Shelter Occupant Had No Constitutional Right to Housing

A temporary housing occupant sued the City of New York, DSS, HPD, and some private shelter organizations, claiming that they had tried to force her into NYC's shelter system when she sought housing accommodations. The court dismissed tenant's claims against Urban Pathways and other private organizations because they were private parties not subject to claims under 42 USC Section 1983. Tenant had obtained shelter in a  "drop-in" center operated by Urban Pathways. She claimed that Urban Pathways "intentionally and willfully" failed to disclose that the drop-in center was funded by DSS and that, as a result of fraud, she had unknowingly entered the dangerous NYC shelter system. She also claimed that Urban Pathways falsified records concerning her health and defamed her. Later, at another facility, tenant claimed that she was subject to unwanted wellness checks. She also objected to psychiatric exams different housing organizations wanted to perform. The court also dismissed claims against DSS and HPD because an agency of the City of New York isn't an entity that can be sued. And any claims the occupant asserted based on shelter conditions must be dismissed because there was no federal constitutional right to housing, including a shelter system. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Lindsey v. Normet (1972), stated that there was no "constitutional guarantee of access to dwellings of a particular quality." And the government had no "obligation to provide adequate housing." Tenant's allegations about being sent to an undesirable shelter didn't state a federal claim because there is no due process property right to placement in a particular type of shelter under federal law or New York law. However, to the extent that tenant may be trying to assert a discrimination claim under the Fair Housing Act, the court gave her 30 days to amend her complaint.

Jones v. City of New York: Index No. 22-CV-7243, 2022 U.S. Dis. LEXIS 192413, 2022 WL 12020253 (SDNY; 10/17/22; Swain, CDJ)