Arthur v. Starrett City Associates Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Proposed Settlement

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------- x
MARIO ARTHUR, HAROLD DEPASS, ANN LONG, :
JOSEPH PERCIVAL, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated :

Plaintiffs, :
DIANE HERNDON, individually and on behalf :
of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff-Intervenor,
79 Civ. 3096 (ERN)

- against -

STARRETT CITY ASSOCIATES, STARRETT CITY, 
INC., DELMAR MANAGEMENT COMPANY, and 
YVONNE SCRUGGS-LEFTWICH, Commissioner, State 
of New York, Division of Housing and 
Community Renewal,

Defendants.
-----------------------------------------x
PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
KARENE ANN FREEMAN 
Open Housing Center, Inc. 
150 Fifth Avenue 
New York, New York 10001 
(212) 989-7346
LAWRENCE GROSBERG 
KENNETH KIMERLING 
Columbia Law School 
Fair Housing Clinic 
435 West 116th Street 
New York, New York 10027 
(212) 280-5525
JAMES I. MEYERSON 
351 Broadway
New York, New York 10013 
(212) 226-3310
THOMAS I. ATKINS 
CHARLES E. CARTER 
N.A.A.C.P.
186 Remsen Street 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 
(212) 858-0880

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS



I.
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

Plaintiffs submit this Memorandum of Law in support of the settlement 
voluntarily reached by the parties in this case. As explained more fully below, 
the settlement should be approved by the Court because it (1) was reached after 
fair, full, adversarial negotiations, (2) provides substantial benefits to the 
plaintiff class, (3) has not been objected to by the members of the plaintiff 

class, and (4) is a fair resolution of issues which are unsettled in the law.
On December 5, 1979, the plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit in which 

they alleged that the tenant selection practices utilized by Starrett City 
Associates, Starrett City, Inc., and Delmar Management Company (the "Starrett 
Defendants"*) and supported by the Commissioner of the New York State Division 
of Housing and Community Renewal ("the State Defendant"**) discriminated against 
them on the basis of race in violation of federal and state law.

The Plaintiffs are five black individuals who had applied for and were 
found eligible for apartments at Starrett City and who had been placed on a 
waiting list. The class, as certified by the Court in an Order dated June 22, 
1983, consists of all blacks on the waiting list for apartments at 
Starrett City.

After the institution of this litigation, the parties engaged in extensive
discovery and in extended negotiations resulting, ultimately, in the proposed
settlement. The settlement negotiations, as the Court is aware, extended
*The Starrett Defendants are: Starrett City Associates, a limited partnership 
that owns Starrett City; Starrett City, Inc., a general partner of Starrett City 
Associates; and Delmar Management Company, the managing agent for Starrett City.
**The State Defendant is the Commissioner of the New York State Division of 
Housing and Community Renewal. The New York State Division of Housing and 
Community Renewal supervises rental and cooperatively-owned housing projects in 
New York City, including Starrett City, pursuant to Articles II and IV of the 
Private Housing Finance Law of the State of New York.

1



up to the time the trial was scheduled to begin. In fact, the parties appeared 
in Court ready to begin the trial while settlement negotiations were still in 
progress. With the Court's indulgence, the parties adjourned to a room in the 
courthouse and labored for several hours, in order to iron out remaining 
difficulties, conflicts and controversies; and, ultimately, the trial was again 
adjourned and the settlement achieved.

II.
ARGUMENT

A. The Settlement was Reached After
Substantial Discovery and Negotiations
At the threshhold, the Court must evaluate the fairness and adequacy of the 

settlement by analyzing the process through which it was reached. Among the 
factors to be considered are: the arm's length negotiation among the parties; 
the experience of counsel for the plaintiff class; the sufficiency of the 
discovery undertaken prior to the negotiation of the proposed settlement and the 
terms of the ultimate agreement. See Ross v. Saltmarsh, 500 F. Supp.
935, 943 (S.D.N.Y. 1980). Using these standards, the Court must find that the
agreement passes scrutiny for ultimate approval.

Settlement negotiations were protracted and adversarial. The resulting 
agreement reflects the strength of the interests of each of the parties.
Counsel for the plaintiff class include experienced civil rights attorneys 
affiliated with major civil rights organizations. Extensive discovery was 
undertaken by all parties, including the exchange of documents, the taking over 
of twenty depositions of party and non-party witnesses, and the engagement of 
experts in the fields of urban planning, sociology, and psychology.

2



The stage at which a settlement was reached is also relevant. In Armstrong
v. Board of School Directors, 616 F.2d 305, 325 (7th Cir. 1980), the Court said,
"The stage of the proceedings at which settlement is reached is important
because it indicates how fully the district court and counsel are able to
evaluate the merits of plaintiffs' claims."
B. The Proposed Settlement Agreement

Provides Substantial Benefits to the Class
The fairness of the proposed settlement must be measured in substantial 

part by what it provides to the members of the plaintiff class. The plaintiffs, 
as representatives of a class, and their counsel were particularly aware of 
their responsibilities to the class members and, throughout the settlement 
negotiation, were continuously pressing for terms designed to bring substantial 
benefits to the members of the class on whose behalf they were prosecuting this 

litigation.
Plaintiffs and their counsel believe that, by the terms of the proposed 

settlement, they have achieved for the class substantial relief by increasing 
housing opportunities for class members in the Starrett City development and 

throughout the City of New York.
The proposed settlement provides for class members increased opportunities 

for housing units in Starrett City and preferences for DHCR-supervised housing 
units throughout the City of New York through affirmative actions of the 
Defendant Commissioner to increase the number of minorities in housing projects 
currently occupied almost exclusively by whites.

The benefit to the plaintiff class cannot be measured by the 
individual terms of the proposed settlement agreement viewed in isolation. 

Rather, the entire agreement must be viewed as a whole. Viewing the



agreement in its entirety, it is readily apparent that the plaintiffs have 
achieved a valuable resolution to the litigation, and this Court should 
conclude that the proposed settlement provides the plaintiff class 
substantial benefits both within Starrett City from the Starrett Defendants 
and outside of Starrett City within other DHCR-sponsored developments in 
the City of New York.

C. Class Members Have Not Objected
to the Proposed Settlement_____

Over nine thousand notices of the proposed settlement were sent to class 
members. Approximately five letters of comment from class members have been 
submitted to the Court. These comments, however, do not object to the proposed 
settlement. Rather, the individual class members who have commented have merely 
sought to bring to the Court's attention their individual housing needs. Such 
comments do not rise to the level of objections. Therefore, they should not 
stand as a barrier to the Court's approval of the proposed settlement.

Even if the letters received from the plaintiff class members were 
considered objections to the proposed settlement, the virtual absence of 
significant opposition to the agreement is a factor that the Court should 
consider favoring approval of the document. See City of Detroit v. 
Grinnell Corp,, 495 F. 2d 448, 462 (2nd Cir. 1974); Ross v. Saltmar sh, 500 
F. Supp. 935, 943 (S.D.N.Y. 1980); Ingram v. Madison Square Garden Center,
Inc., 482 F. Supp. 426, 428 (S.D.N.Y. 1979); George v. Parry, 77 F.R.D. 421. 424 
(S.D.N.Y. 1978); McGray v. Beatty, 64 F.R.D. 107, 110, (D.N.J. 1974).

In Ross v. Saltmarsh, 500 F. Supp. 935, the Court held that the small 
number of objectors to the proposed settlement in the context of all other 

circumstances, created a strong presumption of fairness. Here, out of 9,000

4



notices, five letters of comment have been submitted to the Court by members of 
the plaintiff class. For all intent and purposes, therefore, there have been no 
objections from the members of the plaintiff class. A presumption of fairness 
of the settlement has therefore been created.
D. The Comments of the United States Department of Justice

Do Not Question the Fairness and Adequacy of the Settlement
Although the Justice Department has sought leave to file comments related 

to the proposed settlement, it does not seek to have the proposed settlement 
rejected. The Justice Department does not even address the adequacy and 
fairness of the terms of the proposed settlement to the plaintiff 
class. Accordingly, the Justice Department's comments do not prevent the 
adoption by the Court of the agreement in full with all of its terms intact.

While the Justice Department requests that a portion of the settlement 
agreement be deleted or clarified, there is no need for either deletion or 
clarification. Paragraph 31, to which the Justice Department makes reference, 
is an integral part of the negotiated settlement. Paragraph 31 asserts that the 
parties agree that the legality of the issue raised by the litigation is not 
being resolved; and that no party concedes the legality or the illegality of the 
Starrett City practices. Paragraph 31 must be read in conjunction with Paragraph 
14 in which the parties agree that the Court is not making any findings related 
to the legality or illegality of the Starrett City rental practices.

In substance, the parties agree that the status quo at Starrett City 
may (but is not required to) continue, subject to other conditions and terms set 
forth in the agreement such as the increase in the number of units for
black tenants.



The Court is not being asked to direct anything illegal. In fact, there is 
nothing in Paragraph 31 which requires the Court by approving the decree to 
direct anything, legal or illegal. The Justice Department, in its comments, has 
requested that this point be clarified. Paragraph 31 and Paragraph 14, read 
together, are clear on their face. Therefore, this Court should abide by the 
Circuit admonition that "the district court judge should not take it upon 
himself to modify the terms of a proposed settlement decree." Plummer v. 
Chemical Bank, 668, F. 2d 654, 655 (2nd Cir. 1982). See also Armstrong 
v. Board of School Directors, 616 F.2d 305, 315 (7th Cir. 1980).
E. The Adequacy of the Proposed Settlement Must be Measured

Against the Degree to Which the Law is Unsettled_____
While plaintiffs' counsel believe that there is strong precedent to support 

plaintiffs' position that the defendants' practices are illegal, the ultimate 
resolution of the legal issue raised by this litigation was and remains 
unsettled. See, e.g., Parent Association of Andrew Jackson High School 
v. Ambach, 598 F. 2d. 705 (2nd Cir. 1979), Burney v. Housing 
Authority of the County of Beaver, 551 F.Supp. 746 (W.D. Pa. 1982), Otero 
v. New York City Housing Authority, 484 F. 2d 1122 (2d Cir. 1973), Regents 
of the University of California v. Baklce, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), Fullilove 
v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 (1980), United Steel Workers of America 
v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 (1979). See also pre-trial memoranda of the parties. 
Therefore, compromise through settlement is appropriate, particularly in view of 
the substantial benefits the proposed settlement will bring to the plaintiff 
class.

The resolution of disputes by means of "negotiation, conciliation and 
compromise is particularly appropriate" in Title VIII litigation addressing fair

6



housing issues under the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Williamsburg Fair Housing 
Committee v. Hew York City Housing Authority, 450 F. Supp. 602, 605 
(S.D.N.Y. 1978). See also Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. v. Village of 
Arlington Heights, 469 F. Supp. 836, 845-847 (N.D. 111. 1979), Aff 1 d, 616 F. 2d 
1006, (7th Cir. 1980). It is appropriate for the parties, as in Williamsburg, 
to prefer a compromise to achieve a desired end. Such a compromise is 
particularly appropriate where there are complex and multiple factual and legal 
issues and where the legal issues are unresolved and open to debate as to their 
ultimate resolution.

While the proposed settlement clearly leaves open the legal issues raised 
by the litigation, this is permissible since the ultimate legal questions are 
unsettled. Certainly, in light of the state of the law, there is nothing in the

*
proposed settlement which "authorizes the continuation of clearly illegal 
conduct"; therefore, this Court is not required and "should not in effect try 
the case by deciding unsettled legal questions." Robertson v. National 
Basketball Association, 556 F. 2nd 683, 686 (2nd Cir. 1977). See 

also Armstrong v. Board of School Directors, 616 F.2d 305 (7th Cir. 1980) 
which adhered to the principle that while a settlement must be rejected it if 
sanctions "clearly illegal conduct," unsettled legal questions must not be 
decided. The Court stated, "Before a settlement may be rejected because it 
authorizes a clearly illegal or unconstitutional practice, prior judicial 
decisions must have found that practice to be illegal or unconstitutional as a 
general rule." 616 F.2d at 321.

In this case, the parties have specifically agreed that the legal issues 
raised by the litigation will not be resolved. In consideration for the

ii *■ '
|
i.

7



decision by the plaintiffs to forego the ultimate resolution of the legality of 
the quota, the plaintiff class has secured specific and substantial benefits 
including additional units for blacks at Starrett City and preferences for 
blacks on the Starrett City waiting list at other DHCR-supervised housing 
developments in the City of New York.

Plaintiffs believe that by this settlement, the heart of the relief being 
sought by the plaintiff class has been achieved and a resolution of a clearly 
unsettled question of law is besides the point. Certainly, there can be no doubt 
that members of the plaintiff class have greater access to housing previously 
restricted to them, than they did at the time of the commencement of the 
litigation.

By comparing the rights sought to be vindicated by the plaintiffs at the 
commencement of the litigation with the benefits being gained by the plaintiff 
class through the proposed settlement, all in the context of the unsettled state 
of the law, the only conclusion that can be arrived at, in assessing the 
fairness of the proposed settlement, is that the settlement is a valuable 
resolution of the litigation which should be approved by the Court in its 
entirety.

III.
CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs respectfully request that this 
Court approve and so order the proposed Stipulation of Settlement and Consent 
Decree.

Dated: New York, New York
July 13, 1984



V

Respectfully submitted.

New York, New York 10001 
(212) 989-7346
LAWRENCE GROSBERG 
KENNETH KIMERLING 
Columbia Law School 
Fair Housing Clinic 
435 West 116th Street 
New York, New York 10027 
(212) 280-5525
JAMES I. MEYERSON 
351 Broadway
New York, New York 10013 
(212) 226-3310
THOMAS I. ATKINS 
CHARLES £. CARTER 
N.A.A.C.P.
186 Remsen Street 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 
(212) 858-0880
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

S

*



V M ' J :  STA'.TS DISTFICT COUP? 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEK YORK

MAFIC ARTHUR, HA?OLD DEPASS, ANN :
LONG, ar.d JOSEPH FF PCIYAL,
individually and on behalf of all :
others similarly si tuated,

Plaintiffs,
DIANE HERNDON, individually ar.d on 
behalf of all others similarly 
s i tuated,

79 Civ. 3C96 
(ERN)

ST A.?-RET 7 CITY ASSOCIATES, STARRED! 
CITY, INC., DFLMAR MANAGEMENT 
CONPANY and YYCNNE SCRYGGS- 
’ ErTNICH, Corr.i s s i oner , State of 
New Y’ork Division of Housing and 
C or r u n i t y Re r. e w a 1 ,

Plaintiff-Intervener,

-acainst-

t s .

NENOFANDYN OF MAN CF DEFENDANT 
STATE COMMISSIONER IN SUPPORT 
OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

ROBERT ABRAMS 
Attorney General of the 
State of New York 

Att orr.ey for Defendant 
State Comri s si or.er 

Office & P.0. Addr-.ss 
Two ’World Trade Center 
New York, New Y 
Tel. No. (212)

FPFPERICK K. MEHLMAN 
STEPHEN K. JACOEY 
Assistant Attorneys General 
of Counsel



n 
in

y  z- S 7 F ? N
E S PI STRICT CC VPT 

•'i K lC r  OF NEW YORK

“ - L t •“r.pp nr C C ’ v >’retS, :
nd JOSEPH PEPC1V
v a 11y and on hah alf cf all :
similarly s i t u a tad,

Fla inti f f s*
DIANE HERNDON, individually and on 
behalf of all others similarly 
situated,

P 1 a i n t i f f -1 rt c-r ven or , 
-again st-

TAPPETT CITY ASSOCIATES, STAF.PETT 
IT Y , INC., D? I!-'.A P MAN A 0 E X L N T 

COMPANY and YVONNE SC PUGGS- 
:,Er TWICE , Cor mi ssior.c-r, State of 
i;e v Yor k Division of Hon sing and 
C o r.\r u n itv Ren oval ,

Defenderts.

9 Civ. 3096 
(E?N)

s ha'.re c
ions and

MEXvF.ANPVX OF EAV." OE D E: : N; A .
s t a g e  coxy: s s : o n e ? i n  sur-r-cp'
OF THE ?:-CPCSFD Sr.TIT EXENT

C -  C* 6* C Z a P C C t- •„ c  ̂C-

adversarial negotiations and have signed a settlerr.e-.t 

which, has teen jointly submitted tc this Court for ar

Scruggs-: e: tvich ro start f u.': ly 

that the proposed settlement should he approved pursu 

Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defend; ocmmission



F l a i n t i f r r- ~ 1 - ^  V . E f ir .  c i .'n c n  o  I -' i  s r .  a r  i  c r  s  r p. s  w h. o  h

e c t o  b e c o m e t c - r  a : ■*, s  a t S  t  v r r  e  1 1 C i t  y  > £ 5 , 8 r- 1 -

n g p r o j e c t  i n B r o o k  1 y  n , y, ,  • n e t y e  t b c - e n o f  f e  r e d

r. . c- n t s ,  c o r n e r . c e d  t h i s  c l a s s a c t  i o r . c n  D e  l e m b e r  5 ,

They.alleged that tenant selection practices usc-d at Starrett 
City unlawfully discririrated acainst them on the basis of
ra ce. 'he defendants are the owner anc manager c c c *■ - rrett
City anc the Conrr-issioner of the New York State Division of 
Housing and Community Renewal ( " D H C ? . " ) . *  Defendants denied

: ncany i1 legality ar.d as sort ed their practices were law ful
r.eee ssarv to r. air.tain r a c i a 1 i n teg ration at Starrett Ci
J u n e 22, 1583, the Di strict Court cert i fied the p1 a int i
c^ass.

For nearly a decade, this desirable, largely sr f- 
ccntc.ir.ee project has served ar. integrated tenant population. 
The present population is approximately 16% minority by 
apartment units (45% minority by population). Yore than 
three-cuarters of the minoritv tenants are Plack or Hispanic.
As set forth in the Stipulation of Sett ler. e.nt, C t. c r h 

* 'O 1 CD

("Find ings of Fact"), Starrett City, suppc rlei by the LHC? ,
control led t er. ant selection cr. the ba sis of raCO i p. crder to
maintain such integration.

* Starrett City, as state-subsidized Mitchel1-Lama housing, i 
subject to supervision by the Commissioner pursuant to the Nev: 
York Private Housing Finance Lav;.

- 2 -



c.

7ho S 11 ! cr c_nt
Luring discovery arc trial pr eg. a re t i on , the parties 

cor. rcec settlement no got rations which, ended in the joint 
submission of the proposed settlement. The Court signed a 
proposed cider to notify the class of the settlement and of the 
opportunity to submit comments ar.d appear at a hearing. , 
Pursuant to that order, Starrett City mailed notices to the 
plaintiff class and members of the class have had ample 
opportunity to comment. The order set a hearing fcr July 17,
19 c 4 .

The settlement combines an increase in the number cf 
Elack ar.c Hispanic tenants at Starrett. City (without reducing 
the numbers cf other minorities) with the establishment of a 
concerted program by the LHiCR tc open minority access to 
DHCP.--sup-erv i sed family projects in New York City in which 
minorities presently occupy less than 2C* cf the units 
("covered projects"). A multistage administrative procedure 
will encourage voluntary programs and provide for careful 
investigation of projects' past actions tc determine whether,

ser.ee cf vol ur.t a r v measures, tbe Cc-nm.i ssicner : ir.
direct appro or i a v e cc r rec t i'-c- steps. Spocifi c or.
a s ur es will be des ior.eh to r-rcvide' ad c i 1 1 c n a 1 y c uaccess

opportunities to minorities, particularly members of plaintiff 
class.

-3-



-C.

ARGUMENT

THE ?Cf FD Hr TO'I FMHRT SHCV.Z ? E
r. X' x' *_ v r.D ,
A propcsc-d settlement of a class action "carries... 

its cwn presumption of regularity arc is subject to sporovsl 
by the trial court after hearing preferred objections."
Met r oro l_i ta_n_ He. us in a Deve 1 or r. e n t_ C ore. v . Vi_l I age o f _A r 1 i n o t on 
Hei gh t s , 616 F . 2d 1CG 6 , 1013 t — th C i r. 1 ? ? C ) , reh ’ g ard rc-h'o 
en banc denied, ibid.

Here, the few comments received raise r.c substantia'
ok ject icr.s.

Five nerbers of the class ask for individual
assistance in getting an a pa r tr e-r. t o
status on the Starrett !i St . C ViCr Of

information on their

letter postmarked June 20, 13 S 4) is already in Starrett City, 
in a "crossly overcrowded" arartrent in a Senior Citizens 
building with her mother arc her son. She objects to the 
acre e ir c r. t he cause, frcir. her point of view, the or portur.i t y to 
aoolv for other housing developments under the PHCR cre.u access
r rocram "sou r.cs as if they would rather os r u s to- cc someplarc-
c-lse. . II She is not required tc rove b y t h r- s hitler e r. t ;
additic na3 ly , her whole family may he er s i 11ed to priority
internal transfer at Starrett City to relieve the "cver- 
occupancv." See NYCRR 9 1727-1. 3 (a).

4-



c

* ml

d d i t i or. to co­rents c-f class mere
J u s t i c e ir 0 V C- 5 to file a t e t u a 1
Justice t- -rent's cor.r e r.t s dc
iz ness, rc a s ona b 1 e n c s s , a d e mu a c y

t as 'amicus
ov r ;a_e,  

e c d r e s:

the se ■ t Ic-mort. These comments co net raise an obstacle to 
approval of the sett ler.ent as agreed to by the parties. ,

After detailed discovery (including numerous 
depositions, ir.anv documents, and experts' reports), the

wa s re ach e i vcl ur.tari ly by the parties as the result
ed / ext e r.c i • e, intense and a c verserial react i at icr.s .
ar e rep r o sc-:■ted V •. - 4- *■ r,z rey s w ith ex per ier.ee in

civil rights and her:sing discrimination litigation, including 
attorneys from the M A C ?  and the Cpon Housing Center.
Defendant Commissioner, a state government official, is 
represented by the Attorney fer.eral of rhe- State of Ucv York, 
an. elected state gcvc-rr.rert official. The Ccm.ri s sicr.er entered 
into the settlement after corsiceration of her legal 
obligations, including the constitutional and statutory duty to 
"act affirmatively to achieve integration in bcusinc" subject 
to her supervision. See Otero v. hew York City KcjusJr.c

O . *5 \ . C ■- V' *"* *- T •

I r

' ,.i V r vi f”
i"~j- ; ‘S'1 _i_r_-L ' t y Ae- i'. r c ii ;■ 2 , 113 3 12d Cz r . i o ~

most cr. Kf u si r. c
---------- -u. Aut horitv, : C 3 F. P u p p . c.cp. V- C ,

* The only comir;unicat ion from the Department received by 
counsel for the State Commissioner was the motion papers mailed 
to counsel and received or. July 2 , 1984 .

-5-



■ C.

1981); Fanhs v. ?c-_rk, 341 F.Sv.:p. 1175, 1:~8, 1182 (N.D. C'rio 
E.D. 1 972), aff’d in part, rc-v'd in part, 473 F. 2c 910 (8th 
Ci r . 1 97 3) .

"The lav; Generally favors ar.d c-r courages 
s et 11 ement s . n Metropolitan Hcusir.c_ Development Corp. v.
Villece of Arlington Heights, supra, at 2013-1014. The policy 
applies to Title VIII of the Civil Fights Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. § 3601 et sec.), the "Fair Housing Act." Id.;
v:i 1 1 iamshurg F air Her, si ng Committee v . Hey_V o r k City Hoo s i_nc
Authoritv, 450 F.Supp. 602, 6C6 (SDHY 19"c).

It is unnecessary for this Court tc inquire into "the 
precise legal rights of the consenting parties" id.; the Court 
"need only deteririne that the settlement is fair, adequate, 
reasonable and appropriate under the particular facts [,] that
there has )■ t; cr r* va lid consent by the CO

[Citations cmi tted 1 , " Met rcp-c 1 i t an Ho
v. Village c f A. r 1 i net on Feichts, sup ra

A. s soc., 556
meets those

r*-'J.

not "clearly illegal." Fcjtertson v. Mattera 1 Haphetbs 1_1 
Assoc., 556 F .2d 682 , 6 8 6 ( 2d Cir. 19 7 7 ). This sett lorent 

-use requirements for approval.
This settlement coir Lines an increase in miner 5 tv 

tenancy at Starrett City with a program by DHCP no open up 
other state-subsidized Mitchel1-Lama projects to minorities.
The result will be to increase the number of integrated 
projects supervised by the DHCP.. The program at other projects

- 6-



"is intended, in part, to decrease the rinority demand for 
apartments at Starrett City by opening up ether apartments 
previously unavailable to the plaintiff class and othc-r 
minorities." Stipulation, S! 30. The pregrain should thereby 
"reduce the waiting tires for the plaintiff class and other 
rinority applicants at Starrett City." Id.

Thus, the settlement improves the defendants' 
response to the housing needs of the plaintiff class in a 
context that advances the coal of integration throughout 
state-supervised Kitchel1-Lara housing in New York City. The 
PhiCR program encourages voluntary pa rt i ci pa t ion , by, and 
provides safeguards for, ether projects which may become 
subject to it. The integration objectives of that program are 
based on what the parties agreed may reasonably be achieved in 
stable projects, taking into account the very slow rate of 
apartment turnover in New York City.*

Not only is this settlement r.ct "clearly illegal", 
but, indeed, it will promote "open, integrated residential 
housing patterns," a goal of Title VIII; Ctero v. New York City 
Housing Authority, 464 F .2d supra, at 1124. Moreover the 
settlement is consistent with the intended reach of the Act "to 
replace the ghettos 'by truly integrated and balanced living 
patterns.' [114 Cong. Rec.] at 3422. [Senator Mondale],"
Tra f f i cante v. Metropolitan Life Ins., 409 U.S. 205, 211 
(1972), and with the state's constitutional obligation to

* The Justice Department, in its proposed comment, pp. 3-4 
and 6, refers to the Commissioner's program but does not 
challenge it.

-7-
f