Williams v. City of New Rochelle

LLEWELLYN ANGELO WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF NEW ROCHELLE,THE CITY OF NEW ROCHELLE POLICE DEPARTMENT,SERGEANT DANIEL CONCA, SERGEANT JOHN INZEO,SERGEANT KYLE WILSON,POLICE OFFICER ADAM CASTIGLIA,POLICE OFFICER EDWARD SILLER, Defendants.

13-CV-3315 (NSR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

December 7, 2017

OPINION AND ORDER

NELSON S. ROMÁN, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Llewellyn Angelo Williams ("Plaintiff") commenced this action against the City of New Rochelle, City of New Rochelle Police Department,¹ Sergeant Daniel Conca, Sergeant John Inzeo, Sergeant Kyle Wilson, Police Officer Adam Castiglia, and Police Officer Edward Siller (collectively "Defendants"), asserting federal claims under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. (Sixth Amended Complaint at ¶ 1, ("Complaint").) Before this Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Background

The following facts are drawn from the parties' 56.1 submissions, the record, and are undisputed unless otherwise noted.

Plaintiff Llewellyn Angelo Williams is an African-American resident of the City of New Rochelle ("the City" or "New Rochelle"), New York, where he has operated a small company since 2002. (Compl. ¶¶ 8-9; Loomba Decl. in Supp. Mot. Summ. J. ("Loomba Decl."), Ex. E (Transcript of Deposition of Llewellyn Angelo Williams, January 9, 2015 ("Plaintiff's Dep. 1")), 16:18-22, ECF No. 103.) Plaintiff's company, Avalon Towing, (Def. 56.1 Mot. Summ. J. ("Def. 56.1"), ¶ 17) is one of several companies which tows and "boots"² illegally parked automobiles from privately owned parking lots within the parameters of local law. (See Compl. ¶ 9.) Another such company is Elite Towing and Flatbedding Corp., doing business as Safeway Towing ("Safeway"). (Def. 56.1 ¶ 15.)

The agreements under which companies such as Avalon Towing and Safeway operate define the scope of their assignments and the payments they receive for their services. Avalon Towing has such an agreement with several private lots. The local ordinance caps payment for booting of vehicles at $45 plus tax. Code of the City of New Rochelle § 316-3.1(A) ("Chapter 316" or "§ 316"). The statutory maximum charge for booting has fluctuated over time, and as a result Plaintiff alleges he urged the City Council to increase the fee that a booting operator may charge the owner of a vehicle improperly parked on private property on three to six unspecified occasions. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 42.)

Unlike Avalon, Safeway tows in both private and municipal lots pursuant to an agreement with New Rochelle. Under Safeway's agreement with New Rochelle, Safeway boots vehicles on public property as directed by the New Rochelle Police Department ("NRPD"). (Def. 56.1 ¶ 16; Loomba Decl., Ex. D, Ex. A (City of New Rochelle Request for Proposal) (noting that "[t]he contractor shall provide booting services . . . as directed by the New Rochelle Police Department").) Safeway receives $35 to boot and remove a vehicle from public property without towing it and $75 to boot and tow a vehicle from public property. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 16.)

In addition to the private and public agreements entered into, all towing companies are subject to Chapter 316 of the Code of the City of New Rochelle.

A. Code of the City of New Rochelle § 316-3.1

Chapter 316 governs and provides the procedural mechanisms for the placement of boot restraining devices on vehicles parked without permission on private property as well as the towing of such vehicles within New Rochelle. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 9.) The ordinance, which has gone through some relevant changes since 2012, states that "[a]n operator may boot an improperly parked vehicle on privately owned real property instead of towing it therefrom, but the fee for such booting shall not exceed $45 plus tax." § 316-3.1(A); (Def. 56.1 ¶ 10). Upon payment of the fee and removal of the booting device, the vehicle must be immediately removed from the property by the owner or operator. (Id.) Once the operator places the boot on an unattended vehicle, the person booting the vehicle must notify the New Rochelle Police Department ("NRPD") immediately. § 316-3.1(B).

Further, Chapter 316 provides procedures for putting residents on notice of the possibility of booting. The operator of a booting business can only operate on real property when "there is erected and maintained upon such property, at the entrances and exits to such property, a signcontaining a warning that parking thereon is restricted to authorized persons only, that unauthorized parking or trespassing is prohibited and that the vehicles of trespassers or unauthorized persons will be towed away or booted, and containing the further statement setting forth the address and telephone number where any person whose vehicle is removed may make inquiry to regain his vehicle." § 316-4(A). Included on that sign, must be the fee amount authorized by the City of New Rochelle for removing the boot. (Id.)

The New Rochelle City Council passed Local Ordinance No. 162-2012 on October 6, 2012, which amended Chapter 316. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 33.) The ordinance preserved the aforementioned procedures and added new requirements for towing and booting companies. It added provisions requiring booting companies operating on private property to obtain a license annually, that the operators file an application with the City containing a variety of information pertaining to the operator's fitness to obtain a license including proof of insurance in accordance with the City's requirements, and that the operator pay $750 for a license. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 34-36, 46); § 316-5-11. Further, the new ordinance prevented a licensed operator from booting on private property unless the licensee was authorized to boot motor vehicles pursuant to a written contract. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 37.); § 316-3.1(F).

Plaintiff's complaint stems from the Defendant's actions vis-à-vis Chapter 316. (See e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 14-17.) Plaintiff alleges that the named Defendants selectively enforced Chapter 316 against him since 2011 (Compl. at ¶ 8; Defendant's Mem. in Supp. Mot. Summ. J. ("Mot. Supp. Summ. J.") 1, ECF No. 104) and specifically refers to four incidents.³

1. The February 3, 2012 Incident

On February 3, 2012, Plaintiff placed a boot on a vehicle in the parking lot of a CVS Pharmacy located at 625 North Avenue, New Rochelle, New York. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 19; Plaintiff Dep. 1, 81:15-17, 84:6-9.) Later that evening, a police officer contacted Plaintiff at the direction of Defendant Sergeant Conca, (Plaintiff's Dep. 1, 85:7-15), and asked Plaintiff to return to the CVS parking lot. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 22.) Plaintiff returned to the CVS parking lot, where he met Defendant Sergeant Conca and at least one other officer, whom Defendant Sergeant Conca identified in his deposition as Officer Schlesinger. (See Lomba Decl., Ex. G (Transcript of Deposition of Sergeant Daniel Conca, Feb. 11, 2015 ("Conca Dep.")), 30:10-12, 31:24-25; Def. 56.1 ¶ 24.)

Although the motives of the call are contested,⁴ Plaintiff observed that the officers recalled him to the CVS parking lot because he did not have his booting/towing signs at the proper location, in violation of § 316. (See Def. 56.1 ¶ 25.) As a result, the officers requested that Plaintiff remove the boot. Plaintiff told the officers that he placed his warning signs over signs erected by Safeway. (Plaintiff's Dep. 1, 83:14-116) Plaintiff's sign, however, listed the booting fee at $65—a figure beyond the $45 limit under City Code § 316-3.1(A). (Def. 56.1 ¶ 21; Pl. Opp. Mot. Summ. J. 56.1 ("Pl. 56.1") ¶ 21 (noting that Plaintiff was still charging $45, despite the typographical error).) Following a discussion between the Officers and Plaintiff, the Officers expressed that they did not wish to arrest Plaintiff, but that they would if he did not remove the boot. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 25; Plaintiff's Dep. 1, at 82: 22-24.) The officers then threatenedto issue Plaintiff a citation for violating the City Code. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 25.) During the exchange the officers told Plaintiff not to boot any more vehicles in the lot "because that sign is not where it's supposed to be." (Def. 56.1 ¶ 26; Plaintiff's Dep. 1, at 83:10-12.) and that an officer told him that he could not work anymore until he placed a sign closer to the entrance. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 26; Plaintiff's Dep. 1, 147:2-6.) Plaintiff observed that Sergeant Conca ordered other officers to tell CVS employees that if Plaintiff did not move his sign closer to the entrance, the officers were going to write CVS a city code violation. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 27; Plaintiff's Dep. 1, 146:10-13.)

Ultimately, the officers did not arrest Plaintiff, nor did they issue a citation for violations of the City Code to Plaintiff or CVS. (Def. 56.1 at ¶ 30.)

2. March 2, 2013 Incident

On March 2, 2013, Plaintiff placed a boot on a vehicle in a private parking lot on 466 Main Street, New Rochelle, New York (Def. 56.1 ¶ 50) that did not display a parking permit. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 51.) Plaintiff did not have a written agreement with the owner of the property to boot vehicles on that lot, as required by City Code § 316-3.1(F). (Def. 56.1 ¶ 50; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 50.)

At about 3:00pm, Defendant Sergeant Inzeo and other officers responded to the parking lot. (Def. 56.1 at ¶ 52.) When Defendant Sergeant Inzeo arrived, the vehicle displayed a valid parking permit. (Id.) The vehicle's owner told the officers that the permit had been on her vehicle all day, (Id.) although Plaintiff alleged that the owner moved the permit from another car. (See Plaintiff's Dep. 1, 239:11-21.) Sergeant Inzeo ordered Plaintiff to remove the boot from the vehicle. (Def. 56.1 at ¶ 52.) Plaintiff initially told Sergeant Inzeo that the owner of the vehicle had removed the permit from another vehicle and placed it on her own vehicle, but when Inzeo asked him whether he had actually seen the vehicle owner do...