Dean v. The Town of Hempstead

1

WILLIAM STEPHEN DEAN, also known as Billy Dean, RORI LEIGH GORDON, GREEN 2009 INC., ONE55DAY INC., and LOOK ENTERTAINMENT LTD., Plaintiffs, v. THE TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD, KATE MURRAY, individually and as the former Supervisor of the Town of Hempstead, JOHN E. ROTTKAMP, individually and as the Commissioner of the Department of Buildings of the Town of Hempstead, DAVID P. WEISS, individually and as the Chairman of the Town of Hempstead Board of Appeals, GERALD C. MARINO, individually and as a former Member of the Town of Hempstead Board of Appeals, KATURIA E. D'AMATO, individually and as a Member of the Town of Hempstead Board of Appeals, JOHN F. RAGANO, individually and as a Member of the Town of Hempstead Board of Appeals, FRANK A. MISTERO, individually and as a Member of the Town of Hempstead Board of Appeals, JOSEPH F. PELLEGRINI, individually and as a Member of the Town of Hempstead Board of Appeals, KIMBERLY A. PERRY, individually and as a Member of the Town of Hempstead Board of Appeals, ANTHONY J. SANTINO, individually and as the Supervisor of the Town of Hempstead, GARY HUDES, individually and as a member of the Town Board of the Town of Hempstead, and DANIEL M. FISHER, individually and as a Member of the Town of Hempstead Board of Appeals, Defendants.

No. 14-CV-4951 (MKB)

United States District Court, E.D. New York

August 16, 2024

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge

I. Background ......................................................................................................4

a. Factual background ......................................................................................................4

i. The parties ......................................................................................................4

ii. The Town's laws ......................................................................................................5

iii. History of the Wantagh Property ......................................................................................................8

iv. Plaintiffs' purchase of the Wantagh Property and the Board's denial of the 2009 building permit application .................................................................................................10

v. The April 2010 hearing and decision ......................................................................................................10

vi. The 2011 rehearing and decision ......................................................................................................12

vii. Plaintiffs' 2016 applications ......................................................................................................13

b. Procedural background ......................................................................................................14

II. Discussion ......................................................................................................17

a. Standard of review ......................................................................................................17

b. First Amendment claims ......................................................................................................18

i. The Special Use Provision is content-neutral ......................................................................................................19

ii. The Cabaret Provision is an unconstitutional prior restraint ......................................................................................................20

iii. The Cabaret Provision is overbroad on its face ......................................................................................................30

iv. Severability ......................................................................................................43

c. Temporal Limit Provision vagueness claim ......................................................................................................44

d. Regulatory takings claim ......................................................................................................48

i. Economic impact ......................................................................................................51

ii. Investment-backed expectations ......................................................................................................54

iii. Character of the governmental action ......................................................................................................57

e. Municipal liability ......................................................................................................59

f. Defenses raised by Non-Board Defendants Murray, Santino, and Hudes ......................................................................................................65

i. Official capacity claims against the Non-Board Defendants ......................................................................................................65

ii. Personal involvement of the Non-Board Defendants ......................................................................................................67

g. State law claims ......................................................................................................72

i. Notice of claim ......................................................................................................74

ii. Ripeness ......................................................................................................79

iii. Res judicata ......................................................................................................86

iv. Free speech claims ......................................................................................................90

v. Takings claim ......................................................................................................92

vi. Equal protection claims ......................................................................................................93

vii. State immunities ......................................................................................................94 viii. Municipal liability ...................................................................................................... 99

III. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 100

Plaintiffs William Stephen Dean, Rori Leigh Gordon, Green 2009 Inc. (“Green 2009”), One55Day Inc. (“One55Day”), and Look Entertainment, Ltd. (“Look Entertainment”), commenced the above-captioned action on August 20, 2014, alleging that Defendants the Town of Hempstead (the “Town”), Kate Murray, John E. Rottkamp, David P. Weiss, Gerald C. Marino, Katuria E. D'Amato, John F. Ragano, Frank A. Mistero, Joseph F. Pellegrini, Kimberly A. Perry, and Anthony J. Santino violated their constitutional rights by refusing to approve permits and other authorizations required for Plaintiffs to operate a cabaret located at 3500 Sunrise Highway in Wantagh, New York, in the Town of Hempstead (the “Wantagh Property”).^[1](Compl., Docket Entry No. 1.) Plaintiff subsequently filed an Amended Complaint on September 30, 2016, adding Gary Hudes as a defendant, (Am. Compl., Docket Entry No. 99), and a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on February 7, 2017, adding Daniel M. Fisher and Steven D. Rhoads^[2] as defendants, (Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) ¶ 19, Docket Entry No. 137). Plaintiffs bring claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 alleging violations of their civil and constitutional rights.

On October 6, 2023, Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment^[3] and Defendants cross-moved for summary judgment.^[4] For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and grants in part and denies in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

I. Background

The Court assumes familiarity with the facts as detailed in the Court's January 2021 Memorandum and Order denying in part and granting in part Defendants' motion to dismiss (the “January 2021 Decision”), and provides only a summary of the pertinent facts. The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted. (See Jan. 2021 Decision.)^[5]

a. Factual background

i. The parties

Dean is the president and Gordon is the vice president of One55Day. (SAC ¶¶ 10, 1415.) Gordon is president of Green 2009 and Look Entertainment, while Dean is vice president of both corporations.^[6] (Id. ¶¶ 14-15.) The Town is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of New York and located within Nassau County, New York. (Id. ¶ 16.) The remaining Defendants are current or former Town officials who served as Supervisor of the Town or are connected to the Town's Board of Zoning Appeals (the “Board”) and/or Department of Buildings (the “DOB”). (Id. ¶¶ 17-28; Answer to SAC ¶¶ 17-28, Docket Entry No. 156.)

ii. The Town's laws

New York Town Law (“Town Law”) section 261 empowers the Board to “regulate and restrict,” among other things, “the location and use of buildings.” (See Pls.' 56.1 ¶ 1). The Board also has original jurisdiction over applications for special exceptions to certain uses, and is empowered to authorize such exceptions so long as the use: (1) would not prevent orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or other established uses in the district where the proposed use is located; (2) would not affect the Town's safety, health welfare, comfort, convenience, and order; and (3) would be “in harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent” of the zoning ordinance. Building Zone Ordinance (“BZO”) § 267(D)(2)(a)(4). The Board also has the power to grant use variances “in harmony with their general purpose and intent,” ...