Contact Us
1250 Broadway, 27th Floor, New York, NY 10001 212-619-5400 Manhattan Attorney
Manhattan Lawyer
Attorney Profiles Firm News Practice Areas Newsletters Real Estate Lawyers' Blog Clients' Rights
Best of the Best Top 100 2015 Award
Best of the Best Top 100 2016 Award
Cases > Civil Rights

Chappaqua Station
  Complaint Contact Us Regarding this Case  

Conifer Realty, LLC is an affordable housing developer who has alleged that certain Town of New Castle officials have acted in a way that has made unavailable affordable fair housing apartments in the Town. These actions are contrary to the obligation of affirmatively furthering fair housing. These actions have, in effect, restricted housing choices or the availability of housing on the basis of race, national origin and disability.

In August 2009, the United States and Westchester County entered into a settlement where the County was to develop at least 750 affordable housing units, particularly in areas that were predominantly populated with whites. The Town of New Castle was qualified for the construction of these affordable units. A site located at 54 Hunts Lane, situated near the Chappaqua Metro North railroad station, was chosen for the project. The rezoning process was finalized in July 2010 and Town officials encouraged Conifer Realty to pursue the project. In September 2010, when Conifer Realty purchased the site, the Town Board endorsed its proposal, and Westchester County showed its support. After the State provided funding for the project, a yearlong public hearing in the town was opened in July 2012 in which a group of vocal residents voiced their opposition.

The Town Supervisor and other officials have attempted to derail this project citing unsubstantiated safety fears, stigmatization and the nature of the project. Conifer seeks HUD's intervention to prevent a biased and unfair process in preventing progression on the project and reversing its approvals.

ConiferLLC.com, Feds seek $60,000 in contempt fines against Westchester, published January 29, 2016: http://www.coniferllc.com/about/news-articles/213-feds-seek-60-000-in-contempt-fines-against-westchester

Lohud, Judge: Chappaqua units can count in housing deal, published May 24, 2016: http://www.lohud.com/story/news/politics/2016/05/24/affordable-housing-ruling-chappaqua/84855134/

Lohud, Chappaqua Station affordable units back on track published July 3, 2015: http://www.lohud.com/story/money/personal-finance/taxes/david-mckay-wilson/2015/07/03/chappaqua-affordable-housing-track/29667647/

Lohud, Rejected Chappaqua affordable housing plan back in play, published November 26, 2014: http://www.lohud.com/story/money/personal-finance/taxes/david-mckay-wilson/2014/11/20/chappaqua-affordable-housing-funds-vote/70041858/

New York Times, An Affordable Housing Project Faces Opposition in Wealthy Chappaqua, published February 17, 2014: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/nyregion/an-affordable-housing-project-faces-opposition-in-wealthy-chappaqua.html?_r=0

Inside Chappaqua Inside Armonk, Letter to the editor – Conifer Responds, published March 20, 2014: http://theinsidepress.com/debate-time/

NewCastleNOW.org, HUD notifies town and county it will investigate Conifer's claim of discrimination, published March 7, 2014: http://www.newcastlenow.org/index.php/article/10838

Click here to read our firm newsletters
1250 Broadway, 27th Floor, New York, NY 10001
Attorney Web Design The information available on this website is disseminated for informational purposes only. Nothing contained herein-including, but not limited to, all newsletters, press releases, blog posts, documents, biographical information, descriptions of services rendered, comments, responses, emails, or other communications-should be construed as a legal opinion or professional advice. If you should require expert assistance, consult with an attorney (or other appropriate professional) to securea formal opinion. The publisher of this website and its contributors disclaim responsibility for any damages that may result from any error, inaccuracy,or omission contained herein.