In the Matter of Marine Holdings, LLC, et al., Respondents,v.New York City Commission on Human Rights, Appellant, et al., Respondent.BriefN.Y.March 27, 2018To beA rg uedby: A VERYS.M EH LM A N (TimeRequested:15M inutes) A PL-2017 -00025 Q ueens 109 51/12 ݱ«®¬ ±º ß°°»¿´ of th e ͬ¿¬» ±º Ò»© DZ®µ I n th eM aterof M A RI N E H O LD I N G S LLC d/b/a M arineTerraceA ssociates, LLC andW EN M A N A G EM EN TC O RP., Petitioners-Respondents, a g ainst N EW YO RK C ITYC O M M I SSI O N O N H UM A N RI G H TS, Respondent-A ppellant, and IREN E PO L ITI S, Respondent. BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS H ERRIC K F EI N STEI N LLP A torneysforPetitioners-Respondents Tw o ParkA v enue N ew York, N ew York10016 Tel.:(212) 59 2-1400 F ax:(212) 59 2-1500 D ateF iled:July14, 2017 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TA B LE O F A UTH O RITI ES ....................................................................................iv C O RPO RA TE D I SC LO SURE STA TEM EN T.........................................................1 C O UN TER-Q UESTI O N PRESEN TED ....................................................................5 STA TEM EN TO F TH E C A SE..................................................................................6 A . ...............................6 B . A ccom m odation W ouldB eB urdensom e..............................................8 C . Th ePolitisesRefuseTo RelocateA ndF ileA C om plaintW ith Th eC om m ission....................................................................................9 D . A StructuralEng ineerC oncludesTh atTh eProposed A ccom m odation IsStructurallyI nfeasible............................................9 E. Th eC om m ission F ailsTo C onductA ProperI nv estig ation A nd I m properlyIssuesA ProbableC auseDeterm ination..........................11 F . Th eO A TH H earing .............................................................................13 i. StructuralEng ineerSaratovskyC onfirm sH isEarlier F inding sI n Th eEG A ReportTh atTh eProposed A ccom m odation IsStructurallyI nfeasible...............................13 ii. h e SubjectPrem isesA ndW asRe-DraftedA tTh e ..........................................................16 iii. A rch itectG iacaloneC onfirm sTh atH eDidN otEv aluate W h eth erTh eProposedA ccom m odation W asStructurally F easible.....................................................................................18 ii G . F ollow ing Th eO A TH H earing ,Th eA LJI ssuesA ReportA nd Recom m endation F inding Th atTh eRequestedA ccom m odation I sStructurallyI nfeasible.....................................................................19 H . -ReasonedReport A ndRecom m endation A ndI m posesA n A rbitraryA nd UnprecedentedD am a g esA ndCiv ilPenaltyA w ard...........................21 I . Th eA rticle7 8 Proceeding A ndDecision O f Th eTrialC ourt............23 J. Th eSecondDepartm entReversesTh eTrialC ourtDecision.............24 A RG UM EN T...........................................................................................................24 PO I N T I TH E SEC O N D D EPA RTM EN TD I D N O T A LTERTH E RULE REG A RD I N G UN D UE H A RDSH I P;RA TH ER, I T A PPL I ED TH E EXI STI N G L A W TO TH E F A C TS O F TH E C A SE A N D C O RREC TLYDETERM I N ED TH A TTH E C O M M I S D EC I SI O N W A S N O TSUPPO RTED B YSUB STA N TI A L EVI D EN C E ...................................................................................................25 I . LEG A L STA N D A RD ...................................................................................25 I I . TH E A PPELLA TE D I VI SI O N C O RREC TLYA PPL I ED TH E EXI STI N G LEG A L STA N D A RD;ITD I D N O TC REA TE A N EW O N E...............................................................................................................27 I I I . TH E O VERW H ELM I N G EVI D EN C E D EM O N STRA TES TH A T TH E PRO PO SED A C C O M M O D A TI O N I S N O TSTRUC TURA LLY F EA SI B LE A N D A M O UN TS TO A N UN DUE H A RDSH I P .....................30 A . StructuralI nfeasibilityIsProof O f UndueH ardsh ip ..........................31 B . Th eTestim onyO f Th eM ostReliableExpert, Structural Eng ineerSaratovsky, C onfirm sTh atTh eProposed A ccom m odation IsStructurallyI nfeasibleA ndTh us C onstitutesA n UndueH ardsh ip..........................................................34 C . Th eEv idencePutF orth B yTh eC om m ission O nlyF urth er Establish esTh eStructuralI nfeasibilityO f Th eProposed A ccom m odation..................................................................................35 iii D . Th eM odification To Th eM ana g em entO fficeIsI ncong ruous To Th eProposedA ccom m odation I n Th eSubjectPrem ises.............36 E. Th eC om m ission I m properlySh iftsItsA rg um entF rom W h eth erTh eC onstruction O f Th eProposedA ccom m odation I m posesA n UndueH ardsh ip To W h eth erTh eC onstruction O f ...............39 PO I N T I I N O TH I N G H A S C H A N G ED W I TH RESPEC TTO TH E DEF EREN C E A C C O RDED TO A D ETERM I N A TI O N O F TH E C O M M I SSI O N ;C O URTS W I LL C O N TI N UE TO DEF ERTO SUC H DETERM I N A TI O N S W H EN ,UN L I K E H ERE,TH EYA RE SUPPO RTED B YSUB STA N TI A L EVI D EN C E ........................................42 C O N C LUSI O N ........................................................................................................45 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Federal Cases B orkow siv.ValleyCent.Sch . D ist., 6 3F .3d131(2dC ir.19 95) (B r. at10)..........................................................32,33 State Cases 2Perlman D rive, LLC v. Stevens, 54M isc.3d1215(A ) (N .Y. C iv . C t.2017 ).........................................................29 300G ram atan A ve. A ssocs. v . StateD iv. of H um an Rig h ts, 45N .Y.2d17 6 ,408 N .Y.S.2d54(19 7 8 )................................................26 ,27 ,43 , .............................26 ,27 ,29 C ong reg ation K 'h alTorath C h aim , I nc. v .RocklandCty. B d. of H ealth , 148 A .D .3d1145,50N .Y.S.3d ..........................................30 Jacobsen v. N .Y.C . H ealth & H osps. C orp., 22N .Y.3d824, 9 8 8 N .Y.S.2d8 6 (2014)............................................................28 RiverbayCorp. v . N .Y.C . Commission on H um an Rig h ts, I ndexN o.26 083/10,2011W L 11554353(Sup. Ct. B ronxCnty. Sept.21, 2011) ...................................................................................................................33 Sch ulm an v . StateD iv. of H uman Rig h ts, .....................................26 ,28 StateD iv. of H uman Rig h tsv. F airw ayA pts. Corp., ,33N .Y.2d754, 350N .Y.S.2d131(19 73)....................................................................................26 Statutes A rticle7 8 of th eN ew YorkCiv ilPracticeLaw andRules.....................................23 N .Y.C . A dm in. C ode§ 8 -102......................................................................31,32,33 N .Y.C . A dm in. C ode§ 8 -107 ..................................................................................31 v N .Y.C . A dm in. C ode§ 8 -123..................................................................................25 Rule500.1(f) ..............................................................................................................1 1 Petitioners-RespondentM arineH olding s, LLC d/b/a M arineTerrace respectfullysubm itth isbrief in opposition of th eRespondent-A ppellantN ew York C ityC om m ission on H um an asfollow s: CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuantto Rule500.1(f) of th eRulesof th isC ourt, Landlordsstate th at:M arineisa N ew Yorklim itedliabilitycom panyw ith itssolem em berbeing Deborah B enjam in. M arineTerraceH olding sLLC isa Delaw arelim itedliability com panyw ith itssolem em berbeing M arine. W en M ana g em entCorp. isa N .Y. Subch apterS Corp. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT m ustbuild a structurally infeasible accom m odation even th oug h th ere w as substantial, uncontradicted ev idenceon th erecord indicating th atto do so w ould causeLandlordsundueh ardsh ip, th eA ppellateDiv ision, SecondDepartm enth eld sh ow ing th atitw ouldbestructurallyinfeasibleto installa h andicappedaccessible 2 to a paradig m sh iftin th e law , requiring th e Com m ission to presentits ow n h olding isnoth ing sh ortof insincere. Underw ell- determ inationsm ustbe substantialevidenceon th erecord considered asa w h ole courtreview ing such determ inationsisch arg edw ith assessing th esubstantialityof erely rebutal of undueh ardsh ip from th eC om m ission. To th econtrary, w h ere, like h ere, th erecord isundisputed -- ev en if th atisth efaultof th eC om m ission for failing to conducta dilig entinvestig ation -- a C ourtsh ould not, and w ill not h esitate to annul th e substantialev idence. 3 w h ich renderth ew indow -to-doorconversion and ram p installation th roug h th e ral stabilityof th eentire com plicationsarising from th eprocessof pin sh oring (a processused to stabilize building sw h en w idening opening sorrem ov ing larg eportionsof w allsfrom th e building ) becauseof g as and utility linesunderth ebuilding , and (iii) risk of sinkag edueto soilexcav ation anddrainag e. B ecauseof th eseissues, if forcedto install th eProposed A ccom m odation, th eLandlordsw ould h av eto displace150 existing tenantsforup to fourm onth sand, in th eprocess, run steelbeam sth roug h th eir apartm ents to sh ore th e structurally w eak building during construction structurally infeasiblenatureof constructing th erequested accom m odation, th e A ppellateDiv ision correctlydeterm inedth atth erew asundueh ardsh ip. O n th e streng th of th e overw h elm ing and undisputed ev idence (notably, th eCom m ission couldh av e, butdidnot, h ireitsow n structuraleng ineer to assessth e proposed accom m odation), th e A LJreach ed th eonly conclusion possible: th at is, th at th e requested accom m odation is not a reasonable accom m odation because itis structurally infeasible and w ould cause undue h ardsh ip upon th eoperation of th efacilityunderth eN YC H um an Rig h tsLaw . 4 Th eC om m ission, notw illing to acceptth ew ell-reasonedfinding sand recom m endations and issued a determ ination th atth e Landlords eng a g ed in unlaw ful discrim ination by failing to prov ide M rs. Politis w ith a reasonable accom m odation. Th e sole basis forth atfinding is th at, notw ith standing th e unrefuted ev idence in th e record th atth e requested accom m odation atM rs. m entw asstructurallyinfeasible, becauseth eLandlordsh adinstalled a ram p th roug h th ebackw indow of th eM ana g em entO fficeata differentbuilding ten yearsearlierand failedto subm itanyev idenceth atth atprojectcausedundue h ardsh ip, th e Landlords did notovercom e an inference th atth e requested accom m odation w asfeasible. B esidesth efactth atth ereisno basisin th elaw for such an inference, th erecord isclearth atth em odification of th em ana g em ent sapartm entareincong ruousandw h eth er ornotth eram p m odification atth em ana g em entofficeim posedan undueh ardsh ip w ouldcausean undueh ardsh ip. Th escopeof judici belim ited, butitisnotillusory, andexistspreciselyto safeg uardag ainstth eabuses of discretion dem onstratedbyth eCom m ission in th iscasebyacting w ith im punity and byrequiring th eLandlordsto install a 5 ram p a g ainstth eadv iceof th eonly structural eng ineerto assessth eproposed constitutesan undueh ardsh ip. B y rubber stam ping finding s, and by enforcing th e disproportionate and unprecedented aw ard of dam a g esand penaltiesag ainstth eLandlords, th etrialcourtabdicated itsjudicial operatew ith unbridledpow er. erexisting leg al and because th ere is substantial ev idence in th e record as a w h ole th atth e requested accom m odation is structurally infeasible (and th erefore financially in COUNTER-QUESTION PRESENTED W h eth erth eA ppellateDiv ision, Second Departm entcorrectlyfound led to establish undue h ardsh ip w asnotsupportedbysubstantialev idencew h ereth econstruction of th e Proposed A ccom m odation in a 70-yearold building m ade of w eak structural 6 m aterial w ould: (i) be structurally infeasible because itw ould jeopardize th e structuralstabilityof th eentirebuilding ;(ii) causeth edisplacem entof num erous tenantsforup to fourm onth s;(iii) destroyallof th eapartm entsin th ebuilding w ith steelpipesh oring to supportth ebuilding ;and (iv ) resultin Landlordsneeding to rebuildth ebuilding from scratch ? STATEMENT OF THE CASE M rs. Politisand h erh usband residein a w alk-up apartm entbuilding located at partof an apartm entcom plexknow n asM arineTerraceth atw asow nedbyM arine andm ana g edbyW en M g t. (R. 311.) Th eirunit, A partm ent , islocatedon th e firstfloorof th ebuilding and can onlybeaccessed byclim bing a sing leflig h tof into th eA partm entaftersuffering a spinal cord injuryin an autom obileaccident th atlefth erdisabledandin perm anentneedof a w h eelch air. (R.28 1-282.) A. ram p atth eSubjectPrem ises. (R. 304;R. 320.) A tth esam etim e, M r. Politis contacted th eCom m ission. O n Septem ber2, 2008 , a C om m ission inv estig ator, foraccessibility accom m odations. (R. 432; R. 8 80.) I nv estig atorTilley is a 7 H um an Rig h tsSpecialistforth eCom m ission, andisnotan arch itectorstructural eng ineer. (R. 430;R. 46 4). I nvestig atorTilleynotedth atth eSubjectPrem isesis a w alk-up building w ith a v erynarrow entranceleading into a narrow h allw ayand stairw ell, w h ich precluded th e construction of a ram p atth e entrance to th e building ,th einstallation of a lift, orth euseof a Stair-Trac. (R.432;R. 8 80.) I nvestig atorTilley, w ith outtaking anym easurem ents, considered th e (R. 305;R. 433;462-463;R. 8 72-8 7 5.) Th einvestig atordidnotascertain w h eth er m odifying th eSubjectPrem isesin th esam efash ion asth eM ana g em entO ffice w ouldcauseundueh ardsh ip. (R. 461;R. 471.) I ndeed, sh ortlyafterv isiting th e SubjectPrem ises, I nvestig atorTilleysenta leteradv ising th ePolit (R. 8 6 9 - 8 7 0.) O n Septem ber10, 2008 , th eC om m ission inform ed W en M g t. th at M H um an Rig h tsLaw . (R. 8 6 7 -8 6 8 .) 8 B. Would Be Burdensome Sh ortlyafterth eC om m ission adv isedth eLandlordsth atM rs. Politis w as entitled to a reasonable accom m odation, th e Landlords eng a g ed Louis G iacalone, an arch itect(nota structural eng ineer), to conducta study of w h at accom m odationscouldbem adeforM rs. Politis. (R. 858 ;R. 373.) W ith outev er v isiting M rs. -6 7 .) I n h isreportdated N ovem ber4, 2008 , M r. G iacalonenoted th atth e to beh andicappedaccessibleatth eti severerestrictionson anyatem ptto added).) I n ev aluating th epotentialforconstructing a ram p th roug h th ew indow in requirew idening th ew indow in a m asonrybuilding , such w or reportbyclaim ing th atM r. G iacalonestatedth atth eproposedaccom m odation w as 9 C. The Politises Refuse To Relocate And File A Complaint With The Commission to oneof tw o accessibleapartm entsth atarecom parablein sizeand rentto th eir currentapartm ent. (R. 9 06 -07 .) W ith outev en v iew ing th ese apartm ents, th e Politisesrefused to relocateand insisted th atth eLandlordsbuild th eProposed A ccom m odation. (R.335-37 .) offer, M r. Tilleyandh issuperv isor, M r. F inkelstein, v isitedth eSubjectPrem isesandadv ised M rs. Politisto filea form al com plaintw ith th eC om m ission. (R. 457 .) Ev en th oug h th eLandlordsneverindicatedto eith erth eCom m ission orM rs. Politisth at th eyintended to build a ram p, M rs. Politisinexplicablyw aited nearlytw o years, untilM arch 17 , 2010, to filea form al com plaintw ith th eCom m ission. (R. 856 - 8 57 ;R.457 -459 .) D. A Structural Engineer Concludes That The Proposed Accommodation Is Structurally Infeasible I n responseto th e filing of th eC om plaint, Landlordsretained th e th e feasibility of constructing th e Proposed A ccom m odation. Despite th e to focusth eCourton th eportion of th efeasibilityreportth at 10 19 ), a full and com pletereading of th ereportclearlysh ow sth atM r. G ennady Saratov sky, PE, a structural eng ineerw ith 30 yearsof experience, prepared a -20.) ssueof concludesth atth eProposedA ccom m odation, w h ich w ouldrequireconverting th e back w indow into a doorin orderto accessth eram p, isnotstructurallyfeasible dueto th e:(i) w eakstructural m aterial of th ebuilding (w h ich ism adeof cinder blocks);(ii) structuralcom plicationsarising from th eprocessof pin sh oring ;and (iii) riskof sinkag eresulting from soilexcav ation anddrainag e. (R. 9 15-20.) M ore w ill potentially jeopardize th e structural stability of th e entire building and com plicated reinforcem entw ill m ostlikely be required in orderto fram e th is opening as w ell as a seriesof inspectionsin orderto observ e and reportth e 9 15-20) (em ph asisadded.) A sa result, M r. Saratov s 11 Th e EG A Reportfurth erconcluded th atin orderto constructth e Proposed A ccom m odation, tem porary sh oring w ould be required and th atth is ditureof tim eand funds, in . 916 .) Th isev acuation periodcouldlastup to fourm onth s. (R. 6 7 0.) I n lig h tof th enum erouscom plexstructuralandsafetyissuesposedby building a ram p atth eSubjectPrem ises, th e EG A Reportconcluded th atth e ProposedA ccom m odation isstructurallyinfeasible. (R. 915-20;R. 6 7 6 -7 7 .) E. The Commission Fails To Conduct A Proper Investigation And Improperly Issues A Probable Cause Determination Upon receiv ing th e EG A Report, and w ith outany additional inv estig ation, on January 26 , 2011, th e C om m ission issued a Probable C ause F ebruary1, 2011. (R. 9 29 -30.) clearly articulated th atth e proposed ram p w as tech nically and structurally C auseDeterm ination. 12 A fterth eC om m ission issued itsProbableC auseDeterm ination, it retainedM r. Leon G eoxav ier, an arch itect(notstructuraleng ineer) th en em ployed th esh apeof tw o leters: Th efirst, a onepag e, M arch 9 , 2011leter, isbasedon th esitevisitof new door O n A pril28 , 2011, M r. G eoxav iersubm ited anoth erleter, th istim e . 9 02.) I n ev iden itan [sic]accreditedlaboratoryforcom pressivestreng th testing . W ew ould th en h av ean objectivedeterm ination reg arding th eactualstreng th of th em aterialsin 13 land surv ey, utility m ap of th e site and soil testing data from a g eotech nical inform ation asto w h eth erth eProposedA ccom m odation w asstructurallyfeasible. ease note th atour role atth is tim e is intentionallylim itedand, asindicatedabov e, additionalanalysisandinform ation is F. The OATH Hearing Th eO A TH H earing tookplaceov erfourdays-- A ug ust1, 2, 4and 10, 2011 -- and included 27 exh ibits and th e testim ony of eig h tw itnesses, including th reeexperts. Th eCom m ission presentedth etestim onyof C om m ission em ployeesRobertTilleyandTedF inkelstein, W en M g t. em ployeeK ev in W inters, arch itectLouisG iacalone, and itsexpertw itness, arch itectLeon G eoxav ier. Th e Landlords presented th e testim ony of its expert, structural eng ineer G ennady Saratov sky. (R. 8 33.) i. Structural Engineer Saratovsky Confirms His Earlier Findings In The EGA Report That The Proposed Accommodation Is Structurally Infeasible. Th eCom m ission contendsth atatth eO ath H earing , th eLandlords Th esolebasisforth atcontention isth enotesof a callbetw een I nvestig atorTilley 14 B utth erew asno such piv oting . Th eEG A Reportexpanded on th estructural infeasibility of th e Proposed A ccom m odation, and also noted th e financial infeasibility of th e proposed accom m odation. (R. 915-20.) Th eC om m ission no disputeth atth ecostof th ea D uring th e O A TH H earing , M r. Saratovsky testified aboutth e structuralinfeasibilityof th eProposed A ccom m odation. M r. Saratov skytestified th at: th e building w alls are m ade of cinder block, w h ich is poundspersquareinch ascom paredto a concreteblockw h ich can h oldup to 400poundspersquareinch (R. 6 53); th e Proposed A ccom m odation w ould inv olve rem ov ing a w indow andputing in a door(R. 654); in orderto createth eProposed A ccom m odation, you w ould h av eto rem ov ecinderblocksto turn th ew indow into a door from th is, orone 6 59 ); asa result, in orderto perform th ew ork, sh oring w ould be required, w h ich itself requiresa specialfoundation (R. 6 6 0-64); w h ich causesth esh oring to bedang erous(R. 6 65); 15 th esh oring w ouldobstructa fireexitin th ebasem ent(R. 6 6 5); th e corridorin th e building , m onth s(R. 6 6 7 ); under eith er sh oring scenario, ev acuation of th e adjacent apartm entsandth eapartm entsabov ew ouldbenecessaryforup to fourm onth s(R. 6 6 8 -6 7 0); th ew ork nd 6 7 6 ); 7 06 -7 07 ); a ram p couldcausesurch arg eto th eexisting w allon th eSubject Prem ises, m eaning th elateralforceof th eram p couldcrackand dam a g eth ew alls(R. 6 7 8 ). A sa resultof th eforeg oing , M r. Saratovskyconcluded th atth eProposed A ccom m odation w asnotfeasible. (R. 6 7 6 -6 7 7 .) teh ow long [ittook to install th eram p atth em ana g em ent office], h ow m uch itcost, or w h eth er th e building w as ev acuated during earlier, w asnotperform ed byEG A oranyof itsem ployees. (B r. at20.) I n any ev ent, M r. Saratovskytestifiedth atth eram p into th ew indow of th em ana g em ent th esam esinceth edistancebetw een th edoorand sidew alk in th em ana g em ent 16 officew as14inch esandth edistancebetw een th eproposeddoorandsidew alkin Saratov skytestifiedth atth erew asno g aslineinterferencebelow th em ana g em ent of -8 9 .) H eknew th isbecauseh e lookedunderneath th em ana g em entofficeandobserv eda craw lspaceth ath adno g asorelectrical linesin it. (R. 6 8 7 .) F urth er, M r. Saratov skytestified th atth e w indow th atw asconv ertedinto a doorw ayatth em ana g em entofficedidnotneed to bew idened. (R. 6 8 6 .) expert, M r. G eoxav ier, th e w indow atth eSubjectPrem isesw ould need to be w idenedbetw een oneto tw o feet. (R. 659 -6 0;6 8 9 ;R. 57 8 .) ii. Was Based On And Was Re- conceded th ath is leters, couch ed as expertreports, w ere based m erely on a A pril28 ,2011tookM r. G eoxav ierlessth an oneh ourto com plete. (R.564.) Th is factalone, alth oug h disconcerting , w as furth er com pounded w h en, during cross-exam ination, M r. G eoxav ierw asforced to adm it, w h en faced w ith a seriesof em ailsfrom th eCom m ission,th ath isinitialreport(R. 851) w asre- drafted atth edirection of th eCom m iss 17 specificsof th erequested accom m odation. (R. 549 -551;R. 852;R. 8 9 6 -8 9 7 .) I n xav iernev eropined w ith respectto th especific accom m odation requested -- th erem ov alof a portion of th e outdoorw allof th eapartm entcom plex,in orderto installa new doorw ay. M oreov er, alth oug h M r. G eoxav ier testified th atth e sh oring h e env isionedto constructth eProposedA ccom m odation couldbesetup andrem ov ed in a sing leday(R. 526 ), h ealso conceded th at:(1) h eh ad no basisforknow ing w h eth erth em aterialcom prising th eSubjectPrem isesw asw eak(R. 571);(2) h e consulted w ith a structuraleng ineeraboutth isproject(R.581);(4) w idening th e w indow to installth edoorandram p isnecessary(R. 57 7 -57 8 );(5) th eprocessof w idening th ew indow couldth eoreticallyleadto som eform of building collapseor dam a g e(R. 581);and (6 ) surch arg ecreated byth eram p w ould adv erselyim pact th estabilityof th ebuilding . (R.58 6 -58 8 .) Th eCom m ission also took th etestim onyof Com m ission em ployee F inkelstein w h o th oug h tth em odification to th eSubjectPrem isesto install th e -27 7 .) F inkelstein isneith eran arch itectnora structuraleng ineer, h ow ev er. (R.27 8 -27 9 .) 18 iii. Architect Giacalone Confirms That He Did Not Evaluate Whether The Proposed Accommodation Was Structurally Feasible Th eC om m ission also called LouisG iacalone, th earch itectw h o h ad prepared a reportin N ov em ber2008 w h ich concludedth atalth oug h th eProposed m odifying th e SubjectPrem ises causing th e construction of th e Proposed -6 2.) M r. G iacalonetestified th ath isreportlooked onlyatw h eth erth ere w asspaceto build a ram p;h edidnotev aluatew h eth erth eram p w asstructurally feasible. (R. 370-72;R. 380-8 1.) I ndeed, ev aluating th estructural feasibilityof eng ineerto ev aluatew idening th eopening , rem ov ing partof th eload-bearing w all, accom m odatea doorandallof th econstruction to sup -73.) I ndeed, a structuraleng ineerw ouldneedto bebroug h tin to ev aluateth eim pactof -storybuilding , w h ich requiresa lotof reason M r. G iacalonew ould 19 ch itectdid not g iv eh im a licenseto practicestructuraleng ineering . (R.37 9 .) A dditionally, andconsistentw ith th etestim onyof structuraleng ineer Saratov sky, M r. G iacalonealso testifiedth atrem ov ing anypieceof a loadbearing w all, asw ould benecessary to createth eProposed A ccom m odation, adv ersely affectsth ecapacityof th erem aining w allto carryth eload. (R.375-37 6 .) G. Following The OATH Hearing, The ALJ Issues A Report And Recommendation Finding That The Requested Accommodation Is Structurally Infeasible B ased upon th eov erw h elm ing ev idenced adduced atth eh earing , on N ov em ber25, 2011, th eA LJissueda th oroug h andw ell-reasoned24-pag eReport Politisbyth eirfailureto prov ideth e[ProposedA ccom m odation], becauseitw ould structuraleng ineer, M r. Saratovsky, w h om th eA LJfound structural eng ineering . . . [and] h is testim ony sufficientto prove th atitis structurallyinfeasibleto builda ram Th eA LJalso tooknoteof th efactth atth eCom m ission could h a v e, butdid not, puton itsow n structuraleng ineer. (R. 840.) 20 Th e A LJ also considered th e expertev idence offered by th e C om m ission in supportof itscontention th atth eProposed A ccom m odation isa g laring im balancebetw een th eexperttestim onyproffered byth eC om m ission th roug h its arch itect, M r. G eoxav ier and th atw h ich w as proffered by th e Landlords th roug h th eirstructuraleng ineer, M r. Saratovsky. Ev en puting aside feasibility rendering h isopinion, th elackof data collection, and th em inim aleffortputinto O n th isbasis, th eA LJconcludedth atLandlordsh adm etth eirburden of establish ing undueh ardsh ip byprov ing th atth eproposedram p w asstructurally infeasible: [T]h erew asno disputeth atth em ain entrancecould not be reasonably m odified to accom m odate com plainant. Th e question is w h eth eritis reasonable to create an alternative entrance by cuting th roug h a load bearing exteriorw all and I find th at, on th estreng th of th eir expertevidence, [Landlords] proved itis structurally infeasibleto do so. structuraleng ineer. I th ereforefindth at[Landlords]did notdiscrim inateag ainstM rs. Politisbyth eirfailureto 21 prov ideth erequested accom m odation, becauseitw ould createan undueh ardsh ip to do so. (R. 8 45) (em ph asisadded.) neig h borsareG reek-speakers, th e H. -Reasoned Report And Recommendation And Imposes An Arbitrary And Unprecedented Damages And Civil Penalty Award O n A pril 24, 2012, th eCom m ission -- despiteconfirm ing th atth e arch itectureexpert(R. 45, n.5) -- eA LJdidnotproperlyapply decision m isch aracterized testim ony, atem pted to underm ine and ig nore key factual finding sm adeby th eA LJ, and erroneously alleg ed th atth eLandlords failed to prov idecertain ev idence, w h en in fact, th erecord clearlydem onstrated oth erw ise. Th edecision isalso based on an errorof la w , asth eC om m ission 22 m eetth eirburden of prov ing undueh ardsh ip becauseth eproposed w indow -to- th eoretically possible, notw ith standing th e uncontrov erted expert testim ony reg arding th e safety risks, structural infeasibility and financial burdens w h ich w ouldresultfrom th einstallation of th eProposedA ccom m odation. M oreov er, in itsdecision, th eC om m ission im properlyclaim ed th at th econstruction of a ram p atth eM ana g em entO ffice(in a differentbuilding , in a differentlocation) created an inference th atth e Proposed A ccom m odation is feasible atth e SubjectPrem ises. (R. 45.) I n so doing , th e Com m ission disreg arded entirelyth euncontrov erted record ev idenceof th ecritical structural differencesbetw een th etw o locationsand th ereasonsw h yth econstruction of a ram p atth eM ana g em entO fficeisnotcom parableto installing a sim ilarram p at th eSubjectPrem ises. Th eC om m ission also foundth atth eA LJcom m itederrorin analyzing th e reasonableness of th e alternativ e accom m odations th at th e (R.48 .) H a v ing foundth atth eLandlordseng a g edin unlaw fuldiscrim ination, th eCom m ission determ ined th atitw asunnecessaryto rem and th em aterto th e A LJfora furth erh earing , and sua sponte, a w arded M rs. Politiscom pensatory dam a g esform entalang uish in th eam ountof $7 5,000, im posed a civ ilpenaltyof 23 $125,000ag ainstth eLandlords, andorderedth eLandlordsto installa w h eelch air w indow into a doorw ayandinstalling a ram p. (R. 58 .) N otably, th eim position of th atth e Landlords retaliated ag ainstM rs. Politis by installing v ideo cam eras outsideof h erapartm ent, even th oug h th eCom m ission expresslyacknow ledg ed th eycannotbeh eldliablefora ch arg eof w h ich th eydidnoth av enoticeandcould I. The Article 78 Proceeding And Decision Of The Trial Court O n M ay23, 2012, th eLandlordsfileda petition forjudicialrev iew in th eSuprem eC ourt, pursuantto section § 8 -123of th eA dm inistrativ eCodeof th e C ityof N ew Yorkand A rticle7 8 of th eN ew YorkC iv ilPracticeLaw andRules, orderdenying th epetition and enforcing itsA pril 24 Decision. O n M arch 14, 2013, th etrial court(Sam pson, J.) issued a M em orandum and Decision denying tion and enforcing th eA pril24Decision in allrespects, exceptth atth ecom pensatoryaw ard 24 J. The Second Department Reverses The Trial Court Decision O n O ctober6 , 2014, Landlordsperfected th eirappeal of th eTrial C ourtDecision. O n M arch 30, 2016 , th eA ppellateDiv ision, SecondDepartm ent, did notcontain anysubstantial ev idencerebuting th e[th eLa th atitw ouldbestructurallyinfeasibleto installa h andicappedaccessibleentrance -7 8 .) A ccording ly, th eA ppellateDiv ision n g rantedin its ARGUMENT B yitsA ppealto th eC ourtof A ppeals,th eC om m ission arg uesth at:(i) th eA ppellateDecision form ulated a new rulerequiring th eCom m ission to rebut A ppellateDecision im p finding s and determ ination. F orth ereasonsth atfollow , th ose arg um entsare dising enuousatbest;th eA ppellateDiv ision correctly applied th elaw and, by doing so, lentinteg rity to th e judicial rev iew process of ensuring th atth e C om m ission doesnotoperatew ith unbridledpow er. 25 POINT I THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DID NOT ALTER THE RULE REGARDING UNDUE HARDSHIP; RATHER, IT APPLIED THE EXISTING LAW TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND CORRECTLY DETERMINED THAT THE CO WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE G rossly m isch aracterizing th e A ppellateDecision, w h ich h eld th at sh ow ing th atitw ouldbestructurallyinfeasibleto installa h andicappedaccessible A ppellate Decision h as created a paradig m sh iftin th e law , requiring th e im of undueh ardsh ip. (R.137 8 .) F arfrom an alteration of th eexisting leg al standard, th eA ppellate Div ision enforced th eexisting la w , rath erth an altered it, and in th eprocesslent credibilityto th ejudicialrev iew processbyensuring th atth eCom m ission doesnot operatein an arbitraryandcapriciousm anner. I. Legal Standard A lth oug h th e Com m ission can disag ree w ith and reject th e recom m endation of an A dm inistrativ e Law Judg e, such a decision m ustbe A dm in. C ode§ 8 - 26 finding s can, and sh ould, be v acated. C oncord Villag e O w ners v. N ew York finding sw erenotsupported byth eev idencein th erecord);seealso Sch ulman v. StateD iv. of H um an Rig h ts 19 9 7 ) (h olding th substantial ev idence); StateD iv. of H uman Rig h tsv. F airw ay A pts. Corp., 39 , 33 N .Y.2d 754, 350 N .Y.S.2d131(19 73) (h olding th atfinding sof th eStateDiv ision of H um an Rig h ts antial ev idence w h en th eproof isso substantialth atfrom itan inferenceof th eexistenceof th efact 300 G ram atan A ve. A ssocs. v . StateD iv. of H um an Rig h ts, 45 N .Y.2d 17 6 , 180, 408 N .Y.S.2d 54, 56 (19 7 8 ) (citations om it reasonable m ind m ay acceptas adequate to supporta conclusion orultim ate fact. . . [itis] [m ]arked by itssubstance itssolid natureand ability to inspire confidence, substantial ev idence does notrise from bare surm ise, conjecture, 27 300G ram atan A ve. A ssocs. v . StateD iv. of H um an Rig h ts, 45N .Y.2d17 6 ,180,408 N .Y.S.2d54,56 (19 7 8 ) (citationsom ited). th eev idenceupon w h ich an adm inistrativeag encyh asactedexercisesa g enuinejudicialfunction anddoesnot 300 G ram atan A ve. A ssocs. rtm ustbe C oncord Villag e O w ners, 19 9 A .D .2dat38 9 , 6 05N .Y.S.2dat315. II. The Appellate Division Correctly Applied The Existing Legal Standard; It Did Not Create A New One. Th eC om m ission dising enuouslyassertsth atth eA ppellateDecision is a sea ch ang ein th eexisting la w and now putsth eonuson th eCom m ission to presentitsow n ev identiarycaserebuting th esubstantialev idencesubm itedbyth e Landlords. (B r. 36 -44.) Th atisnotw h atth eA ppellateDecision h oldsorim plies, th e record did not be structurally infeasible to install a h andicapped accessible entrance to th e on th e record as a w h ole; rath er, th e ev idence on th e record clearly and 28 undisputedlysh ow ed th atth eProposed A ccom m odation w ould im posean undue h ardsh ip on th eLandlord. Th ecaselaw cited in th eA ppellateDecision confirm sth atw h atth e C om m ission com plainsof isactuallyth elaw .1 F or exam ple, in M ater of Sch ulm an, 239 A .D .2d at59 0, 6 58 N .Y.S.2d 72, th eCom m ission found th atth epetitionerdentisth ad discrim inated ag ainstcom plainantbecauseh ew asknow n to beinfectedw ith H I V. Th eSecond Departm entconcluded th atth edentistputforth substantial ev idenceth ath eh ad notdiscrim inated ag ainstth ecom plainantbecausein h ism edicaljudg m ent, a fter perform ing a com pleteoralexam ination, th ecom plainanturg entlyneeded a root canaland a h ospitalw asth eonlyplaceh ecouldim m ediatelyg etth atdone. Th e Second Departm entspecificallynoted th atth eC om m ission did notpresentany m edical judg m entin adv ising th ecom plainantto seek im m ediatetreatm entin a h ospital seting w as inappropriate or m ed 1 Th einappositecasecited byth eC om m ission atpag e9 of th eirB rief -- Jacobsen v. N .Y.C . H ealth & H osps. C orp., 22N .Y.3d 8 24, 8 35, 9 8 8 N .Y.S.2d 8 6 , 9 4(2014) -- doesnotconcern ev idence;rath er, th iscaseinv olv esa directclaim broug h tby a com plainantunderth eN YC H um an Rig h tsLaw a g ainstan alleg edw rong doer. 29 Likew ise, in C oncord Villag e O w ners, 19 9 A .D .2d at38 9 , 6 05 N .Y.S.2d at315, th e C om m ission determ ined th atth e com plainants w ere discrim inated ag ainstbecause th eir application to purch ase an apartm entw as denied since th ey w ere unm arried. Th e ev idence putforth by th e landlord, h ow ev er, clearlysh ow ed th atth ecom plainantsw ererejected solelybecauseth ey w erenotfinanciallyqualified to purch aseth esubjectapartm ent. I n h olding th at based on th eirerroneousassum ptionsth atth esubjectapartm entw assold to a m arriedcouple. I n oth erw ords, th eCom m ission didnotputforth anyev idenceof follow if itw as required to rebutundue h ardsh ip claim s in reasonable accom m odation casesisw h ollyunjustified and h asnotcom eto pass. (B r. at31.) I n 2 Perlman D rive, LLC v. Stevens, th eC ourt, citing th eA ppellateDecision, th atitw ouldbeinfeasibleto utilizea lessrestrictivem eansto accom plish th eg oal, 2Perlman D rive, LLC v. Stevens, 54 M isc. 3d 1215(A ) (N .Y. C iv . C t. 2017 ). I n oth erw ords, th eC ourtlooksatth e 30 record asa w h ole;itdoesnoteng a g ein a burden sh ifting testasth eC om m ission unjustifiably fears w ould be th e resultof th e A ppellate Decision. See also C ong reg ation K 'h al Torath C h aim , I nc. v . Rockland Cty. B d. of H ealth , 148 assem bledbyth epetitionerdoesnotincludeth eh earing transcript, th uspreventing th isCourtfrom w eig h ing th equalityand quantityof th eproof and rendering it unable to determ ine w h eth er th e ch alleng ed determ ination w as supported by bysubstantialev idenceandarearbitraryandcapricious. I ndeed, th eCom m ission h ad every opportunity to putforth any ev idence, if itin factexisted, th atth e Proposed A ccom m odation w asfeasible, yetitfailed to do so. A ccording ly, th e C ourtof A ppealssh ouldnotdisturb th ereasonedfinding of th eA ppellateDiv ision. III. The Overwhelming Evidence Demonstrates That The Proposed Accommodation Is Not Structurally Feasible And Amounts To An Undue Hardship B ased on th eirrefutableev idencepresented atth eh earing beforeth e A LJ, including th e testim ony of a structural eng ineer, w h o tim e and a g ain explained th ecom plexnatureof th eProposed A ccom m odation and th erisksit w ouldposeto th estructuralinteg rityof th eapartm entbuilding , asw ellasth erisks to th oseliv ing in th eneig h bo 31 Landlordsto undertakesuch dang erous, unsafe and perilousw ork can bebest sum m edup asirrational, arbitrary, capricious, andan abuseof discretion. Th ereis nota scintilla of ev idence in th e record th atcould reasonably supportth e conclusion of th e C om m ission. A ccording ly, th is Courtsh ould deny th e w h en arbitraryandcapricious. A. Structural Infeasibility Is Proof Of Undue Hardship Th e A ppellate Decision is in line w ith w ell-establish ed law th at structural infeasibility of a proposed accom m odation constitutes an undue h ardsh ip, andisth usnotim posedon a landlord. Underth eH um an Rig h tsLaw , a person w ith a disabilityto satisfyth eessentialrequisitesof a job orenjoyth erig h t orrig h tsin question prov ided th atth edisabilityisknow n orsh ould h av ebeen -107 (15)(a ). A -102(18 ). Th ecov eredentityh asth eburden of prov ing undueh ardsh ip. I d. 32 Undersection 8 -102(18 ), th efactorsto beconsidered in m aking a determ ination of undueh ardsh ip include, w ith outlim itation,th efollow ing : (a ) th enatureandcostof th eaccommodations; (b) th eoverallfinancialresourcesof th efacilityorth e facilities inv olved in th e prov ision of th e reasonableaccom m odation;th enum berof persons em ployed atsuch facility;th eeffecton expenses and resources; or th e impactoth erw ise of such accommodation upon th eoperation of th efacility; (c) th e overall financial resources of th e cov ered entity;th eov erallsizeof th ebusinessof a cov ered entityw ith respectto th enum berof itsem ployees, th enum ber, type, andlocation of itsfacilities;and (d) th etypeof operation oroperationsof th ecov ered entity, including th e com position, structure, and functions of th e w orkforce of such entity; th e g eog raph ic separateness, adm inistrative, orfiscal relationsh ip of th efacilityorfacilitiesin question to th ecoveredentity. N .Y.C . A dm in. C ode§ 8 -102(18 ) (underscoreem ph asisadded). A lth oug h , asth e an accom m odation andth eim pa factora C ourtm ayconsider. em ploym entdiscrim ination caseof B orkow siv. ValleyC ent. Sch . D ist., 6 3 F .3d 131, 139 , 143(2dC ir. 19 9 5) (B r. at10) actuallyprov esth epointth atth ereism ore to an undueh ardsh ip th an financialdifficulty. I ndeed, in carrying itsburden of 33 -sensebalancing of th ecostsandbenefitsin lig h tof th efactors I d. at140. I f th eem ployercan carryth isburden, it w ill h av esh ow n both th atth eh ardsh ip caused byth eproposed accom m odation w ouldconstitutean undueh ardsh ip in lig h tof th eenum eratedfactors, andth atth e I d. at139 . Th e th ew ord;itrequireslooking atth ecosts/benefitsth roug h th elensof th erelev ant reg ulation -- h ere, N .Y.C . A dm in. C ode§ 8 -102(18 ) -- and th en perform ing th e cost/benefitanalysis. Th us, if a proposedaccom m odation isstructurallyinfeasibleorw ouldcause substantialproblem sto oth ersin th RiverbayCorp. v . N .Y.C . C ommission on H uman Rig h ts, I ndexN o. 2608 3/10, 2011 W L 11554353 (Sup. C t. B ronx C nty. Sept. 21, 2011), as h ere, th e C om m ission interpreted th eH um an Rig h tsLaw asinstituting a requirem entth at h ousing prov idersprov ideaccessibilityunlessdoing so createsan undueh ardsh ip orisarch itecturallyinfeasible. 34 B. The Testimony Of The Most Reliable Expert, Structural Engineer Saratovsky, Confirms That The Proposed Accommodation Is Structurally Infeasible And Thus Constitutes An Undue Hardship M r. G erard Saratovsky-- th eonlystructuraleng ineerto inspectand assessth efeasibilityof th eProposedA ccom m odation -- andth eexpertfoundto be m ostcrediblebyth eA LJandth eC om m ission (R. 45n.5) -- determ inedth atth ere alof an outerload bearing w all of th e apartm entbuilding , as required to create th e Proposed A ccom m odation. Sig nificantly, M r. Saratovskytestifiedth at: C inderblockcrum bleseasily(R. 6 54.) Rem ov ing oneblockcould lead to collapseof oth ers(R. 658 - 6 59 .) N eedlesh oring w ouldbeonerousanddang erousdueto th eg as -6 6 5.) Th erew asno onepieceof w allth atisnotusedin th estructural capacity of th ew all -- th usrem ov ing any pieceof th ew all adv erselyaffectsth ecapacityof th erem aining w all(R. 6 6 0.) Th erew ould bea necessaryth reeto four-m onth ev acuation of (R. 6 6 8 -6 7 0.) Th e Proposed A ccom m odation w ould require deconstructing th e apartm entbuilding w alls and reconstructing ostensibly a new building (R. 6 7 6 -6 7 7 .) A ccording ly, M r. Saratov sky concluded th at th e Proposed A ccom m odation w asstructurallyinfeasible. (R. 6 7 6 -7 7 .) 35 C. The Evidence Put Forth By The Commission Only Further Establishes The Structural Infeasibility Of The Proposed Accommodation. Th e m inim al ev idence putforth by th e C om m ission atth e A LJ h earing doesnoth ing to disprov eth esubstantialev idenceof undueh ardsh ip put tisnotknow n asth istim eif th eexisting w indow roug h opening isw ideenoug h to accom m odate th enew H C accessibledoor. I f not, th eexisting h eaderw ill h a v eto berem ov ed and replaced. Th ese are m asonry building s and such h eaderreplacem entm ay becom e conducting anyw orkitm ustbedeterm inedif th ew allsof th eapartm entbuilding on itor w h eth eradditionalstructuralenh ancem entsh av eto bedoneto th ew allin orderto w h eth erth em aterialcom prising th ew allsof th eSubjectPrem isesw asw eak. (R. 571.) A nd w h en asked w h eth ersuch a determ ination w asw ith in h isscopeof an 36 supportforth e A ccom m odation w asstructurallyfeasible. F orth isreason alone, th isC ourtsh ould -foundeddecision. D. The Modification To The Management Office Is Incongruous To The Proposed Accommodation In The Subject Premises Recog nizing th atth eyfailedto subm itanyev idenceth atth eProposed A ccom m odation w as structurally feasible, th e Com m ission instead resorts to atem pting to establish th elackof undueh ardsh ip th roug h th ealleg ed absenceof ev idence. Th e Com m ission arg ues th atbecause a ram p w as installed in th e M ana g em entO fficein anoth erbuilding of th eapartm entcom plexa decadeearlier tion is ev identfrom th efactth atth esesam elandlordsh a vedoneth everysam ew orkin b th atLandlordsfailedto establish undueburden becauseth eC om m ission: [Landlords] w ererequiredto rebutth atinference. Th us, itw as incum bentupon [th e Landlords] to prov ide ev idence concerning th e condition of th e m ana g em ent 37 building , andth eim pact, if any, th atth einstallation of th e doorandram p h adon itsstructure. [Landlord]offeredno findsth at[th eLandlords] failed to rebutth einference th atth e[SubjectPrem ises]couldbem odifiedin th esam e -47 .) (em ph asisadded.) (orpotentially any building ) w asableto m odify a building in som efash ion, a landlordw illh av eto subm itdispositiveproof th atth eunrelatedprojectim posedan undueh ardsh ip on th eow nerof th ebuilding . Th ereisno basisin th elaw , and noneiscited, forth atsupposedinferencew h ich unjustlyraisesth ebarev en h ig h er forlandlords. Ev en if th erew as a basisin th elaw forth e abov einference, th e Landlords h a v e subm ited substantial unrefuted ev idence th atth e Proposed A ccom m odation and th em odification in th em ana g em entofficeareincong ruous and th ereforeincom parable. Th eCom m ission sim plych oosesto ig noreth atfact th econstruction doneatth em ana g em entofficebuilding w asoverly (B r. at39 .) Th e com plexity of th e construction atth e m ana g em entoffice is irrelev antbecauseof th eincong ruitybetw een th etw o m odifications. th atth ew indow th atw asconv ertedinto a doorw ayatth em ana g em entofficedid 38 notneed to bew idened. (R. 6 8 6 .) I n stark contrast, and asconfirm ed by th e needto bew idenedbetw een oneto tw o feet. (R. 57 8 .) I n fact, th ew idening of th e w indow atth e SubjectPrem ises w ould necessitate th e use of pin sh oring to safeg uard ag ainstdisassem blyorcollapseof partof th eexisting w allorbuilding . (R. 57 7 .) B ut, th ebasem entbelow th eM ana g em entO fficedoesnotcontain th e sam eintricateseriesof g asorelectrical pipes, orany boilers, w h ich w ould interferew ith th eprocessof pin sh oring th atarepresentatth eSubjectPrem ises. (R. 6 8 7 -6 8 8 .) I nstead, th espacebelow th eM ana g em entO fficeissim plyfour allow s forpin sh oring th atw asneeded to safely expand th e w indow into a doorw ayatth eM ana g em entO ffice. (R. 6 8 7 -6 8 8 .) A dditionally, th eram p atth eM ana g em entO fficeand th eram p for th eProposed A ccom m odation aretotallydifferent. Th edistancebetw een th e doorandth esidew alkin th eM ana g em entO fficew as14inch esandth edistance betw een th e doorof th e Proposed A ccom m odation and th e sidew alk atth e SubjectPrem isesisup to fourfeet. (R. 7 15.) A sa resultof th eforeg oing , com paring th eProposedA ccom m odation to th eram p atth em ana g em entofficeisa w orth lessapplesto orang escom parison 39 th ath asno im pacton w h eth erth eLandlordsw ould sufferan undueh ardsh ip in constructing th eProposedA ccom m odation. E. The Commission Improperly Shifts Its Argument From Whether The Construction Of The Proposed Accommodation Imposes An Undue Hardship To Whether The Construction Of The Proposed h a v enotm etth eirburden of proof. (B r. at2;23;37 -38 .) N ow h eredoesM r. Saratov sky concede th atth e w ork could be done; rath er, a fter testifying in painstaking detailth atth eProposedA ccom m odation w asstructurallyinfeasible-- th e building w alls are m ade of cinder block, w h ich is poundspersquareinch ascom paredto a concreteblockw h ich can h oldup to 400poundspersquareinch (R. 6 53); th e Proposed A ccom m odation w ould inv olv e rem ov ing a w indow andputing in a door(R. 654); in orderto createth eProposed A ccom m odation, you w ould h av eto rem ov ecinderblocksto turn th ew indow into a door onedom ino 6 59 ); asa result, in orderto perform th ew ork, sh oring w ould be required, w h ich itself requiresa specialfoundation (R. 6 6 0-64); asa g asline, w h ich causesth esh oring to bedang erous(R. 6 65); 40 th esh oring w ouldobstructa fireexitin th ebasem ent(R. 6 6 5); m onth s(R. 6 6 7 ); under eith er sh oring scenario, ev acuation of th e adjacent apartm entsandth eapartm entsabov ew ouldbenecessaryforup to fourm onth s(R. 6 6 8 -6 7 0); th ew ork 6 7 6 ); 7 06 -7 07 ); a ram p couldcausesurch arg eto th eexisting w allon th eSubject Prem ises, m eaning th elateralforceof th eram p couldcrackand dam a g eth ew alls(R. 6 7 8 ); -- in response to a question about w h eth er constructing th e Proposed A ccom m odation w asth eoreticallypossible, M r. Saratovskystatedth atitw as. (R. 7 19 -21.) O f course, anyth ing i know , th atis notth e standard th e Landlords need to ov ercom e. I ndeed, th e C om m ission h as conceded th ata landlord need notsh ow th ata requested accom m odation isarch itecturallyorstructurallyim possibleto constructin orderto m eetitsburden of prov ing undueh ardsh ip. (R. 44- structuralfeasibilityof prov iding accessto a h ousing accom m odation isatissue, a cov ered entity need notsh ow th atprov iding a requested accom m odation is arch itecturallyorstructurallyimpossibleto perform , in orderto m eetitsburden of 41 Proposed A ccom m odation w ouldim posean undueh ardsh ip underth eN ew York C ityH um an Rig h tsLaw . A sth eLandlordsh a veestablish ed th atth eProposed Reg ardless of th e financial costof constructing th e Proposed A ccom m odation, th econstruction w ould, in th eprocess:(i) displaceadjacentand v ertical neig h borsfrom th eirh om esforup to fourm onth s(R. 6 6 8 , R. 6 7 0);(ii) outerw alls th ebuilding (R. 6 6 6 -6 7 ;6 7 5-6 7 6 );(iii) causeth ebuilding to possiblybedestroyed (R. 581, R. 6 59 , R. 9 16 );(iv ) resultin Landlordsh a v ing . 6 7 6 );(iv ) putth esafetyof th ecom m unityw ould beatstakeif g aslinesw ereruptured. (R. 6 6 5.) Th us, ev en if th eProposedA ccom m odation w as th eoretically possibleatsom eastronom ical cost, th eCourtw ould still h a v eto consider under th e H um an Rig h ts Law th e im pact oth erw ise of such accom m odation upon th eoperation of th efacilityand th ereasonablenessof th e 42 im pactof th eProposed A ccom m odation on th ebuilding and adjacentandv ertical tenantsisastronom icalin andof itself.2 substantialev idence, andth edecision of th eA ppellateDiv ision m ustbeuph eld. POINT II NOTHING HAS CHANGED WITH RESPECT TO THE DEFERENCE ACCORDED TO A DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION; COURTS WILL CONTINUE TO DEFER TO SUCH DETERMINATIONS WHEN, UNLIKE HERE, THEY ARE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE deference, th eC om m ission doesnot asith asdoneh ere h avecarteblanch eto disreg ard w ith im punityth esubstantialev idencein fa v orof itsow n preconceiv ed decision. Rath er, underw ell- and a courtreview ing such determ inations is ch arg ed w ith assessing th e ourtrev iew ing th e substantiality of th eev idence upon w h ich an adm inistrativ e ag ency h as acted exercisesa g enuinejudicialfunction anddoesnotconfirm a determ ination sim ply 2 I n ov erturning th edecision of th eSuprem eC ourt, th eA ppellateDiv ision obv iouslyrev ersed th eaw ardof dam a g esg rantedbyth eC om m ission (andreducedbyth eSuprem eC ourt). F orth e sam ereasonsth atth eProposed A ccom m odation isinfeasible, th isC ourtsh ould uph old th e 43 300G ram atan A ve. A ssocs., 45N .Y.2d at181,408 N .Y.S.2dat57 . H ere, th eA ppellateDiv ision correctlyconcluded th atth etrial court unlaw ful discrim ination by failing to prov ide M rs. Politis w ith th e Proposed A ccom in th isreg ardnotsupportedbysubstantialev idencein th erecord;itw asdirectlyat oddsw ith th eev idencepresented atth efour-dayh earing beforeth eA LJ, andth e conclusionsreach edbyth eA LJbasedon such ev idence, w h ich dem onstratesth at th eProposed A ccom m odation isstructurally infeasibleand w ould causeundue h ardsh ip. Specifically, th e undisputed ev idence presented atth e h earing by including th e(i) w eakstructuralm aterialof th ebuilding , (ii) com plicationsarising from th e process of pin sh oring (a process used to stabilize building s w h en w idening opening sorrem ov ing larg eportionsof w allsfrom th ebuilding ), and(iii) risk of sinkag e due to soil excav ation and drainag e. F orth ese reasons, th e Proposed A ccom m odation w ould be h azardous and com plex, and w ould 44 necessitate th e disruption of critical utilities to th e building and tem porary streng th of th eoverw h elm ing and undisputedev idence, th eA LJreach edth eonly conclusion possible: th atis, th atth erequested w indow -to-doorconversion and ram p installation isnota reasonable accom m odation becauseitisstructurally infeasibleandw ouldcauseundueh ardsh ip. Th eC om m ission, notw illing to acceptth ew ell-reasonedfinding sand recom m endationsand issued a determ ination th atLandlordseng a g ed in unlaw ful discrim ination byfailing to prov ideM rs. Politisw ith a reasonableaccom m odation. To addinsultto injury, th eC om m ission, w ith outrem anding th ecasefora h earing asto dam a g es, sua sponte, issued an aw ard of dam a g esand penaltiesag ainst Landlordstotaling $200,000 oneof th elarg estaw ardson record. belim ited, butitisnotillusory, andexistspreciselyto safeg uardag ainstth eabuses of discretion dem onstratedbyth eCom m ission in th iscasebyacting w ith im punity ram p a g ainstth eadv iceof th eonly structural eng ineerto assessth eProposed Accommodation. By any measure, this is not a "reasonable" accommodation and constitutes an undue hardship. By rubber stamping the Commission's arbitrary and capnc10us findings, and by enforcing the disproportionate and unprecedented award of damages and penalties against the Landlords, the trial court abdicated its judicial function. Accordingly, the Appellate Division's reversal of the Trial Court Decision was proper. Rather than introducing a new standard, the Appellate Division's ruling lends integrity and credence to the established judicial review process. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, the Court of Appeals should uphold the decision of the Appellate Division in its entirety. Dated: New York, New York July 14, 2017 Respectfully submitted, HE~~CK, FEINSTEIN LLP ( { ', "'·, ' --------7 By: ··~~ A ve'!W1;Mehlm~ J onatfran··.~. Adler Scott C. ,Eloss 2 Park A venue New York, New York 10016 Tel: 212-592-1400 Attorneys for Landlords 45 NEW YORK STATE COURT OF APPEALS CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I h erebycertifyth atpursuantto 22N YC RR500.1(j) th atth eforeg oing brief w as preparedon a com puterusing M icrosoftW ord2010. Type. A proportionallyspacedtypefacew asused, asfollow s: N am eof typeface: Tim esN ew Rom an Pointsize: 14 Linespacing : D ouble W ordCount. Th etotalnum berof w ordsin th isbrief, inclusiveof pointh eading s and footnotesand exclusiv eof pa g escontaining th etableof contents, tableof citations, proof of serv ice, certificate of com pliance, corporate disclosure statem ent, questions presented, statem entof related cases, or any auth orized addendum containing statutes,rules,reg ulations,etc., is10,17 4w ords. D ated: N ew York, N ew York July14,2017 A v eryS. M eh lm an H errick, F einstein LLP A torneysforLandlords 2ParkA v enue N ew York, N ew York10016 Tel:212-592-1400