Step by Step, Inc. v. City of Ogdensburg
| Decision Date | 05 April 2016 |
| Docket Number | 7:15–CV–925 |
| Parties | Step By Step, Inc., Plaintiff, v. City of Ogdensburg, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
CARLO ALEXANDRE C. DE OLIVEIRA, ESQ., COOPER, ERVING LAW FIRM, Attorneys for Plaintiff, 39 North Pearl Street, 4th Floor, Albany, NY 12207
PAUL V. MULLIN, ESQ., SUGARMAN LAW FIRM LLP, Attorneys for Defendant, 211 West Jefferson Street, Syracuse, NY 13202
DAVID N. HURD
, United States District Judge
TABLE OF CONTENTS
II. BACKGROUND...119
IV. DISCUSSION...123
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Step by Step, Inc. (“SBS” or “plaintiff”), a New York not-for-profit corporation that provides outpatient mental health support services, has filed this action against defendant City of Ogdensburg (the “City” or “defendant”), located in Saint Lawrence County, New York. Plaintiff brings claims pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq .
(the “FHA”) as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq . (the “ADA”) alleging that defendant's refusal to approve an application for a Planned Development District (“PDD”), which would authorize plaintiff to establish a housing unit for individuals with mental illnesses, constitutes unlawful discrimination on the basis of plaintiff's clients' mental disabilities. Presently under consideration are (1) plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and (2) defendant's cross-motion to dismiss. Both motions were fully briefed and oral argument was heard in Utica, New York. Decision was reserved.
II. BACKGROUND1
SBS presently provides services to individuals with mental illnesses at its offices located at 103 Ford Street in Ogdensburg, New York. In September 2014, plaintiff purchased a former elementary school located at 1515 Knox Street in the City (the “Site”). The Site is located in an area zoned for single family residential structures.
In April 2015, SBS filed an application with the City to rezone the Site from a single family residential district to a PDD. Plaintiff planned to redevelop the Site into a combination of supportive housing, respite / hospital diversion housing, rental office space, and mental health support services for its mentally ill patients.
Pursuant to the Ogdensburg City Code, an applicant seeking to develop or redevelop significant land areas must obtain the approval of the Ogdensburg City Council to amend the zoning map and establish a PDD. As Article IX of the City Code explains, the purpose of a PDD is to provide:
See Smith Aff., Ex. A, § 221–29.
To qualify as a PDD, an undeveloped parcel of land must be at least two acres in size or be a developed parcel that has at least 40,000 square feet. Smith Aff., Ex. A, § 221–30. The City Code also sets forth the criteria for evaluating an applicant's proposed PDD:
See id. § 221–31(F)(2).
At its April 13, 2015 meeting, the City Council referred SBS's application to both the City Planning Board and the Saint Lawrence County Planning Board to obtain each board's recommendation.
On May 11, 2015, while those referrals remained pending, the City Council conducted a public hearing on SBS's application and proposed use of the Site. A number of local residents attended, and both supporters and critics were heard on the issue.
On May 14, 2015, the County Planning Board considered SBS's application and voted to recommend disapproval. The City's Planning Board reached a similarly unfavorable conclusion four days later, voting 5–1 on May 18 to also recommend disapproval of plaintiff's application.2
Notably however, on May 27, 2015, the Chairman of the County Planning Board requested that the City Council resubmit SBS's application so that it could be reconsidered. According to this request, the County Planning Board had incorrectly believed the Site could be considered under the then-draft Adaptive Reuse District (“ARD”) law, which modified the City's zoning code to create a new district for parcels generally associated with public and quasi-public use, such as former schools and churches, and provided guidelines and a process for their redevelopment. See City Code § 221–23. Nevertheless, on May 28, 2015, the City Council held a special meeting, where it voted 5–1 against plaintiff's PDD application without the benefit of any reconsideration by the County Planning Board.
Thereafter, on July 20, 2015, the City Council voted to approve the ARD law. Under this new law, the standards for consideration of redevelopment applications are substantially similar to those for a PDD application. However, the ARD law is limited to parcels that are less than two acres. See City Code § 221–22. The new law also provides greater opportunities for public input, since it requires both the City's Zoning Board of Appeals and the City Council to conduct public hearings concerning applications for a permit under the ARD law. See id. §§ 221–25, 221–28.
On July 30, 2015, SBS filed the complaint and its motion for a preliminary injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 65
, which seeks an order directing the immediate approval of plaintiff's application to establish housing for people with disabilities at the Site. The City opposed and filed a cross-motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
III. LEGAL STANDARDS
“A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it.” Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir.2000)
. “The plaintiff bears the burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” Aurecchione v. Schoolman Transp. Sys., Inc., 426 F.3d 635, 638 (2d Cir.2005). “In determining the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, a district court may consider evidence outside the pleadings.” Saleh v. Holder, 84 F.Supp.3d 135, 137–38 (E.D.N.Y.2014) (citing Makarova, 201 F.3d at 113 ). “Subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue and, thus, when a party moves to dismiss under both Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), the motion court must address the 12(b)(1) motion first.” Id. (citations omitted).
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)
. Although a complaint need only contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2), more than mere conclusions are required. Indeed, “[w]hile legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)
.
Dismissal is appropriate only where the plaintiff has failed to provide some basis for the allegations that support the elements of her claims. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955
(). When considering a motion to dismiss, the pleading is to be construed liberally, all factual allegations are deemed to be true, and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in the plaintiff's favor. Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002).
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Nat'l Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008)
(citing Munaf v. Ge
r
en, 553 U.S. 674, 689–90, 128 S.Ct. 2207, 171 L.Ed.2d 1 (2008) ). “The party seeking the injunction carries the burden of persuasion to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diamond House of SE Idaho, LLC v. City of Ammon
..., 2018 WL 2176175, at *5 (D.N.J. 2018) (violation of FHA sufficient to presume irreparable harm); Step by Step, Inc. v. City of Ogdensburg , 176 F.Supp.3d 112, 133 (2d Cir. 2016) (noting the Eleventh Circuit "has taken the position that a showing of a substantial likelihood that a defendant......
-
Islam v. Cuomo
...and force them to "expend substantial resources to mitigate its potentially adverse effects"); Step By Step, Inc. v. City of Ogdensburg, 176 F. Supp. 3d 112, 134–35 (N.D.N.Y. 2016) (granting preliminary injunction where, as a result of a municipality's zoning law, "plaintiff's goal of provi......
-
901 Ernston Rd., LLC v. Borough of Sayreville Zoning Bd. of Adjustment
...Carson Found. of Fla., Inc. v. City of Delray Beach, 879 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1373 (S.D. Fla. 2012). See Step by Step, Inc. v. City of Ogdensburg, 176 F. Supp. 3d 112, 135 (N.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The City's actions have deprived [plaintiff] of its ability to pursue its mission and to provide housing......
-
Town & Country Adult Living, Inc. v. Village/Town of Mount Kisco
...(disparate treatment); (2) disparate impact; and (3) failure to make a reasonable accommodation." Step by Step, Inc. v. City of Ogdensburg, 176 F. Supp. 3d 112, 123 (N.D.N.Y. 2016) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Plaintiffs' FHA claim in the AC refersto and describes leg......