Leung v. Town of Oyster Bay
| Decision Date | 21 October 2019 |
| Docket Number | 2:16-cv-4356 (ADS) (AYS) |
| Parties | SANDRA LEUNG and HSIAO CHUN WU, Plaintiffs, v. THE TOWN OF OYSTER BAY, CHRISTINA IPPOLITO and CHERYL CENDERELLI, as Successors to FREDERICK. P. IPPOLITO, Deceased, JOSEPH CIAMBRA, individually, GARY BLANCHARD, individually, and JOSEPH CANGRO, individually, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
APPEARANCES:
Campanelli & Associates, P.C.
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
Merrick, NY 11566
By: Andrew J. Campanelli, Esq., Of Counsel.
Law Offices of David A. Antwork, P.C.
1757 Merrick Avenue, Suite 205
Merrick, NY 11566
By: David Antwork, Esq., Of Counsel.
1225 Franklin Avenue, Suite 450
Garden City, NY 11530
By: Christopher Kendric, Esq.
54 Audrey Avenue
Oyster Bay, NY 11771
By: Matthew M. Rozea, Esq., Town Attorney
I. BACKGROUND
This case involves a long fact pattern arising from a dispute between property owners and a municipality and its employees. The background section of this opinion outlines that dispute in three parts. The first part recounts the facts as summarized in the complaint. The second part recapitulates a similar action filed against the same Defendants, arising from the same dispute as the present action. The third part lists the claims raised in the present action as well as a pending Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FED. R. CIV. P.") 56 motion for summary judgment raised by some of the defendants, and a request that two defendants receive qualified immunity. In the discussion section, this Court analyzes that motion and the request for qualified immunity. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Defendants' motion in part, denies the motion in part, and denies the request for qualified immunity.
In August 2016, Sandra Leung and Hsaio Chun Wu (the "Plaintiffs") brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against The Town of Oyster Bay (the "Town") and multiple town employees in their individual capacity, namely, Commissioner of the Department of Planning and Development Frederick P. Ippolito, and building inspectors Joseph Ciambra, Gary Blanchard, and Joseph Cangro (the "Defendants"). ECF 1. The Plaintiffs alleged the following. They were owners and landlords of a restaurant located at Two Spring Street, Oyster Bay, New York (the "Premises"), which was located across the street from Town Hall. Id. at 1, 8. Prior to their ownership of the Premises, the Town issued a Certificate of Occupancy for the Premises to operate as a restaurant. Id. at 6-7. At the time the Plaintiffs purchased the Premises in 2004 for $700,000, it was operating as a restaurant called Al Dente, and it also had an apartment above the restaurant where one tenant resided. Id. at 8, 13. Given its proximity to Town Hall, Town employees made up approximately 75 percent of Al Dente's lunch crowd, and they also attended Al Dente for office parties and other group celebrations. Id. The individual Defendants were among those frequent patrons. Id.
The Plaintiffs further alleged that Commissioner Ippolito himself owned another Italian restaurant. Id. at 9. In May 2012, Ippolito met with Philip M. Morizio, the then owner of Al Dente, and told him that Al Dente was "finished doing business in Oyster Bay." Id. The Town then cited the Premises and the Plaintiffs with several violations of the Town Code (the "May 2012 Citations"), which were later dismissed. Id. at 10. Ippolito later barred Town employees from eating at Al Dente, and told Morizio that he would shut down the restaurant if he did not install a permanent enclosure in its courtyard. Id. at 10-11. Ippolito also failed to cooperate with Morizio to get the Town's approval for the Food Network to renovate the Premises as part of a television show, causing Morizio to contact the Town Supervisor's office. Id. at 11-12.
The Plaintiffs further alleged that on August 13, 2013, Ippolito sent the other individual Defendants to the Premises to again falsely cite the Premises for Town Code violations and issued an "Emergency Safeguard Notification" as a false pretext for shutting down Al Dente. Id. at 12. Building Inspector Defendant Blanchard told Morizio that Ippolito was angry about Ippolito contacting the supervisor's office, and said "[Ippolito] is the gun and I am the bullet." Id. at 13. Without a hearing, the Defendants padlocked the premises; shut off the gas and electricity to the restaurant and the basement; issued new citations (the "September 2013 Citations") that charged the Plaintiffs with violating Article 96 of the Town Code, titled "Dangerous Buildings"; filed two false Emergency Safeguard Notifications; and placed "Dangerous Building" notices on Al Dente's windows, although they allowed the tenant in the upstairs apartment to remain. Id. at 12-14, 17.
The Plaintiffs contended that the Premises' numerous "permits, approvals, authorizations and certificates of occupancy" disproved the Defendants' numerous false accusations. Id. at 14-17. Al Dente remained padlocked, with the utilities turned off, from September 16, 2013 until January 2015, and the restaurant sustained approximately $40,000 in damages during this time because of burst pipes, flooding, and destroyed appliances. Id. at 17-18.
On an unspecified date in the winter of 2014, the Town allowed the Plaintiffs temporary access to the Premises to file an insurance claim, and then padlocked the Premises again. Id. at 18. The insurance company disclaimed coverage, reasoning that the damage resulted from an intentional act. Id. at 19. In January 2015, after Plaintiff Leung informed Ippolito that Al Dente had been forced out of business, Ippolito removed the padlocks from the Premises the same day. Id. at 19-20. Acting under the belief that the Defendants would impede any effort to operate a restaurant, the Plaintiffs sold the Premises in March 2015. Id. at 20. The Plaintiffs contend that while the Premises had a market value of $1.2 million, the Defendants' false designation of the Premises as a dangerous building and the refusal to allow a restaurant tenant caused the Premises to be sold for only $740,000. Id. However, the buyers of the Premises, who apparently are friendly with Ippolito, were able to operate a restaurant at that location. Id. The Plaintiffs also assert that the padlocking of Al Dente forced the restaurant out of business, which cost them $4,300 in monthly rent. Id.
In September 2017, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' FED. R. CIV. P. 25 motion to substitute Christina Ipppolito and Cheryl Cenderelli for Frederick Ippolito, because of Frederick Ippolito's death. ECF 36.
In addition to bringing their own action, the Plaintiffs noted that Morizio and Al Dente had previously sued the same Defendants (the "Al Dente action"). In February 2014, Al Dente and Morizio (the "Al Dente Plaintiffs") sued the Defendants in an action before Judge Leonard D. Wexler. 14-cv-1241 ("Al Dente ECF") 1, 22. They raised a procedural due process claim, a substantive due process claim, and an equal protection claim. Id. The Court denied a motion by the Defendants for summary judgment, ruling, inter alia, that there were genuine disputes of material fact as to whether the individual Defendants had qualified immunity. Al Dente ECF 122 at 1.
The Al Dente action proceeded to trial. Al Dente ECF 122, 123, 125, 126. The jury rendered a verdict, finding that Ippolito violated the Al Dente Plaintiffs' procedural due process rights; that Ippolito and Blanchard violated their substantive due process rights; that they had proven a claim for municipal liability against Ippolito; that they had proven that Ippolito was the final policy maker of the Town; and that he directly committed or commanded a constitutional violation. AL Dente ECF 128. During post-trial proceedings, the parties settled and voluntarily dismissed the case, and the Court set aside the verdict. Al Dente ECF 142. In the joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal, the parties agreed that the settlement "should not in any way be construed as an admission of wrongdoing or liability on the part of any party or former party, as any such wrongdoing and liability has been and continues to be expressly denied." AL Dente ECF 143-1.
The Plaintiffs raise three claims: a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim, a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim, and a claim that the Defendants conspired to violate their civil rights. ECF 1 at 23-29. In their FED. R. CIV. P. 56 counter-statement, the Plaintiffs clarified that they were bringing their conspiracy claim under § 1983, and not 42 U.S.C. § 1985. ECF 62-15 at 2. The Plaintiffs also allege that the "Defendants' unconstitutional acts, as described herein, were caused by a policy or practice, established by the TOWN, to give IPPOLITO final decision and policy making authority." ECF 1 at 22. Also in the complaint, the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants' unlawful actions "were driven solely by Defendants' spite, malice, and personal animus towards Plaintiffs' tenant, and for no other legitimate, rational, or lawful purpose." Id. at 24.
As to relief, for each claim they ask for $1 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages, for a total of $3 million in compensatory damages and $15 million in punitive damages. They also ask for attorneys' fees, costs, expert fees, and any other relief the Court deems proper. Id. at 29.
Presently before the Court is a motion for summary judgment by the Town, Ciambra, and Cangro. ECF 56, 68.
II. DISCUSSION
Defendants the Town, Ciambra, and Cangro move for summary judgment. In their summary judgment motion, the Defendants contend first that the Al Dente action has no bearing on...
To continue reading
Request your trial