Macdonough v. Spaman

JOHN MACDONOUGH, Plaintiff, v. MISHELE SPAMAN, et al., Defendants.

6:15-cv-0643 (LEK/TWD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

March 31, 2016

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff John Macdonough ("Plaintiff") commenced this action against Mishele Spaman ("Spaman"), Code Enforcement Officer for the Town of Frankfort; Joseph Kinney ("Kinney"), Town Supervisor for the Town of Frankfort; and the Town of Frankfort ("Town") (collectively, "Defendants") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights that arose from a zoning dispute related to equipment being stored on his property. Dkt. Nos. 1; 9 ("Amended Complaint"). Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion ("Motion") to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. Nos. 13 ("Motion"); 13-1 ("Memorandum"). Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition and Defendants filed a Reply. Dkt. Nos. 19 ("Opposition"); 20 ("Reply"). For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion is granted in part and denied in part.

II. BACKGROUND¹

In September 2002, Plaintiff purchased a skid steer and dump trailer and contacted Spaman to see if he would be allowed to store this equipment on his property at 114 Hayes Road in Frankfort, New York ("Hayes property"). Am. Compl. ¶ 7. Spaman advised Plaintiff that since this equipment was agricultural in nature, it could be stored on the property in accordance with town zoning law as the Hayes property was within a Residence-Agriculture District ("RA District"). Id. ¶ 8; see also Dkt. No. 9-1 ("Frankfort Town Code § 88-8"). In June 2003, Plaintiff purchased an excavator and again contacted Spaman to determine if this additional piece of equipment could be stored on the Hayes property; Spaman told Plaintiff the storage of this equipment was a permitted use of the property. Id. ¶¶ 10-11. The following purchases were made by Plaintiff in 2005: an excavator and white dump truck in May; a flatbed trailer in June; and a bulldozer in September. Id. ¶ 12. Again, Plaintiff sought advice from Spaman about storing this equipment on the Hayes property and Spaman determined this additional equipment was agricultural equipment and thus complied with town zoning regulations. Id. ¶¶ 13-14. Plaintiff purchased a dump truck in June 2006 and an excavator in November 2006. Id. ¶ 15. Again, Spaman advised Plaintiff that he could store the equipment on the Hayes property. Id. ¶ 16. When Plaintiff's neighbors called Spaman in 2005 and 2006 regarding Plaintiff's storage of the equipment on the property, she informed them that Plaintiff's storage of the equipment on the property was lawful. See id. ¶¶ 13-14, 16-17.

In March 2007, Plaintiff completed the purchase of property located at 2236 Albany Road in Frankfort, New York ("Albany Road"), from Salvatore Piazza ("Piazza"). Id. ¶¶ 22-23. Before closing on the Albany Road property, Plaintiff contacted Spaman to determine if all of the aforementioned equipment could be stored on the property. Id. ¶ 20. Spaman advised through a letter sent to Plaintiff's attorney that the property was located in a RA District and that the equipment could be stored there in compliance with town regulations. Id. ¶¶ 21-22. Plaintiff stated that he was considering starting a tree farm on the Albany Road property, and Spaman said the storage of the equipment would comply with town zoning regulations with or without a tree farm. Id. ¶ 21. Between 2007 and 2009, Plaintiff claims he "never had any issues" with Defendants. Id. ¶ 25. Spaman called Plaintiff in 2009 and told him that she received complaints from Piazza about the equipment stored on the Albany Road property and asked Plaintiff to begin a tree farm as a means of bringing the property into compliance with the regulations of a RA District. Id. ¶ 26. Piazza attended monthly Town Board meetings airing his complaints about the storage of the equipment on the Albany Road property. Id. ¶ 27. Plaintiff advised Spaman that he would begin tree farming efforts "sometime next year." Id.

In June 2010, Spaman advised the Town Board that Plaintiff was not running a landscaping or tree business from the Albany Road property. Id. ¶ 28. Piazza sent an email to Kinney on July 6, 2010, requesting that Plaintiff be prosecuted for the Albany Road property's alleged lack of compliance with local zoning law. Id. ¶ 29. Piazza sent similar emails on August 3, August 28, September 20, and December 29 of that year. Id. ¶¶ 28, 35, 37-38, 42. On July 7, 2010, Spaman served Plaintiff with a Notice and Order to Remedy, later calling Plaintiff to apologize because "she was ordered from 'higher up' to issue" the Notice, even though she believed he was in compliancewith RA District zoning regulations. Id. ¶¶ 30, 32.

A second Notice and Order was issued to Plaintiff by Spaman in September 2010. Id. ¶¶ 39-40. Spaman admitted she was directed by the Town to issue it. Id. In pertinent part, the Notice stated that failure to comply would "be punishable by a fine not exceeding two hundred fifty dollars . . . or imprisonment for not more than on year, or both, for each offense. Each day that such a violation continues shall constitute a separate offense." Id. ¶ 39.

On December 21, 2010, Spaman served an appearance ticket to Plaintiff for the Albany Street property's noncompliance with RA District zoning regulations. Id. ¶ 40. The first violation was noted to have occurred on July 7, 2010. Id. Plaintiff planted "hundreds of trees" by April 2011, and planted additional trees between June and October of the same year. Id. ¶¶ 48, 56, 59-60. Plaintiff was arraigned on the Information and Complaint in May 2011. Id. ¶ 48. Plaintiff sought a special use permit from the Town's Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA"), which was denied following a public hearing. Id. ¶¶ 50-54.

In July 2012, Plaintiff filed an Article 78 Petition in Herkimer County Supreme Court challenging the ZBA's denial of his special use permit application. Id. ¶ 57. A decision was rendered on October 25, 2012. Id. ¶ 63. The decision stated that as long as the equipment is agricultural equipment, there was no need for a special use permit, and as a result, Plaintiff's application for a special use permit was unnecessary and therefore denied. Dkt. No. 9-7 ("Article 78 Order") at 8.² Plaintiff believed this decision gave him a protected interest in his right to keep the equipment at the Albany Street property. Am. Compl. ¶ 158.

Plaintiff states that his success in Supreme Court prompted the Town to retaliate againsthim. Id. ¶ 166. After the court's decision in the Article 78 proceeding, Defendants reinitiated criminal prosecution of Plaintiff for his alleged violation of zoning laws, and sought imprisonment, fines at the rate of $250 per day, and "serious legal repercussions." Id. ¶¶ 70-72. Defendants prosecuted each day of alleged non-compliance as a separate violation, with Plaintiff facing 1,394 total violations. Id. ¶¶ 73-74. During the trial, Spaman "demonstrated that she lacked probable cause to charge Plaintiff," stating she did not remember going to the Albany Street property on the date of the first violation and that Plaintiff "was working with equipment on that property that's allowed." Id. ¶¶ 76-77. Spaman also testified that Plaintiff's use of equipment on a tree farm for planting trees is considered an agricultural use and that she was aware Plaintiff planned to plant "[f]ive hundred Christmas trees" in the planting season of 2011 (April-June). Id. ¶¶ 79, 84. Spaman stated she was aware of the Supreme Court's decision regarding Plaintiff's farm, but never read it. Id. ¶ 89. Spaman also testified that her decision to issue a violation Notice and cease and desist order was directed by the Town and their attorney. Id. ¶ 115. Spaman stated she was directed by the Town to cite Plaintiff for violations. Id. ¶ 116.

Plaintiff was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. Id. ¶ 90. Plaintiff was the first person in the Town's history to have a jury trial on a zoning matter "because of the amount of jail time Defendants were asking the Court to impose." Id. ¶ 99 n.1. Plaintiff appeared in court at least nine times, including for a three-day jury trial. Id. ¶ 108. Plaintiff asserts that his prosecution was in "malicious or [in] bad faith" and resulted from Defendants carrying out an official municipal policy. Id. ¶ 145, 148. The Town's attorney sent a letter to Plaintiff threatening further legal action after the verdict was rendered. Id. ¶ 93.

Plaintiff alleges that there are other properties within the Town that in material aspects ofuse are similar to the Albany Street property and subject to the same zoning restrictions, but are treated differently by the Town. Id. ¶¶ 119-134. The three properties Plaintiff mentions are D'Allesandro's Nursery and Landscaping ("D'Allesandro"), "Leitz's excavation businesses" ("Leitz"), and Tomaino Excavation ("Tomaino"). Id. ¶¶ 119, 125, 132. Plaintiff asserts that those properties store similar equipment, have similar trees, and are in close proximity to Plaintiff's property. See id. ¶¶ 120, 127, 132-33. Spaman testified that Defendants never cited these businesses for violation of applicable zoning law. Id. ¶¶ 124, 128, 132. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants selectively enforced the ordinance by commencing legal action against Plaintiff to deprive him of the use and enjoyment of his property. Id. ¶ 150.

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint sets forth the following causes of action: (1) malicious prosecution in violation of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments against Spaman and Kinney in their individual capacities; (2) malicious prosecution in violation of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments against the Town, Spaman, and Kinney in their official capacities; (3) class-of-one claim under the Equal Protection clause against Spaman and Kinney in their individual capacities; (4) class-of-one claim under the Equal Protection clause against...