Riverhead Park Corp. v. Cardinale, 07-CV-4133 (ADS)(ARL)
| Decision Date | 28 March 2013 |
| Docket Number | 07-CV-4133 (ADS)(ARL) |
| Parties | RIVERHEAD PARK CORP., STANLEY BLUMENSTEIN and LAURENCE OXMAN, Plaintiffs, v. PHILIP CARDINALE, individually, GEORGE BARTUNEK, individually, BARBARA BLASS, individually, LEROY E. BARNES, individually, ROSE SANDERS, individually, and THE TOWN OF RIVERHEAD, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
MEMORANDUM OF
DECISION AND ORDER
APPEARANCES:
Campanelli & Associates, P.C.
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
By: Andrew J. Campanelli, Esq.
David Antwork, Esq., Of Counsel
Smith, Finkelstein, Lundberg, Isler & Yakaboski, LLP
Attorneys for the Defendants
By: Frank A. Isler Esq.
David P. Barker, Esq., Of Counsel
On October 3, 2007, the Plaintiffs Riverhead Park Corp. ("RPC"), Stanley Blumenstein ("Blumenstein") and Laurence Oxman ("Oxman," and collectively, "the Plaintiffs") commenced this action by filing a Complaint against the Defendants Philip Cardinale ("Cardinale"), George Bartunek ("Bartunek"), Barbara Blass ("Blass"), Leroy E. Barnes ("Barnes"), Dawn C. Thomas ("Thomas"), Rose Sanders ("Sanders") and the Town of Riverhead ("the Town") pursuant to 42U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. The Plaintiffs alleged a conspiracy and violations of the Plaintiffs' procedural due process rights, substantive due process rights and equal protection rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
On October 10, 2011, Thomas moved for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Fed. R. Civ. P.") 56, dismissing the Complaint insofar as it asserts allegations against her individually. In addition, on November 21, 2011, the Plaintiffs cross-moved to amend the Complaint to (1) withdraw their equal protection and conspiracy claims and (2) add state law and § 1983 malicious prosecution claims. In a Memorandum and Order dated July 26, 2012, the Court (1) granted Thomas's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Complaint against her individually; (2) granted the Plaintiff's cross-motion to amend the Complaint with respect to the withdrawal of the equal protection and conspiracy claims; and (3) denied the Plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend the Complaint with respect to adding state law and § 1983 malicious prosecution claims.
Presently before the Court is a motion by the remaining Defendants Cardinale, Bartunek, Blass, Barnes, Sanders and the Town ("the Defendants") for summary judgment dismissing the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The Defendants contend that summary judgment should be awarded in their favor because (1) the action is not ripe, as the Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust available administrative remedies; (2) the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim; (3) the defenses of absolute and qualified immunity apply in this case; and (4) the individual Plaintiffs lack standing. The Plaintiffs oppose this motion.
For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the Complaint.
The Defendant Town is a municipal corporation located within Suffolk County in the State of New York. (Compl., ¶ 23.) At all times relevant to this action, Cardinale, Bartunek, Blass and Sanders were members of the Town Board, Barnes was the Town's Building Department Administrator and Thomas was the Town Attorney. (Compl., ¶¶ 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19.) The Plaintiff RPC is the former owner of a 13-acre parcel of undeveloped land ("the Parcel") located in the Town, on the south side of County Route 58. Blumenstein and Oxman were both shareholders of RPC. (Siegel Decl., Exh. D.) Blumenstein was also the president of RPC. (Siegel Decl., Exh. D.) However, neither Blumenstein nor Oxman owned the Parcel in their individual capacity. (Siegel Decl., Exh. D.) It appears that Blumenstein is now deceased.
From 1997 to 2003, the Town considered the adoption of a town-wide Comprehensive Plan, also known as "the Master Plan." (Siegel Decl., Exh. E.) This Plan recommended amending the Town Code to rezone most property within the Town. (Siegel Decl., Exh. E.). In this regard, the Comprehensive Plan recommended that the Parcel be rezoned to the Town's Business Center Zoning District, which permitted retail uses but not agricultural uses. (Siegel Decl., Exh. E.) At the time, the Parcel was located in the Town's Industrial A Zoning District, which prohibited retail uses but permitted agricultural uses. (Siegel Decl., Exh. C.) On November 3, 2003, by Riverhead Town Board Resolution #1175 of 2003 ("Resolution 1175"), the Town adopted the Comprehensive Plan. (Siegel Decl., Exh. E.)
Prior to RPC's purchase of the Parcel, the Plaintiffs submitted a "Conceptual Site Plan" for the Parcel, dated December 19, 2003 and drafted by land surveyor Joseph A. Ingegno. (Siegel Decl., Exh. J.) The Plaintiffs proposed building a retail building on the land. (Siegel Decl., Exh. J.) According to the Plaintiffs, they submitted the Conceptual Site Plan because the Town Planner had asked them to submit it, so as to explore the possible types of development the Town might approve in the future. (Oxman Aff., ¶ 16.) However, the Plaintiffs claim that they never intended to build what was depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan. (Oxman Aff., ¶ 91.)
On the Conceptual Site Plan, there was an area of the Parcel that was marked as "edge of wetlands as flagged by First Coastal Environmental on April 2003" ("the wetland area"). (Siegel Decl., Exh. J.) No building or construction was proposed on the wetland area. (Siegel Decl., Exh. J.) The Plaintiffs contend that the Town has never demonstrated that there were any wetlands on the Parcel. (Oxman Aff., ¶¶ 44-47.)
A few weeks later, on January 9, 2004, for the sum of $825,000, the Plaintiff RPC completed the purchase of the Parcel (Siegel Decl., Exh. C.) At the time of RPC's purchase, the Parcel was still located in the Town's Industrial A Zoning District, as it appears the Town had not enacted any resolutions to execute the Comprehensive Plan's zoning recommendations. (Siegel Decl., Exh. C.)
On or about May 28, 2004, in regard to the Parcel, Blumenstein, on behalf of RPC, submitted to the Town (1) an Application for Site Plan Approval; (2) a Preliminary Site Plan Checklist; and (3) a Full Environmental Assessment Form. (Siegel Decl., Exhs. G, H and I.) In RPC's Application for Site Plan Approval, Blumenstein represented that RPC intended to "build a commercial center in accordance with the new Master Plan." (Siegel Decl., Exh. G.)Similarly, on the Full Environment Assessment Form, Blumenstein indicated that RPC planned to "develop commercial space on Route 58 in accordance with the Master Plan." (Siegel Decl., Exh. I.) In addition, on the Preliminary Site Plan Checklist, Blumenstein stated that RPC planned to build a "new construction" on the vacant land. (Siegel Decl., Exh. H.)
In or about June 2004, Oxman contacted Jeffrey Seeman ("Seeman") to examine the Parcel "for the 'absence' or 'presence' of wetlands, a typical investigatory look to determine if fresh water wetlands existed on the property." (Siegel Decl., Exh. M.) Seeman was the principal of Coastal Environmental Corporation, a company engaged in all facets of environmental consulting and recognized as qualified for jurisdictional wetland delineations and assessments by the State of New York and the State of New Jersey. (Siegel Decl., Exh. M.) In June 2004, Seeman examined the Parcel and discovered "an isolated fresh water wetland of approximately 100 foot in diameter," which "contained exposed groundwater, low bush blueberry plants and a variety of sedges and rushes typical of 'Kettle Hole' type wetlands found in pine barren/scrub oak forested habitats." (Siegel Decl., Exh. M.) Seeman further observed that the wetland area "had previously been 'flagged' since there were pink survey flags located all around the edges." (Siegel Decl., Exh. M.)
After conducting the field examination, Seeman contacted Oxman and Blumenstein by telephone and "advised them that wetlands were indeed present at the [Parcel] but that [he] did not do 'formal' jurisdictional wetland delineation." (Siegel Decl., Exh. M.) He also advised them he "generally agreed with the flagging of the wetland that had been previously done," that the "wetland would be regulated under Chapter 107 of the Riverhead Town Code and that the Town had the jurisdiction to regulate within 150 feet of the wetland boundary." (Siegel Decl., Exh. M.)
On September 8, 2004, the Town's Architectural Review Board conducted a preliminarily review of a site plan for the Parcel that was drafted by architect-planner Martin F. Sendlewski, AIA. (Siegel Decl., Exh. L.) Thereafter, on September 29, 2004, the Town's Architectural Review Board reviewed the site plan. (Siegel Decl., Exh. L.) The site plan proposed constructing "Riverhead Park Stores" on the Parcel. (Siegel Decl., Exh. L.) Again, the wetland area was marked as an "edge of wetlands as flagged by First Coastal Environmental on April 2003." (Siegel Decl., Exh. L.) The site plan also indicated that the wetland area was undisturbed. (Siegel Decl., Exh. L.)
However, at some point, the Plaintiffs began considering using the Parcel to "operate a farm stand, selling local produce in accommodating seasons, and then have pumpkin picking in the autumn, and sell Christmas trees in the winter." (Compl., ¶ 36.) The Plaintiffs wished to use the Parcel in this way in order to generate income for mortgage and tax payments while they looked for a buyer for the Parcel. (Oxman Aff., ¶¶ 18-24.)
Thus, on September 29, 2004, the Plaintiffs sent a letter to Bartunek requesting that agriculture be included as a permitted use in the Business Center Zoning District. (Compl. ¶ 45; Campanelli Decl., Exh. K.) Thereafter, Oxman "had a face-to-face meeting with [] Bartunek, Sanders, Blass and the Town Planner[] and [] advised them that [he] wanted to...
To continue reading
Request your trial