Yu v. Inc. Vill. of Oyster Bay Cove

579 F.Supp.3d 391

Allen YU and North Long Island Realty, LLC, Plaintiffs,

v.The INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF OYSTER BAY COVE; Robert Walles, as Code Enforcement Officer, the Incorporated Village of Oyster Bay Cove; and Robert A. Peterson, as Building Inspector, the Incorporated Village of Oyster Bay Cove, each sued in their official and individual capacities, Defendants.

20-CV-5635 (GRB)(AYS)

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Signed January 12, 2022

Eric Sanders, The Sanders Firm, P.C., New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Michael Adam Czolacz, Amanda Maria Zefi, Morris Duffy Alonso & Faley, New York, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GARY R. BROWN, United States District Judge:

Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of substantive due process rights and the Takings Clause arising out of the Village of Oyster Bay Cove's enforcement of its Village Code concerning construction, conservation, nuisance, and animal control. Defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons stated herein, defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

Procedural History

Plaintiffs filed this action on November 19, 2020. Docket Entry ("DE") 1. At a pre-motion conference held on March 4, 2021, the Court dismissed the equal protection, conspiracy, and Monell claims because the complaint alleged no facts to support allegations of racial animus. DE 23 ("Hr. Tr.") at 22:3-15. The Court dismissed plaintiffs’ procedural due process claim because the Village Justice's failure to advise a represented defendant of their right to appeal is insufficient to state a claim. Hr. Tr. at 22:16-21. Hence, plaintiffs’ remaining claims arise under substantive due process and the Takings Clause. On June 17, 2021, defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). DE 25.

Facts

Plaintiff Allen Yu is the principal owner of North Long Island Realty, LLC, an inactive¹ New York limited liability company. Compl. ¶¶ 1-2. Yu identifies as Chinese. Id. ¶ 1. In September 2014, plaintiffs Allen Yu and North Long Island Realty, LLC purchased a 4.31-acre parcel of real property located at 156 Cove Road in the Village of Oyster Bay Cove, New York for $1.31 million. Id. ¶¶ 6, 9. From 2014 to 2017, plaintiffs were subject to a series of enforcement actions by the Village of Oyster Bay Cove for violations of the Village Code:

• On September 15, 2014, Village Building Inspector Robert Peterson issued Allen Yu a stop work order for performing construction work on the principal dwelling and accessory cottage without a building permit. Id. ¶ 15.

• On May 13, 2015, Peterson sent plaintiffs a letter stating that a well on the property located within 100 feet of the buffer area of a wetland was prohibited unless approved by the Village Planning Board. Id. ¶ 26.²

• On June 27, 2016, Code Enforcement Officer Robert Walles issued an information charging plaintiffs with excavating and grading for the expansion of a driveway without Village approval. Id. ¶ 33. Earlier, plaintiffs had applied for but were denied permission to build an expanded driveway or make alterations to the cottage and decks. Id. ¶¶ 28-29.

• On July 20, 2016, Walles issued an appearance ticket stating that he had personally observed plaintiffs engage in construction without a permit, unapproved site plan changes, and unapproved grading and excavation in violation of Village Code. Id. ¶ 35.

• On September 26, 2016, Peterson issued a stop work order and filed an appearance ticket charging plaintiffs with: (1) altering a non-conforming cottage/accessory structure without a permit;³ (2) installing fencing and driveway gates without permits within 100 feet of a wetlands buffer;⁴ (3) constructing two decks without permits within 100 feet of a wetlands buffer;⁵ and (4) installing a chain-link roofless enclosure between two non-conforming sheds within 100 feet of a wetlands buffer, all in violation of Village Code.⁶Id. ¶ 40.

• On December 21, 2016, Peterson issued a superseding information containing 14 counts claiming that on September 26, 2016 he had personally observed said violations of Village Code. Id. ¶ 46.

• On March 27, 2017, Peterson sent plaintiffs a letter stating the driveway lighting and colored arboreal lighting violated Village Code. Id. ¶ 52.⁷

• On April 5, 2017, the Village denied plaintiffs’ application "to maintain alterations to the cottage, existing driveway entrance piers, erecting new driveway gates and maintain a roofless fenced in enclosure." Id. ¶ 54.

• On April 19, 2017, Peterson issued plaintiffs four informations charging 370 counts claiming violations of Village Code between October 3, 2016 and April 12, 2017, to wit: constructing a fence, driveway gates, two decks, and a chain-link roofless enclosure within the 100-foot wetlands buffer area without Village approval; altering the nonconforming cottage to increase its nonconformity; and installing exterior lighting not properly shielded to prevent illumination to the adjoining property. Id. ¶¶ 56-59.

On September 26, 2018, plaintiffs were tried in Village Court. Id. ¶ 99. Evidence submitted at trial included testimony from Walles, Peterson, and a neighbor, as well as photos and videos of plaintiffs’ purported pattern and practice of Village Code violations. See People v. Yu , 61 Misc. 3d 1225(A), 111 N.Y.S.3d 808, 2018 WL 6497168 (N.Y. Just. Ct. 2018). Following the trial, on October 4, 2018 the Village's Planning Board denied Yu's site plan to permit alterations to the existing building, expand an existing driveway, construct new piers and a gate, and maintain an existing deck. Compl. ¶ 113. Two months later on December 10, 2018, the Village Court issued its decision and found plaintiffs guilty of all charges and continuing violations, including:

building without permits or applications, construction of structures on wetland buffers, nuisance lighting, construction of gating, and gut renovations to a cottage without permits or approval, as well as the erection and maintenance of non-conforming structures and other conduct clearly prohibited by the Village Code or otherwise prohibited until the proper applications and building permits are obtained.

People v. Yu , 2018 WL 6497168 at *4. The Village Court (1) rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the Village Code is void for vagueness, finding the "[d]efinitions provided are specific, lack subjective requirements in favor of objective elements and are definitive on their face," id. at *5, and (2) rejected plaintiffs’ selective enforcement claim because "the Village initially viewed several examples of Mr. Yu's conduct as violating the Village Code but did not submit any violations ... choosing instead to give Defendants an oral warning and a period of time to cure the defects and other violations identified without penalty." Id. at *5. The Village Court imposed a fine of $242,750, equal to 25% of the maximum permitted by law. Id. at *6.

The Village Court did not inform plaintiffs that the court order was appealable, and the Village Clerk ignored plaintiffs’ request for instructions on filing a notice of appeal. Compl. ¶¶ 119, 121. On January 10, 2019, plaintiffs’ counsel notified the Village Clerk of their intention to file a notice of appeal. Id. ¶ 122. On October 8, 2019, plaintiffs paid the Village of Oyster Bay Cove $241,253.30 in satisfaction of the judgment. Id. ¶ 124.

Discussion

Motions to dismiss are decided under the well-established standard of review for such matters, as discussed in Burris v. Nassau County District Attorney , No. 14-5540 (JFB) (GRB), 2017 WL 9485714, at *3-4 (E.D.N.Y.), adopted by 2017 WL 1187709 (E.D.N.Y. 2017), incorporated by reference herein. The gravamen of that standard, of course, is whether, assuming the allegations in the complaint to be true, the complaint sets forth sufficient factual allegations to render the claims plausible.

A. Statute of Limitations

Section 1983 claims in New York are subject to a three-year statute of limitations. Ruane v. Cty. of Suffolk , 923 F. Supp. 2d 454, 458 (E.D.N.Y. 2013). Federal law determines when a Section 1983 claim accrues. Id. Accrual occurs "when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of his action[.]" Pearl v. City of Long Beach , 296 F.3d 76, 80 (2d Cir. 2002) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). A Section 1983 takings claim accrues once the claim is ripe, i.e., when the state regulatory entity has rendered a final decision. See Stensrud v. Rochester Genesee Reg'l Transportation Auth. , 507 F. Supp. 3d 444, 451–52 (W.D.N.Y. 2020) (citing Knick v. Twp. of Scott, Pennsylvania , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2162, 204 L.Ed.2d 558 (2019) ). Here, the Village of Oyster Bay Cove Planning Board denied Yu's site plan for a construction permit on October 4, 2018. Compl. ¶ 113. Thus, as to the takings claim, plaintiffs only knew or had reason to know of a potential constitutional injury after October 4, 2018. This falls well within the three-year statute of limitations because the complaint was filed on November 19, 2020. DE 1.

However, because any conduct predating November 19, 2017 falls outside the statute of limitations, plaintiffs cannot raise any claims based on the informations and stop work orders – all of which were issued prior to that date. As a result, the only acts falling within the statute of limitations are (1) the denial of the site plan on October 4, 2018, and (2) the judgment against plaintiffs in Village Court on December 10, 2018. Because the state court judgment cannot be challenged under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,⁸ the claims over which this court has jurisdiction and that fall within the statute of limitations must be limited to the denial of the site plan.

B. Substantive Due Process

Plaintiffs must meet a heavy burden to satisfy the standard for a substantive due process violation:

Substantive due process guards a

...