TREASA FENNIE v. NEW BRUNSWICK U.A.W HOUSING CORP.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0793-11T4

TREASA FENNIE,

Complainant-Appellant,

v.

NEW BRUNSWICK U.A.W. HOUSING

CORP. and REGION NINE HOUSING CORP.

d/b/a REGION NINE MANAGEMENT CO.,

Respondents-Respondents.

_____________________________________

March 6, 2013

Submitted September 4, 2012 - Decided

Before Judges Alvarez and Nugent.

On appeal from the Department of Law & Public Safety, Division on Civil Rights, Docket No. HM14WW-62180.

Treasa Fennie, appellant pro se.

Tarella & Liftman, attorneys for respondents New Brunswick U.A.W. Housing Corp. and Region Nine Housing Corp. d/b/a Region Nine Management Co. (James A. Tarella, of counsel and on the brief).

Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General, attorney for respondent New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (Charles S. Cohen, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant Treasa M. Fennie appeals from a finding of the Acting Director, New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (DCR), that there was no probable cause to credit the allegations in appellant's housing discrimination complaint. In her complaint, appellant alleged that respondent New Brunswick U.A.W. Housing Corp. (UAW), which owned the John Fricano Apartments in New Brunswick, and UAW's manager, respondent Region Nine Housing Corp., discriminated against her based on her race and her disabilities. Having considered appellant's argument in light of the record, we affirm.

The complaint appellant filed with DCR included the following allegations:

DISCRIMINATION STATEMENT:

Complainant alleges she rents a one-bedroom apartment at the John P. Fricano Towers owned by Respondent New Brunswick U.A.W. Housing Corp. Complainant alleges Respondent Region Nine Management Co. is subjecting her to differential treatment in that it calculates a one-time subsidy for utility payments Complainant receives into its formula for determining Complainant's payment portion of her monthly rent. Complainant allege[s] this one-time annual subsidy, according to HUD regulations, is exempt from being included in a tenant's income. Complainant alleges although she submitted information to correct the error, Respondents continue[d] to miscalculate her payment portion. Complainant alleges Respondent Region Nine Management Co.'s staff subjects her to differential treatment in that her guests are interrogated and harassed by Respondent's staff. Complainant alleges non-black tenants' visitors are not treated in the same manner.

DCR assigned Investigator Carlos Hernandez to investigate appellant's complaint. Investigator Hernandez issued a report in which he made the following findings:

[O]n February 12, 2009, Complainant and Respondents entered into a one year lease agreement for a one bedroom apartment at a rental amount of $1,340 per month. A review of the lease agreement indicated that the assistance payment to Respondents was $1,075 per month. Complainant was responsible for the $265 balance each month. During the investigation, the Division's investigator reviewed Complainant's tenant file. Documentation contained in Complainant's file disclosed that she received a one-time annual utility credit in the amount of $225 from Life Line Credit Program of the State of New Jersey. During an interview with the investigator, Complainant asserted that Respondents should not have counted this subsidy toward her applicable annual income when calculating her monthly rental payment. In support of its actions, Respondents referred the investigator to a HUD policy memorandum which states in part: "In calculating annual income, owners are required to count all income from all sources except for amounts which are specifically excluded." During an interview with the investigator, Tehera Arce, branch chief of asset management, at HUD's multi-family housing division in Newark, confirmed that the Life Line subsidy which Complainant received was not to be excluded from the calculation of income. Arce also referred the investigator to Exhibit 5-1 of HUD's Occupancy Handbook which contains further information regarding income exclusions. The Life Line subsidy which Complainant received was not listed among the exclusions. Therefore, the investigation did not support Complainant's allegation regarding this issue.

Hernandez also investigated appellant's complaint about being interrogated and harassed by respondents' employees. According to Hernandez, appellant said that she was required to sign in her visitors, who would often be questioned by staff members. Hernandez interviewed the site manager, Jason Bachonski, who explained that the apartment has twenty-four hour security and all visitors are required to sign in at the front desk. Bachonski showed Hernandez sign-in sheets that included visitors' names, the tenant's name and apartment number, the times the visitor checked in and out, and, if applicable, the license plate number of the visitors' cars. Bachonski also told Hernandez that tenants had to meet their visitors at the front desk if the visitors came to the apartment building at night after ten o'clock. To verify Bachonski's statements, Hernandez interviewed ten tenants, seven African-American, two Caucasian, and one Hispanic. The tenants verified the sign-in policy as related to Hernandez by Bachonski.

Lastly, Hernandez investigated appellant's complaints regarding her disabilities, even though "she ha[d] never made a request to respondent[s] for reasonable accommodations for any disability." Hernandez reviewed respondents' files, which verified respondents had made accommodations for numerous tenants. The apartment building contained thirteen fully accessible units. Bachonski had installed hearing impaired smoke detectors in several apartments and repaired and replaced windows that were difficult for elderly tenants to open.

Upon completing his investigation, Hernandez shared his information with appellant and gave her the opportunity to rebut it. She provided no additional relevant evidence or information.

Based on his investigation, Hernandez recommended that the case be closed with a finding of no probable cause to substantiate the allegations in the complaint. DCR's Acting Director accepted his recommendation and reduced it to a written decision on June 7, 2011.

In this appeal, appellant argues:

In the [m]atter cited above, Appellant charge[s] Division of Civil Rights with official misconduct for sabatoging [sic] a valid Fair Housing complaint by omitting, suppressing evidence, deviating from duties, relying upon hearsy [sic] instead of factual evidence within his possession and refusing to enforce agency authority and; Further, [appellant] charge[s] Respondant [sic] of mismanagement for non-compliance with Federal, State and local laws, National Housing, Privacy and Civil Rights Act, Deceptive Business Practices, Conspiracy, Fraud, Willful Malicious Intent to cause financial hardship and emotional duress, Embezzelment [sic] and Reprisal.

Our review of agency determinations is limited. In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011). We will not disturb an agency's decision unless we "find [it] to be 'arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or [] not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole.'" Ibid. (quoting Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980)). "Furthermore, it is not our function to substitute our independent judgment for that of an administrative body[, and] . . . we will not weigh the evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses, draw inferences and conclusions from the evidence, or resolve conflicts therein." De Vitis v. N.J. Racing Comm'n, 202 N.J. Super. 484, 489-90 (App. Div.) (citation omitted), certif. denied, 102 N.J. 337 (1985).

Having considered appellant's arguments in light of the record, we conclude that her arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add only the following. Although appellant has made many accusations against respondents, and against DCR's investigator, her accusations are unsupported by competent evidence in the record. On the other hand, DCR's determination is supported by sufficient credible evidence. There is no basis upon which we can conclude that DCR's determination is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.

A