Macera v. Vill. Bd. of Ilion

• Decision Date: 30 September 2019
• Docket Number: 6:16-CV-668 (LEK/TWD)
• Parties: RONALD A. MACERA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VILLAGE BOARD OF ILION, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

RONALD A. MACERA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VILLAGE BOARD OF ILION, et al., Defendants.

6:16-CV-668 (LEK/TWD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

September 30, 2019

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Pro se plaintiffs Ronald and Catherine Macera, residents of the Village of Ilion, New York ("Ilion" or the "Village"), brought this civil-rights action against the Ilion Board of Trustees (the "Board"), Village Fire Chief and Code Enforcement Officer James Trevett ("Trevett"), and Village Police Chief Timothy Parisi ("Parisi"). Dkt. Nos. 1 ("Complaint"); 26 ("Amended Complaint"). Plaintiffs brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, and violations of New York State's Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL"). Compl.; Am. Compl.

Now before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. Dkt. Nos. 113 & 114 ("Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Motion"); 113-3 ("Macera Affirmation"); 113-4 ("Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Memorandum"); 113-5 ("Plaintiffs' Statement of Material Facts" or "Plaintiffs' SMF"); 110 ("Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion"); 110-1 ("Walsh Affirmation"); 110-19 ("Defendants' Summary Judgment Memorandum"); 110-20 ("Defendants' Statement of Material Facts" or "Defendants' SMF"). Both parties have filed responses in opposition and replies to those response. Dkt. Nos. 123 ("Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Response"); 123-1 ("Plaintiffs' Response SMF"); 119 ("Defendants' Summary Judgment Response"); 126 (Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Reply"); 121 ("Defendants' Summary Judgment Reply"). Plaintiffs have also filed a Motion to Amend, Dkt. No. 112 ("Motion to Amend"), to which Defendants object, Dkt. No. 117 ("Defendants' Opposition to the Motion to Amend").

For the following reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Amend are denied and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Initial Matters

Before turning to the factual background of this dispute, the Court has a few words for the parties about their filings in this case.

Local Rule 7.1 requires a party moving for summary judgment to file a "Statement of Material Facts." L.R. 7.1(a)(3). This statement:

"[S]hall set forth, in numbered paragraphs, a short and concise statement of each material fact about which the moving party contends there exists no genuine issue. Each fact listed shall set forth a specific citation to the record where the fact is established . . . Failure of the moving party to submit an accurate and complete Statement of Material Facts shall result in a denial of the motion."

Id. Plaintiffs failed to comply with this rule. Plaintiffs' SMF submitted with their Motion for Summary Judgment largely consists of legal conclusions and contains only two citations to the Record. See Pls.' SMF ¶¶ 4, 18. Plaintiffs' Response SMF is similarly sparsely cited, is incomplete, and also fails to comply with Local Rule 7.1. See Pls.' Resp. SMF. For these reasons, and because Plaintiffs filed their response late, Defendants urge the Court to deemadmitted the entirety of Defendants' SMF. Defs.' SJ Reply; see also Black v. Fischer, No. 08-CV-232, 2010 WL 2985081, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. July 1, 2010) (citing Monahan v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Corr., 214 F.3d 275, 292 (2d Cir. 2000) ("Courts in this district have not hesitated to enforce Rule 7.1(a)(3) . . . by deeming facts admitted upon an opposing party's failure to properly respond."). Bearing in mind Plaintiffs' pro se status, the Court declines to deem admitted Defendants' version of the facts in their entirety, even though "Plaintiff[]s['] imprecise citations have, admittedly, left the Court to sift through the cited pages to determine where, or even whether, anything therein actually contradicts the assertions in the corresponding paragraph of Defendant[]s['] [Statement of Facts]." Pistello v. Bd. of Educ. of Canastota Cent. Sch. Dist., No. 16-CV- 212, 2019 WL 1300947, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2019) (Kahn, J.).

For its part, Defendants' briefing, including the statement of facts, wholly ignores several of Plaintiffs' claims and significant portions of their case. This has left numerous facts attested to in Plaintiffs' exhibits undiscussed and, in some cases, undisputed.

Since so much of the Record is unexplained and undeveloped by the parties, and since Defendants have essentially ignored several aspects of Plaintiffs' claims, the factual summary that follows is gleaned largely from the Court's independent review of the Record. As always at the summary judgment stage, the Court "reserves the right to disregard any assertions" made by either party if those "factual assertions . . . are otherwise unsupported in the record." Id. (citing Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., Inc., 258 F.3d 62, 74 (2d Cir. 2001)).

B. Factual Background

1. Setting the Stage

At heart, this case is a dispute between neighbors. Plaintiffs moved to the Village of Ilion in 2007 when they bought a home at 12 English Street. Dkt. No. 110-3 ("Macera Deposition") at6-7. The following year, a couple named Janne and Joe Lawrence (the "Lawrences") rented the house next door at 14 English Street. Id. at 11, 18.

The houses at 12 and 14 English Street share a driveway. Id. at 17-18. The driveway leads to, respectively, a barn in the rear of 12 English Street and a lean-to garage behind 14 English Street. Id. at 16-18. Provisions in both properties' deeds ensured access to these structures by granting an easement to the other property for use of the driveway. Dkt. No. 110-12.

In 2009, the Lawrences began operating a day care out of their home. Macera Dep. at 18-19. Plaintiffs allege that, starting at this time, the Lawrences allowed children at the daycare to run up and down the shared driveway and enter Plaintiffs' barn. Id. at 23-24. Concerned that they could be legally responsible if any child playing in the shared driveway or in the barn were injured, Plaintiffs shared their concerns with the Lawrences, who allegedly took no action. Id. Plaintiffs then contacted the New York State Office of Children and Family Services ("OCFS") to determine if the Lawrences had a license to operate a day care out of their home. Id. at 20. OCFS confirmed that the Lawrences had the proper license. Id.

In 2011, Plaintiffs wrote a letter to the then mayor of Ilion, Mayor Stevens, to express concerns about the day care and about other purported harassment by the Lawrences, including running a motorcycle outside Plaintiffs' kitchen window and "flip[ing Plaintiffs] off." Id. at 24-25. In a responsive letter, then-Mayor Stevens stated he had concerns about the day care as well and would have them addressed.¹ Id. at 26.

Also in 2011, Plaintiffs complained again to OCFS about the Lawrences' day care, which resulted in an inspection by OCFS officials. Id. at 27. OCFS recommended the Lawrences put up a fence to enclose their backyard, which the Lawrences did. Id. Plaintiffs contend that the Lawrences never received a permit to erect this fence. Dkt. No. 113-6 ("Trevett Deposition") at 16. In any event, the fence did not ameliorate Plaintiffs' concerns "because the gate was very sloppy and could be easily opened." Macera Dep. at 28.

In 2012, the Lawrences applied for and received a permit from the Ilion Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") to operate their home occupation day care at 14 English Street. The meeting in which the ZBA considered the Lawrences' application was publicized in the local newspaper and open to the public. Pls.' SJ Resp., Ex. KK-2; Pls.' SJ Mot., Ex. 51. However, Plaintiffs did not know about the meeting and did not attend. Macera Dep. at 33.

Throughout this period, Plaintiffs had other mounting issue with the Lawrences. Primary among these was parking for the Lawrences' day care business. Id. at 52. According to Plaintiffs, customers of the day care would regularly block the shared driveway with their parked cars. Id. Plaintiffs took photos documenting these traffic violations, see Pls.' SJ Mot., Ex. 12 (purporting to show 120 separate parking violations in front of 12 and 14 English Street), and called the police about these violations on approximately eight occasions, Mcaera Dep. at 52. Plaintiffs claim Ilion police never responded to those eight calls, id. at 53, though police records indicated an officer responded on seven of eight occasions, Defs.' SJ Mot., Ex. Q.

2. 2013 and early 2014: The Fence and the Litigation

Things came to a head in June 2013. First on or around June 22, 2013, the Lawrences paved the front yard of 14 English Street, apparently to provide parking to customers of their daycare. Macera Dep. at 47-48. Plaintiffs contend that the Lawrences never received the necessary zoning variance for this paving. Id. at 49-50.

At that time, the Lawrences also decided to relocate their fence. Macera Dep. at 36; Pls.' Resp. SMF ¶ 14. They planned to move the fence so that it ran from the wall separating Plaintiffs' barn and the Lawrences' lean-to garage to the corner of the Lawrences' house, thus enclosing the Lawrences' back yard. Id. at 36-37. Plaintiffs allege that they became aware of the Lawrences plans to relocate the fence when Joe Lawrence "threaten[ed] us . . . and . . . claimed that he would put [the fence] straight down the middle of the driveway because he could do whatever he wanted to do because he had people in the Village that would support them." Macera Dep. at 38.

a. Communications with Trevett

In response to the Lawrences' plans, Plaintiffs took action. On June 26, 2013, they emailed the general Village email address and asked for the name and contact officer for the "Codes/Zoning enforcer." Dkt. No. 16 ("Plaintiffs' Resp. to Motion to Dismiss" or "Plaintiffs' MTD Response") at 76. Informed that Trevett was the Village's Codes Enforcement Officer, they wrote to him on June 27, 2013 to notify him of the Lawrences' plans,...