Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Citation
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Parent Document
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Jurisdiction
- United States (federal)
- Effective Date
- 2002-04-29
Other Sections in This Document (15)
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
Full Text
685 charsWe dispose quickly of Farrell’s other claims. The district court correctly determined that Farrell failed to raise a viable claim of retaliation because the defendants served a thirty-day notice telling Farrell of their intent to have him evicted before he filed his federal suit. Nor can it be said that the eviction notice was frivolous on its face. The district court correctly determined Farrell’s claims brought pursuant to §§ 1981, 1982, 1985(e) and New York’s Human Rights Law fail because there is no evidence in the record showing defendants were motivated by discriminatory animus. Finally, we do not find the district court created an “extended family exception” to the FHA.