MARC VERZATT plf-ap, v. HALSTEAD PROPERTY, LLC def-res

3493. MARC VERZATT plf-ap, v. HALSTEAD PROPERTY, LLC def-res — Relman, Dane & Colfax, PLLC, Brooklyn (Ryan C. Downer of counsel), for ap — Herrick Feinstein LLP, New York (Michael Berengarten of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered May 28, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion of defendants Halstead Property, LLC and Halstead Property Riverdale, LLC, to dismiss the second and fourth causes of action of the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

3493. MARC VERZATT plf-ap, v. HALSTEAD PROPERTY, LLC def-res — Relman, Dane & Colfax, PLLC, Brooklyn (Ryan C. Downer of counsel), for ap — Herrick Feinstein LLP, New York (Michael Berengarten of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered May 28, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion of defendants Halstead Property, LLC and Halstead Property Riverdale, LLC, to dismiss the second and fourth causes of action of the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly granted the motion to dismiss of defendant real estate brokers and their agents, who sought to facilitate, not prevent, plaintiffs’ purchase of a cooperative apartment. To the extent that the challenged statements, which suggested, but did not require, that plaintiffs submit a letter describing the “longevity” and “solidity” of their relationship, and stating that they are married, can be construed as inquiry into their sexual orientation or marital status (of which defendants already were aware, but the cooperative board might not have been), when read in context with the relevant emails, they do not express any “limitation, specification or discrimination” on the basis of the couples’ sexual orientation, as opposed to financial concerns similar to any couple seeking to buy an apartment in the building (Executive Law §296[5][c][2]; Administrative Code of City of NY §8-107[5][c][2]; Alexander’s, Inc. v. White, 115 AD2d 424 [1st Dept 1985]; see also Soules v. United States Dept. of Hous. & Urban Dev., 967 F2d 817, 824 [2d Cir 1992]).

MARC VERZATT plf-ap, v. HALSTEAD PROPERTY, LLC def-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal