Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

MHANY Management, Inc. v. County of Nassau

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
819 F.3d 581 (2016)


Facts

Garden City had no affordable housing and a relatively low minority population. Nassau County (defendant) put two properties in Garden City up for sale. Nassau County proposed to zone the properties as multi-family residential group (R-M). Many Garden City residents objected, citing concerns about increased traffic, their desire to retain the “character” of single-family housing, and the consequences of introducing affordable housing. In response, Garden City proposed and quickly adopted a new, residential-townhouse (R-T) zoning category. Nassau County solicited proposals to purchase the properties, including a minimum bid. MHANY Management, Inc. (MHANY) (plaintiff) concluded that, given the minimum bid, it would be financially impossible to build affordable housing on R-T land. After the land was sold to another company, MHANY prepared four proposals outlining what it could have provided under the original R-M zoning. Each proposal contained at least 15 percent affordable housing. MHANY brought suit, alleging that Nassau County’s change to R-T zoning violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA), because it effectuated disparate treatment and disparately impacted minorities. At trial, MHANY presented expert testimony that under its four proposals, the likely renter pool would have been 18 to 32 percent minority. Under the accepted R-T zoning bid, the expert predicted that only three to six minority households could afford to purchase a single-family home. Nassau County claimed the zoning decision was made to prevent increased traffic and overcrowded schools. The district court found for MHANY. Nassau County appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Pooler, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.