## Facts

- Crestwood Lake Apartments was a privately owned apartment complex in Yonkers, New York, owned and managed by the defendants.
- Two Black tenants with children, living in a heavily minority, high-poverty area of southwest Yonkers, sought to rent apartments at Crestwood Lake to move to a less segregated area.
- Both plaintiffs held federal Section 8 housing assistance vouchers; one also received child support income.
- Plaintiffs challenged two rental screening practices: (1) refusing to consider applicants who used Section 8 assistance, and (2) requiring applicant income of at least three times the monthly rent.
- Bronson’s application was rejected and Carter was not accepted (placed on a waiting list with expressed doubts), allegedly due to these practices.
- Plaintiffs asserted the practices disproportionately excluded Black and Hispanic households and perpetuated segregation in Yonkers, despite Section 8 payments and other assurances that could secure rent payment.
- Plaintiffs filed a proposed class action under the Fair Housing Act and moved for a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the challenged practices while the case proceeded.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs showed irreparable harm absent injunctive relief from the challenged rental practices.
2. Whether plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success (or serious questions plus hardships tipping decidedly in their favor) that the practices violated the Fair Housing Act under a disparate-impact theory.
3. Whether defendants’ asserted business justifications were sufficient, and whether less discriminatory alternatives could achieve legitimate objectives.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The court found plaintiffs made a strong showing (at least serious questions) that the Section 8 refusal and three-times-rent rule caused a substantial disparate impact on minority applicants.
- The court concluded defendants’ stated justifications (ability-to-pay and administrative concerns) were weakened by inconsistent explanations and evidence suggesting unequal application.
- The court found less discriminatory options existed (e.g., considering voucher payments, third-party guarantees, and individualized assessment).
- The court held plaintiffs faced irreparable harm from the loss of fair housing opportunities and the reinforcement of segregation patterns.
- The balance of hardships and the public interest favored requiring nondiscriminatory evaluation of plaintiffs’ applications.
- The injunction required defendants to process plaintiffs’ applications without applying a categorical Section 8 bar or an inflexible three-times-rent income requirement.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Fair Housing Act, a plaintiff may establish a prima facie violation by showing a facially neutral housing practice disproportionately and adversely affects a protected class.
- After a prima facie disparate impact showing, the defendant must articulate a legitimate, bona fide, nondiscriminatory justification for the challenged practice.
- Even if a justification is offered, liability may remain where the plaintiff shows the legitimate objective can be served by a less discriminatory alternative.
- A preliminary injunction requires irreparable harm and either (a) likelihood of success on the merits or (b) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits with hardships tipping decidedly toward the movant.
- Loss of fair housing opportunity and ongoing exclusion from integrated housing options may constitute irreparable harm not adequately remedied by damages.

## Conclusion

The court preliminarily enjoined Crestwood Lake’s use of a categorical Section 8 refusal and a rigid income-to-rent screening rule against the plaintiffs, finding a strong showing that the practices unlawfully burdened minority applicants under a Fair Housing Act disparate-impact framework and that immediate relief was warranted to prevent irreparable harm.


Bronson v. Crestwood Lake Section 1 Holding Corp., 724 F. Supp. 148 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)