of apartments in Nassau County, New York 7. Defendant 137 Post Avenue, LLC is a corporation registered to do business in New York. Upon information and belief, Defendant 137 Post Avenue, LLC was the owner of the unit at 239 Orchard Street in Westbury, New York 11590! and utilized the real estate brokering services of Rowan Realty, Inc. at all relevant times. 8. Defendant DeSimone Real Estate, Inc. is a corporation registered to do business in New York. At all relevant times, Defendant DeSimone Real Estate, Inc. was in the real estate 1 239 Orchard Street, Westbury, NY 11590 is also known as 137-139 Post Avenue, Westbury, New York 11590. 3business, and among other things, was brokering the rental of apartments in Nassau County, New York. 9. Defendant Kaya Homes is a corporation registered to do business in New York. Atall relevant times, Defendant Kaya Homes was in the real estate business, and among other things, was brokering the rental of apartments in Nassau County, New York. 10. Defendant Laffey Real Estate LLC is a corporation registered to do business in New York. Atall relevant times, Defendant Laffey Real Estate LLC was in the real estate business, and among other things, was brokering the rental of apartments in Nassau County, New York. 11. Defendant Coldwell Banker American Homes formerly known as Century 21 American Homes is a corporation registered to do business in New York. Atall relevant times, Defendant Coldwell Banker American Homes formerly known as Century 21 American Homes was in the real estate business, and among other things, was brokering the rental of apartments in Nassau County, New York. 12. Defendant Jenny Medina is a real estate broker in New York. At all times, Defendant Jenny Medina was in the real estate business, and among other things, was brokering the rental of apartments in Nassau County, New York. 13, Defendant Kings Homes & Associates Inc. is a corporation registered to do business in New York. At all relevant times, Defendant Kings Homes & Associates Inc. was in the real estate business, and among other things, was brokering the rental of apartments in Nassau County, New York.14, Defendant Anderson Minaya is a real estate broker in New York. At all times, Defendant Anderson Minaya was in the real estate business, and among other things, was brokering the rental of apartments in Nassau County, New York. 15. Defendant Homes by Mara Inc. is a corporation registered to do business in New York. At all relevant times, Defendant Homes by Mara Inc. was in the real estate business, and among other things, was brokering the rental of apartments in Nassau County, New York. BACKGROUND 16. The Housing Choice Voucher Program (the “Voucher Program”), a successor to the Section 8 Rental Voucher or Rental Certificate Program, is a federally funded housing subsidy program designed to allow low-income families to obtain safe, decent, and affordable housing. 17. Currently assisting more than two-million American families, including over 9,000 people in Nassau County, the Voucher Program is the largest rental-assistance program, administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"). In New York, counties administer the Voucher Program through Section 8 Local Program Administrators in conjunction with the New York State Homes and Community Renewal (NYSHCR"). 18. In Nassau County, the Nassau County Office of Housing (*NCOH”) administers the Voucher Program. 19. Vouchers are tenant-based subsidies that are not linked to any particular housing complex, building, or unit, but rather enable families with a Voucher to rent housing in the private market, at market rates, provided the rent does not exceed the Program’s paymentstandards (i.e, limits on the monthly rent that are set by NYSHCR and NCOH) and a percentage of the Voucher holder’s income 20. The Voucher Program thus removes some of the barriers that would otherwis restrict low-income families from the opportunity to obtain rental housing outside of areas of concentrated poverty, allowing families to move to neighborhoods with rich access to public transportation, grocery stores, green spaces, well-performing schools, and cultural enrichment. Obtaining a voucher can provide a homeless or low-income resident with a direct path to housing and enable integration in mixed-income neighborhoods. The success of the Voucher Program depends in large part on the ability of renters to obtain housing in integrated neighborhoods, as well as the participation of landlords on the private housing market. 21, Vouchers are designed, among other things, to allow very low-income families to rent safe, decent, and affordable privately-owned housing. Vouchers are especially important in high-cost areas like Nassau County, New York, where rent burdens on low-income families are particularly severe, 22. Families with Vouchers experience less homelessness and more housing stability which leads to multiple positive outcomes including increased employment levels, job stability, higher incomes and higher education levels. Housing stability also lowers the likelihood that a family will be separated from each other, experience domestic violence, become food insecure, enter the foster system, or become incarcerated. 23. Vouchers are also time-limited and can generally only be used for a short period after they are issued. Applicants for Section 8 vouchers are placed on years-long waiting lists but only have 120 days to find an apartment once they finally receive a Voucher unless they are able to obtain an extension on their voucher expiration date24, As a result of widespread voucher discrimination, Voucher holders must frequently accept subpar housing in segregated neighborhoods, or risk losing their Voucher altogether. 25. The Voucher issued to each family subsidizes rent in a privately owned rental housing unit of the Voucher holder's choice, subject to minimum standards of health and safety. 26. Voucher holders frequently do not have the means or the ability to investigate and report rejections. Participating in investigations can be time-consuming and exhausting for these low-income residents, whose first priority is securing housing. Many renters do not know their rights and are unaware they are being discriminated against. 27. Inorder to protect low-income Nassau County residents from being discriminated against because of the source of their income and to assist them in effectively utilizing the Voucher Program, the Nassau County Administrative Code requires that residential rental properties he made available to prospective tenants irrespective of their source of income, and expressly provides that Housing Choice Vouchers are a source of income. 28. It is unlawful under the Nassau County Administrative Code for Defendants to discriminate based on source of income, including where that source of income is a Housing Choice Voucher. Nassau County Administrative Code § 21-9.0 et seq.;FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. Defendants’ Rental Operations 29. Defendants are residential real estate brokers and/or awn, operate, control, supervise and/or manage, either directly or indirectly through their parent-subsidiary or other business affiliations, the Subject Properties, all of which are located in Nassau County. 30. The Subject Properties are residential real estate properties that were offered for rent in Na au County, The Subject Properties offer studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom and three-bedroom apartments with various amenities. 31. The Subject Properties are located in various cities, hamlets, villages, towns and neighborhoods in Nassau County. The Subject Properties are located in Glen Cove, Valley Stream, Port Washington, Westbury, Great Neck, Island Park, Hewlett, Farmingdale, Lynbrook, Hempstead, New Hyde Park, Mineola and Woodbury, 32, Atal times relevant to this Complaint, the monthly rent charged by Defendants for an apartment at each of the Subject Properties did not exceed the Voucher Program's ‘maximum allowable rents for an apartment. 33, As real estate brokers and/or owners or operators of residential real estate, Defendants are required to comply with anti-discrimination laws under the Nassau County Administrative Code. 34. Defendants, their employees and/or their agents stated to HRI's civil rights testers that Defendants would not accept Vouchers as a source of payment for rent at the Subject Properties. Defendants’ acts, policies, and practices constitute impermissible source of income discrimination.B. Defendants’ Discriminatory Policies and Practices 35. In the last several years, HRI began hearing from community partners and attorneys at legal services organizations about the struggles that many individuals and families face in being unable to locate rental properties that would accept their Vouchers, and that this problem had become an insurmountable barrier to safe and affordable housing for many menibers of the Nassau County community. As a result of this information, HRI began an. investigation of Nassau County rental housing to determine the existence and of scope of discrimination against Housing Choice Voucher holders in Nassau County. 36. HRI investigates housing discrimination through a variety of means, including civil rights testing. Civil rights testers are persons who query housing providers to test the housing providers’ compliance with applicable fair housing laws. 37. During these investigations, HRI conducted tests to inquire about the practices and policies of brokers and landlords in Nassau County. Through these tests, HRI discovered rampant source of income discrimination by brokers and landlords. Indeed, in many instances, their investigation revealed a policy or practice of refusing to accept vouchers, which prompted HRI to take steps to address such violations of the law. 38. When a real estate broker posts a listing for an apartment unit, New York law generally requires the broker to obtain authorization from the owner of the property. According to the New York Comp. Codes Rules & Regulations, “[nJo property shall be advertised unless the real estate broker has obtained authorization for such advertisement from the owner of the property.” tit. 19 § 175.25(b)(2)(i). Until November 2020, brokers who did not obtain authorization from the property owner to advertise the unit were required (o receive permission from the listing broker and “prominently display” a disclaimer stating, “This advertisement doesnot suggest that the broker has a listing in this property or properties or that any property is, currently available.” New York Comp. Codes Rules & Regulations tit. 19 § 175.25(a)(6). 39. None of the listings described in the allegations below contained a disclaimer with the language in New York Comp. Codes Rules & Regulations tit. 19 § 175.25(d)(6). 40. On August 19, 2020, an HRI civil rights tester, presenting as a prospective renter, called Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices Laffey International Realty at (613) 352-6165, regarding an available apartment located at 25 Prospect Ave in Glen Cove, NY 11542 in Nassau County. The trulia listing advertised a two-bedroom, one-bathroom apartment for $2,000 per month, and provided the contact information for Guy Barbieri, a licensed real estate salesperson at Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices Laffey International Realty. The Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices Laffey International Realty representative who answered the phone did not identify himself but confirmed the apartment was available. When the tester inquired about ing her voucher, the representative said that he “do[es}n’t think he’s gonna accept Section 8 on this on 41. On August 25, 2020, an HRI civil rights tester, presenting as a prospective renter, called Baxter Real Estate Inc. at (917) 818-9802 regarding an available apartment located at 255 Brown Street in Valley Stream, New York 11580 in Nassau County. The trulia listing advertised a two-bedroom, one-bathroom apartment for $2,300 per month and provided the contact information for Michael Johnson, a real estate agent at Baxter Real Estate Inc. The Baxter Real Estate Inc, representative who answered the phone did not identify himself but confirmed the apartment was available. When the tester inquired about using her Section 8 voucher, the representative said, “No, she doesn’t take any programs.” 1042. On September 1, 2020, an HRI civil rights tester, presenting as a prospective renter, called Rowan Realty, Inc. at (516) 817-8897 regarding an available apartment at 239 Orchard Street in Westbury, New York 11590 in Nassau County. At all times relevant to this, ‘suit, 239 Orchard Street was owned by 137 Post Avenue, LLC. The trulia listing advertised a one-bedroom, one-bathroom apartment for $1,800 per month and provided contact information for Wendy Liotti, a real estate broker at Rowan Realty, Inc. The Rowan Realty, Inc. representative who answered the phone did not identify herself but confirmed the apartment was available, When the tester asked about using a Section 8 voucher, the representative stated that she would need to ask the landlord because it was “up to him” whether he would take the voucher. When the tester called back, the representative said the owner “said right now, no to vouchers.” Rowan Realty, Inc. performed the complained of actions on behalf of 137 Post Avenue, LLC, was authorized to act on behalf of 137 Post Avenue, LLC, and was acting on behalf of Post Avenue, LLC at all times relevant to this suit. 43. On September 3, 2020, an HRI civil rights tester, presenting as a prospective renter, called Laffey Real Estate LLC at (516) 482-1111 regarding an available apartment at 8 Pilvinis Drive in Great Neck, NY 11024 in Nassau County. The trulia listing advertised a two- bedroom, one-and-a-half bathroom property for $2,400 per month and provided the contact information for Mahshid Namdar, a real estate agent at Laffey Real Estate LLC. The Laffey Real Estate LLC representative who answered the phone did not identify herself but confirmed the property was available. When the tester inquired if she could use her Section 8 Voucher, the representative replied “No, it’s a private owner. They are not in that program.” 44, On September 8, 2020, an HRI civil rights tester, presenting as a prospective renter, called DeSimone Real Estate, Inc. at (516) 474-6694 regarding an available apartment at ul31 Julian Place in Island Park, New York 11558 in Nassau County. The trulia listing advertised 3 bedroom, one-and-a-half bathroom property for $2,950 per month and provided the contact information for Dominic Iadevaia, a real estate agent for DeSimone Real Estate, Inc. The DeSimone Real Estate, Inc. representative who answered the phone did not identify himself but confirmed the property was available. When the tester inquired if she could use her Section 8 ‘voucher, the representative replied “No.” 45. On September 17, 2020, a HRI civil rights tester, presenting as a prospective renter, contacted Kaya Homes at (347) 451-4417 regarding an available property at 1723 Broadway, Floor 2 in Hewlett, New York 11557 in Nassau County. The Zillow listing advertised a three-bedroom, one-bathroom property for $2,975 and provided contact information for Kamy Roditi, a real estate agent for Kaya Homes. The Kaya Homes representative who answered the phone did not identify herself but confirmed the apartment was still available. When the tester asked about using her Section 8 voucher, the representative replied “Oh no, I'm. sorry, they don’t... take . . . this landlord they don’t qualify . . . they didn’t qualify for that so can’t so Section 8 for that one. Sorry.” 46. On September 30, 2020, an HRI civil rights tester, presenting as a prospective renter, contacted Laffey Real Estate LLC at (516) 669-4220 regarding an available apartment at 142 Woodward Parkway in Farmingdale, New York 11735 in Nassau County. The trulia listing advertised a three-bedroom, one-and-a-half bathroom unit for $2,800 and provided contact information for Hargovind Gupta, a real estate agent for Laffey Real Estate LLC. The Laffey Real Estate LLC representative who responded to the tester's call did not identify himself but confirmed the unit was available. When the tester inquired about using her Section 8 voucher, the representative said, “He said no to that before.” 1247. On October 6, 2020, an HRI civil rights tester, presenting as a prospective renter, contacted Coldwell Banker American Homes formerly known as Century 21 American Homes at (516) 223-2525 regarding an available apartment at 311 Broadway in Lynbrook, New York 11563 in Nassau County. The trulia listing advertised a three-bedroom, one-bathroom apartment for $2,850 per month and provided contact information for Laura Harrison, a sales agent at Coldwell Banker American Homes formerly known as Century 21 American Homes. The Coldwell Banker American Homes formerly known as Century 21 American Homes representative who answered the tester’s call did not identify herself but confirmed the apartment was available. When the tester inquired about using her Section 8 voucher, the representative said she would need to ask the landlord. When the tester called back, the representative said “Ok. So, he doesn’t do the Section 8." 48. On October 21, 2020, an HRI civil rights tester, presenting as a prospective renter, called (347) 804-3684 regarding an available apartment at 82 Carman Street in Hempstead, New York 11550 in Nassau County. ‘The apartments.com listing advertised a two-bedroom, one- bathroom apartment for $2,100 per month and provided the contact information for (347) 804- 3684, a number affiliated with Jenny Medina. Medina answered the phone and confirmed the apartment was available. When the tester inquired about using her Section 8 voucher, Medina replied “Yeah, the owner's not taking any programs. Sorry.” Upon information and belief, ‘Medina was acting as an agent of Executive Plus Realty Inc. at the time of the call. 49. On November 19, 2020 an HRI tester, presenting as a prospective renter, called Kings Homes & Associates Inc. at (718) 437-7890 regarding an available apartment at 813 Whittier Ave in New Hyde Park, NY 11040 in Nassau County. The trulia listing advertised a two-bedroom, one-bath apartment for $2,300 per month and provided contact information for 13,Amrik Singh, a real estate agent at Kings Homes & Associates Inc. The Kings Homes & Associates Inc. representative who answered the phone did not identify himself but confirmed the apartment was available, When the tester asked about using her Section 8 voucher, the representative explained that he would have to ask the owner. When the tester called back and asked about using her voucher, the representative replied “Oh, no, no. I spoke with the owner. No. . .. He’s not taking the voucher. 50. On December 21, 2021 an HRI tester, presenting as a prospective renter, called (516) 210-4614 regarding an apartment available at 176 Windsor Pkwy #1 in Hempstead, NY alf bathroom 11550 in Nassau County. The trulia listing advertised a three-bedroom, one-and- apartment for $2,500 per month and provided contact information for Anderson Minaya. Mr. ‘Minaya answered the tester’s call and confirmed the apartment was available. Mr. Minaya then said that “they aren’t allowing any programs on this one” and when the tester confirmed she has a Section 8 voucher, he stated “he’s not allowing it with this one because there's no rental permit.” Upon information and belief, Minaya was acting as an agent at eXp Realty LLC at the time of the call. 51. On July 12, 2022, an HRI tester, presenting as a prospective renter, called Berkshire Hathaway Homeservices Laffey International Realty at (516) 743-9953 regarding an apartment available at 20 Washington Ave in Mineola, NY 11501 in Nassau County. The apartments.com listing advertised a two-bedroom, one-bathroom apartment for $2,100 per month and provided the contact information for Michael Fink, a real estate agent at Berkshire Hathaway Homeservices Laffey International Realty. Mr. Fink answered the tester’s call and confirmed the apartment was available. When the tester asked about using her voucher, Mr. Fink said he would need to speak with the listing agent and get back to her. When the tester called Mr, Fink back 14and asked about using her voucher, he said “the listing agent said that they can not accept that.” ‘When the tester asked Mr. Fink to clarify whether “they don’t accept it at all”, Mr. Fink said “yea, no unfortunately they don’t.” 52. On September 6, 2022, an HRI tester, presenting as a prospective renter, called Homes by Mara Realty Inc. at (917) 938-7836 regarding an apartment available at 40 Avery Rd. Floor | in Woodbury, NY 11797 in Nassau County. The Zillow listing advertised a two- bedroom, one-bathroom apartment for $2,300 per month and provided contact information for Vicky Li, a real estate agent at Homes by Mara Realty Inc. The Homes by Mara Realty Ine. representative who answered the phone did not identify herself but confirmed the apartment was available, When the tester asked about using her Section 8 voucher, the representative replied “Section 8, I can’t.” 53. None of the properties above were owner-occupied, 54, Asalleged herein, the refusals to accept Vouchers were pervasive and egregious, ranging from flat-out refusals to insinuations about the worthiness of Voucher holders as tenants. 55. Upon information and belief, and based on the statements Defendants and their representatives made to HRI testers during the calls described above, Defendants have policies or practices of refusing to accept Vouchers at the Subject Properties, which Defendants are the brokers for, own, or manage. 56. By their acts, policies, and practices, Defendants refuse to rent to individuals who intend to use Vouchers at their rental properties, In doing so, Defendants unlawfully discriminate against renters based on their source of income. 57. Upon information and belief, Defendants and/or their owners, subsidiaries, and affiliates designed, participated in, supervised, controlled, and/or approved the discriminatory 15policy or practice the representative or representatives expressed on the phone calls and/or in the text messages described above. As a result, each of the Defendants is liable for the unlawful conduct described herein 58. Defendants’ unlawful acts as described above were, and are, intentional and willful, and have been, and are, implemented with callous and reckless disregard for the statutorily protected rights of renters who intend to use Vouchers as a source of income to help pay for the rent. HARM TO HRI AND THE COMMUNITIES IT SERVES 59. Defendants’ unlawful conduet has harmed HRT and the communities that it serves, 60. Since its founding, a core part of HRI’s mission has been preserving affordable housing in New York and assisting tenants in securing and maintaining access to affordably priced housing. It has historically done this by counseling and organizing tenants in New York about their rights to affordable housing and transparency by landlords, such as rights guaranteed by rent-stabilization laws, tax reporting requirements and other laws. HRI further assists tenants by referring them to legal counsel who advises them of their legal options and brings legal actions against landlords who seek to evade these affordable housing laws and reporting requirements. 61. Through HRI's counseling, organizing and referral efforts, it has successfully and substantially increased the inventory of affordably-priced housing in the greater New York City ‘metropolitan area when the tenants who it counsels and organizes are able to secure agreements with landlords ensuring that units will be affordably priced. 62. These gains, however, have been jeopardized and offset by an epidemic of source- of-income discrimination in the greater New York City metropolitan area, including the 16discriminatory policies of the Defendants alleged herein. In the last several years, HRI began, hearing from its community partners that widespread source of income discrimination in the greater New York City metropolitan area, including Nassau County, threatened to worsen the affordable housing cris s by placing thousands of otherwise affordable housing off limits to low- income tenants with vouchers. 63. Asa result, HRI was compelled to divert hundreds of hours of time and scarce financial resources to fully investigate and identify the extent of housing providers’ unlawful source-of-income-discrimination practices through its testing program and to determine how to counteract them. HRI employed a testing program to monitor compliance with federal, state, and local civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination against members of legally protected classes— including race, disability, religion, national origin, gender, family status, and source of income, among others. When HRI found Defendants were engaged in source-of-income discrimination, it was required to divert scarce resources to address the problem through education and outreach, advocacy, training, collaborat n and expenditure n and, if necessary, enforcement. This diver of resources has come in several forms as described below. 64. Because it is not only important to remedy past discrimination, but to take steps to prevent similar future discrimination from occurring, the activities used in this effort have also included outreach and education directed at affected or potentially affected populations, the public at large, enforcement agencies and the owners and employee of the entities engaged in the discriminatory activity. 65. In response to HRI’s investigation, HRI was compelled to divert hundreds of hours of resources to an extensive education and outreach campaign to the affected communities in an effort to combat Defendants’ discrimination. This included: 7© creating and providing know-your-rights material to hundreds of schools, churches, community boards and other local partners informing them of the rights of prospective tenants and the responsibilities of landlords and brokers concerning source-of-income discrimination; * drafting and publishing an op-ed article regarding source of income discrimination in Long Island on NYN Media; © partnering with the New York State Division on Human Rights (“NYSHR”) on an event focused on combatting source-of-income discrimination on Long Island; © outreach to community stakeholders and others regarding the NYSHR event; * education and outreach to the Long Island Board of Realtors regarding discrimination Long Island renters face, including source-of-income discrimination; and * outreach directly to the Defendants to educate them about their responsibilities as landlords and brokers. Not including the time spent investigating using testers, HRI’s staff expended more than 335 hours on education and outreach. 66. Defendants’ discriminatory policies and practices have diverted HRI’s resources away from its organizing, counseling and referral services in order to address the rampant source of income discrimination that is epidemic in the greater New York City metropolitan area, For example, during 2021, HRI had expected to organize and counsel a sufficient number of tenants such that at least 2,000 housing units across the greater New York City metropolitan area would he returned to affordability as a result of HRI’s efforts. Instead, HRI was forced to spend resources combatting Defendants’ source of income discrimination, causing HRI to fall approximately 50% short of its goal. 18,67. If HRI had not been required to divert such resources to address Defendants” discrimination, HRI would have used those resourees to further its efforts to preserve and maintain affordable housing, including its counseling, organizing and referral of tenants who have been overcharged and subject to other fraudulent practices by their landlords that have resulted in unaffordable housing. This diversion has reduced the impact of HRI’s affordable housing advocacy, as well as adversely impacted HRI’s ability to engage in its other programmatic activities. 68. If HRI did not engage in activities to combat Defendants’ source-of-income- discrimination policies and practices, HRI’s successes in maintaining and preserving affordable housing in the greater New York City metropolitan area would be rolled back, due to the resulting reduced inventory of affordable housing available to low-income residents of the greater New York City metropolitan area caused by Defendants’ source-of-income discrimination 69. Prior to and at the time of filing this action, Defendants’ wrongdoing has injured, injures, and—if left unaddressed—will continue to injure HRI by frustrating its mission to promote fair housing opportunities and preserve and maintain affordable housing in New York, and will require HRI to continue to divert its efforts and programming to combat practices that deny housing opportunities to voucher holders, preventing HRI from continuing its other counseling, organizing and referral efforts on behalf of tenants, 70. Defendants’ discriminatory policies and practices have had the effect of reducing the available inventory of safe and affordable housing in Long Island, leading to an increased demand and need for HRI’s organizing, counseling and referral services, 71, HRThas standing to bring a claim for source of income discrimination under the Nassau County Administrative Code. Under the Nassau County Administrative Code, “[alny 19person shall be deemed to be injured by an unlawful discriminatory practice and shall have the right to commence an action ... when such a person or its agents ... discover through investigation that a covered entity is engaging or has engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice, provided that such person has expended funds to reveal the covered entity’s unlawful discriminatory practice, regardless of whether such expenditure constituted a diversion of resources from his or her other activities.” Nassau County Administrative Code § 21- 9,7(d)(3)(vi)(B). The Code defines “person” as “one or more individuals, partnerships, limited liability companies, associations, corporations, municipal corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, mutual companies, joint-stock companies, trusts, unincorporated associations, fiduciaries, or receivers.” Id. § 21-9.2()). CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Source of Income Discrimination in Violation of Nassau County Administrative Code § 21-9.0 et seg.) 72. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein, 73. The Nassau County Human Rights Law makes it unlawful “to refuse to sell, rent or lease any housing accommodation to any person or group of persons, or refuse to negotiate for the sale, rental of lease of any housing accommodation to any person or group or persons, because of the actual of perceived protected status of such person or persons, or to represent that any housing accommodation is not available for inspection, sale, rental or lease when in fact it is so available, or to otherwise deny or withhold any housing accommodation or any facilities of any housing accommodation from any person or group of persons because of the actual or perceived protected status of such person or persons[.]” Nassau County Administrative Code § 21- 9.7(€)(1)0). 2074, The Nassau County Human Rights law makes it unlawful to “to print or circulate or cause to be printed or circulated any statement, advertisement, or publications, or to use any form of application for the purchase, rental, or lease of such housing accommodations, or to make any record or inquiry in connection with the prospective purchase, rental, or lease of such housing accommodations which expresses, directly or indirectly, any limitation, specification, or discrimination with respect to actual or perceived protected status.” Nassau County Administrative Code § 21-9.7(c)(1 75, “Protected status” includes “source of income.” Nassau County Administrative Code § 21-9.2(k). 76. This prohibition includes any discrimination based on a rental applicant's receipt of funding through any “federal, state, local, non-profit assistance or subsidy program,” including the receipt of Vouchers. Nassau County Administrative Code § 21-9.2(d).. 77. Defendants’ policies and practices violated § 21-9.7(c)(1) by engaging in behaviors prohibited by Nassau County Administrative Code § 21-9.7(¢)(I), including but not limited to making discriminatory statements and/or adopting policies that would deny or withhold apartments for rent because of source of income. 78. Defendants’ policies and practices prevent individuals from renting apartments at their properties based on their status as Voucher holders, which is discrimination based on the actual or perceived source of income of the potential renters. It is an illegal refusal to “rent or ease any housing accommodation” in violation of the Nassau County Human Rights Law. 79. HRIis a “person” pursuant to the Nassau County Human Rights Law and has suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ discriminatory conduct. ‘Nassau County Administrative Code § 21-9.7(d)(3)(vi)(B). 2180. As a direct and foreseeable result of Defendants’ unlawful discrimination, HRI is entitled to (i) permanent injunctive relief requiring Defendants to abandon their unlawful and discriminatory policy of denying housing to recipients of Vouchers, (ii) an award of ‘compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, (ii) punitive damages, and (iv) costs and attomeys’ fees. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE Plaintiff HRI respectfully requests that the Court (a) Enter judgment declaring that Defendants Berks! Hathaway HomeServices Laffey International Realty, Baxter Real Estate Inc., Rowan Realty, Inc., 137 Post Avenue, LLC, DeSimone Real Estate, Inc., Kaya Homes, Laffey Real Estate LLC, Coldwell Banker American Homes formerly known as Century 21 American Homes, Jenny Medina, Kings Homes & Associates Inc., Anderson Minaya and Homes By Mara Inc.’s acts, policies, practices, and statements of willfully refusing to rent apartment units to Housing Choice Voucher holders, constitutes source of income discrimination in violation of the Nassau County Administrative Code § 21-9.7(c)(1). (b) Enter judgment for appropriate permanent injunctive relief, including an order that Defendants abandon their policies or practices of refusing to rent to Housing Choice Voucher holders and instead accept tenants without regard to sources of income, and such remedial actions are necessary to ameliorate Defendants’ past illegal discriminatory conduct; (©) Award HRI monetary damages in an amount to be determined at trial; (@) Award HRI reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; (©) Award HRI punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial; and () Grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 22Dated: April 6, 2023 ‘TRIAL BY JURY IS DEMANDED Respectfully submitted, {st Matthew K. Handley Matthew K. Handley Rachel Nadas, pro hac vice forthcoming HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 200 Massachusetts Avenue, NW ~ 7" Floor Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 559-2411 Email: mhandley@hfajustice.com (si Martha E, Guarnieri Martha E. Guarnieri, pro hac vice fortheoming HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 1727 Snyder Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19145 Phone: (215) 422-3478 Email: mguarnieri @ hfajustice.com Wi Prederich K Brewington Frederick K. Brewington, Esq. Law Offices of Frederick K. Brewington 556 Peninsula Boulevard Hempstead, New York 11550 Phone: 516-489-6959 Email: fred: Counsel for Plaintiff 23VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK ) ys! COUNTY OF NASSAU ) I, the undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New York State, state that I um FREDERICK K. BREWINGTON, ESQ, one of the attorneys of record for the Plaintiff HOUSING RIGHTS INITIATIVE in the w: in action; I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint and know the contents thereof; the same is true to my own knowledge, except to the ‘matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and so to those matters I believe it to be true. The reason this verification is made by me and not by my client is that I maintain my office in a County different from that in which my client maintains its offices. ‘The ground of my belief as to all matters not stated upon my own knowledge are as follows: review of the file, investigation, research and interviews with my clients. 1 affirm that the foregoing statements are true, under the penalties of perjury. Dated: Hempstead, New York April 6, 2023, FREDERICK K. BREWINGTON Co-Counsel and Attorneys for HOUSING RIGHTS INITIATIVE LAW OFFICES OF FREDERICK K. BREWINGTON 556 Peninsula Boulevard Hempstead, New York 11550 (516)489-6959 24