OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff Roque De La Fuente brings housing discrimination claims against the Sherry-Netherland, Inc. (the “Sherry”), a cooperative housing corporation, and the individual members of its Board of Directors (collectively, “defendants”). Specifically, De La Fuente alleges that defendants rejected his application to purchase a cooperative apartment in the Fifth Avenue building operated by the Sherry board because he is Mexican-American. These claims arise under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. §3601 et seq., the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §1982, New York Executive Law (“NYSHRL”) §296(5)(a)(2), New York City Administrative Code (“NYCHRL”) §8-107(5), and New York Civil Rights Law (“NYCRL”) §19-a, respectively.De La Fuente originally brought public accommodation and housing discrimination claims under both a disparate treatment and a disparate impact theory. On November 3, 2017, in a bench ruling, the Court dismissed De La Fuente’s First Amended Complaint, without prejudice to his right to file an amended complaint. Dkt. 37 (“Nov. 3, 2017 Hr’g Tr.”). On November 28, 2017, De La Fuente filed a second amended complaint. Dkt. 41 (“SAC”). On March 27, 2018, the Court dismissed the disparate impact and public accommodation claims in De La Fuente’s SAC but sustained the remaining claims. See De La Fuente v. The Sherry Netherland, Inc., No. 17 Civ. 4759 (PAE), 2018 WL 1597649 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2018).Pending now are defendants’ motion for summary judgment and motion to strike certain declarations filed by De La Fuente in opposition to the summary judgment motion. For the following reasons, the Court grants defendants’ motion to strike in part and defendants’ motion for summary judgment in its entirety.I. BackgroundA. Factual Background11. The PartiesDe La Fuente is a United States-born businessman of Mexican-American heritage. Def. 56.1
1-2. De La Fuente states that he has a net worth in excess of $50 million. Roque Decl. 75. De La Fuente has verbally assigned a portion of his claims in this action to Rey Olsen, who initially told De La Fuente that an apartment was available at the Sherry and who works with De La Fuente’s lead counsel, Frederick Cains, Esq. Def. 56.1 3; Def. Mem. at 3.The Sherry is a cooperative housing corporation organized under New York law and located at 781 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. Def. 56.1 9. The remaining defendants — Howard M. Lorber, Michael J. Horvitz, Wendy Carduner, Mary McInnis Boies, Ira A. Lipman, Dr. Marjorie Fisher Furman, Frederic M. Seegal, Arnold S. Gumowitz, and Edward L. Gardner — are current or former members of the Sherry’s Board of Directors. Id. 10. Michael J. Horvitz served as President of the Sherry’s Board of Directors during the relevant period. Id. 11.2. The Application ProcessA prospective shareholder of the Sherry must first enter into a sales contract with a current shareholder seeking to sell a unit. Id. 14. The prospective shareholder then submits a “board package,” which includes, inter alia, “the application, a copy of the sale contract, reference letters, copies of the first pages of the applicant’s two most recent federal income tax returns, [and] a financial statement.” Id. 14. The parties dispute whether the board package also includes additional financial information about applicants. Id. 14.Michael Ullman, the Sherry’s Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, and Susan Hennelly, a sales agent, both of whom work in the Sherry’s Executive Office, review incoming board packages for completeness before sending them to Horvitz for an initial review. Id. 15. Upon completing his review, Horvitz, as President of the Sherry’s Board, makes a recommendation whether the board should approve the application. Id. 16. Since becoming President of the Board in 2013, Horvitz had recommended that the Board approve every applicant before De La Fuente. Id. 19.When Horvitz recommends an applicant for approval, he conveys that recommendation to the Executive Office, which then emails the other board members to notify them of Horvitz’s recommendation and distributes the applicant’s board package, excluding financial information. Id. 17. To protect the applicant’s sensitive financial information, the office holds onto a copy of that information and requires any Board members who wishes to review it to do so in person at the office. Id. 18. Board members typically email back their assent to continue the application process with the applicant. If the Board assents, the Board then schedules an interview of the applicant with at least two Board members. Id. 17.This process, at times, involves an extra step for prospective purchasers whose primary residences and assets are located outside the United States. The Sherry requires such applicants to pay a large security deposit, which the Sherry may keep to protect its interests in the event that such a foreign shareholder were to become delinquent on his or her obligations to the Sherry. Id.
