Phase I litigation documents

These documents are documents that were generated during ADC’s litigation against Westchester, litigation that was concluded with the entry of a Consent Decree against Westchester on August 10, 2009. (Subsequent phases concern themselves with Westchester’s failure to abide by the terms of the Consent Decree.)

Read the materials:

Judge Cote's Ruling Granting the Center's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
The full text of the February 24, 2009 decision.
Excerpts from Decision Granting Center's Partial Summary Judgment Motion
Some key elements of the Court's decision finding that the County "utterly failed" to meet its affirmatively furthering fair housing obligations and repeatedly submitted claims to the government that were "false or fraudulent."
Final Westchester Attempt to Excuse its Misconduct Rejected
Westchester tried to argue that the federal government was not hurt by the County's fraud because the government got the "benefit" of the County performing the non-AFFH requirements of its grants. The Court, in a decision dated April 24, 2009 (2009 WL 1108517) firmly rejected this argument: "Accepting Westchester's proffered argument that because the grants may have been administered in accordance with other program requirements, the damages to the government are mitigated, would essentially write the requirement to AFFH out of the statutes and regulations. Thus, in the circumstances of this case, Westchester's damages cannot be reduced by reference to the alleged 'benefit' it provided to HUD by administering the grant funds at issue."
Decision on Motion to Dismiss
The July, 2007 federal court decision denying the County's motion to dismiss. The citation is 495 F.Supp.2d 375 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
Decision Establishing that Westchester's False Claims Were "Material" as a Matter of Law
Denial of Immediate Appeal of Decision Granting Partial Judgment Against Westchester
April 9, 2009 decision denying the County's attempt to appeal the decision immediately and get the trial delayed. Among other things, the decision stated that "the defendant has also repeatedly mischaracterized the [opinion granting partial judgment against the County.]" [page 7, fn. 3] The County's prediction of a "stream of follow-on lawsuits," the Court also wrote, depends at least on several things occurring, including "the defendant and other jurisdictions not taking their requirements to affirmatively further fair housing seriously and being unwilling to reform their practices..." [page 8]
Decision on Motion to Certify Interlocutory Appeal
The August 2007 federal court decision denying Westchester's motion to certify for interlocutory appeal the denial of its motion to dismiss. The citation is 2007 WL 2402997 (S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2007).
Some Westchester filings
Read some of the positions that the County took during the litigation.
Complaint
The complaint, originally filed under seal in April, 2006.