MEMORANDUM AND ORDER INTRODUCTION In an Order dated September 27, 2019, (the “Order” [ECF 34]1), the Court granted the captioned Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff Village Green at Sayville, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) first, fourth, sixth, and seventh causes of action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court denied the Defendants’ motion as to Plaintiff’s second, third, and fifth causes of action, which respectively concern alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. §§1981, 1982 and New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. L. §296. As to these three counts, Defendants were directed to renew their motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(1), limited to the question of whether a final decision is required to establish standing and ripeness for §1981, §1982 and NYSHRL claims. Defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss Counts Two, Three, and Five is presently before the Court, (Def. Renewed Mem. [ECF 44]), along with Plaintiff’s cross-motion made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) to reargue the Order’s dismissal of the first, fourth, sixth, and seventh causes of action, (Pl. Recons. [ECF 45]). The Court concludes that §1981, §1982, and NYSHRL claims require a final decision before a plaintiff has standing; because Plaintiff has no final decision, Defendants’ renewed motion is GRANTED, resulting in the dismissal of Counts Two, Three, and Five. Though Plaintiff failed to raise the futility exception in the briefing on the initial motion to dismiss, Plaintiff’s cross-motion to reargue the Order is GRANTED on this issue. Upon reargument, however, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to all counts, as Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate futility. Plaintiff’s cross-motion to reargue the Order is DENIED with respect to Fair Housing Act standing because Plaintiff is incorrect in contending that it does not require a final decision. BACKGROUND The Court assumes familiarity with its full recitation of relevant facts as set forth in its earlier Order. (See Order at 3-7). In short, Plaintiff alleges Defendants’ racially discriminatory animus motivated them to stifle Plaintiff’s efforts to modify certain covenant and restrictions (“C&Rs”), which Plaintiff and Defendants had previously agreed upon as a condition to rezoning property, but with which Plaintiff could not comply as a result of Defendants’ subsequent conduct. (Am. Comp.
2, 4, 6). Plaintiff’s endeavors have stalled following “contentious public hearings” evidencing hostility towards minorities and the Town Board’s “non-vote,” in which Board members failed to second a motion to approve Plaintiff’s application. (Id.
