Vandor, Inc. v. Militello, Docket No. 01-7334.
| Decision Date | 19 August 2002 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 01-9485.,Docket No. 01-7334. |
| Citation | 301 F.3d 37 |
| Parties | VANDOR, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, John P. Bartolomei, Appellant, v. James MILITELLO, James R. Militello Realty, Inc., 438 Main Street, Inc., Delaware North Companies, Inc., Jeremy Jacobs, Andrew Nicol, Solar Sportsystems, Inc., Erie County Industrial Development Agency (ECIDA), City of Buffalo, 60 Key Centre Associates, LLC, Emmis Management Co., Inc., Ciminelli Development Co., Inc., Ciminelli Management Corp., Paul Ciminelli, Buffalo Economic Renaissance Corp. (BERC), Alan H. Delisle, Anthony M. Masiello, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Kevin W. Goering, New York, NY (John P. Bartolomei, on the brief), for Appellant Vandor, Inc.
John P. Bartolomei, pro se, Niagara Falls, NY, for Appellant John P. Bartolomei.
Gerald T. Walsh, Buffalo, NY (Guy J. Agostinelli, on the brief), for Appellees James Militello and James R. Militello Realty.
Kevin M. Kearney, Buffalo, NY (Michael B. Risman, Corporation Counsel of the City of Buffalo; David R. Hayes, Assistant Corporation Counsel; Kathleen Sellers; Lawrence J. Vilardo; Anthony J. Latona; Paul Rubin; Richard Y. Im, on the brief), for Appellees 438 Main Street, Inc., Delaware North Companies, Inc., Jeremy Jacobs, Andrew Nicol, Solar Sportsystems, Inc., Erie County Industrial Development Agency (ECIDA), City of Buffalo, 60 Key Centre Associates, LLC, Emmis Management Co., Inc., Ciminelli Development Co., Inc., Ciminelli Management Corp., Paul Ciminelli, Buffalo Economic Renaissance Corp. (BERC), Alan H. DeLisle, Anthony M. Masiello.
Before: JACOBS, LEVAL, KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.
Vandor, Inc. appeals the judgment of the Western District of New York (Elfvin, J.), dismissing Vandor's § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim. The eighteen-count complaint alleged a taking violative of Vandor's substantive due process rights by certain governmental entities and officials, and by private individuals and companies acting in concert with the government. In another notice, John P. Bartolomei, Esq., who represented Vandor in the underlying suit, challenges the district court's imposition of Rule 11 sanctions.
The district court dismissed all of Vandor's claims with prejudice and on the merits, ruling alternatively that the takings claim "could also be dismissed because the plaintiff had failed to exhaust state methods." Vandor, Inc. v. James Militello, et al., 00-CV-0756E(F) (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2001). On appeal, Vandor maintains that it asserted a valid takings claim, and that even if the takings claim is determined to have been unripe, the district court lacked jurisdiction to dismiss it with prejudice.
We affirm the district court's dismissal with prejudice of the takings claim and the substantive due process claim based on the alleged taking, although on different grounds.
We are obliged to consider the ripeness question before reaching the merits of Vandor's claims because ripeness is jurisdictional, Marchi v. Board of Cooperative Educ. Servs. of Albany, 173 F.3d 469, 478 (2d Cir.1999), and absent jurisdiction "federal courts do not have the power to dismiss with prejudice," Hernandez v. Conriv Realty Assocs., 182 F.3d 121, 122 (2d Cir.1999) (emphasis added).
A takings claim is unripe where "a remedy potentially is available under the state constitution's provision." Villager Pond, Inc. v. Town of Darien, 56 F.3d 375, 380 (2d Cir.1995); see also Williamson Co. Regional Planning v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 187-88, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985); Dougherty v. Town of North Hempstead Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 282 F.3d 83, 88-89 (2d Cir.2002).
Although Vandor identifies no potential avenue for state court relief, we recognize that under New York State law,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Augusto Fernandes, Maria Fernandes, Acf Family Holding Corp v. Moran
...of such state procedures." Viteritti v. Inc. Vill. of Bayville, 831 F. Supp. 2d 583, 591 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (citing Vandor, Inc. v. Militello, 301 F.3d 37, 38-39 (2d Cir. 2002)). In this action, the Plaintiffs have not alleged exhaustion of the available New York State remedies that may have p......
-
Doe v. Zucker
..."adequate process." Id. , 2012 WL 2940020, at *10, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100622, at *40.Defendants also cite Vandor, Inc. v. Militello , 301 F.3d 37, 39 (2d Cir. 2002), for the proposition that "Article 78 of New York's CPLR provides an adequate state law remedy for alleged failures by publ......
-
Murphy v. New Milford Zoning Com'n
...court improperly ruled on the merits. II. As we are obliged to do, we first consider the ripeness issue. See Vandor, Inc. v. Militello, 301 F.3d 37, 38 (2d Cir.2002) (per curiam). Ripeness is a jurisdictional inquiry. See id. As such, we must presume that we cannot entertain the Murphys' cl......
-
Murtaugh v. New York
...under Article I, Section 7 of the New York State Constitution.") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Vandor, Inc. v. Militello, 301 F.3d 37, 39 (2d Cir. 2002) (dismissing a takings claim on ripeness grounds due to plaintiff's failure to first seek compensation via an Article 7......