Stratford Place Corp. v. Capalino

• Decision Date: 21 September 1983
• Docket Number: No. 82 Civ. 1610 (RLC).,82 Civ. 1610 (RLC).
• Citation: 574 F. Supp. 52
• Parties: STRATFORD PLACE CORP. and Solil Management Corp., Plaintiffs, v. James CAPALINO, or his successor in office as Commissioner of General Services of the City of New York, and Edward I. Koch, Harrison J. Goldin, Carol Bellamy, Andrew S. Stein, Stanley Simon, Howard Golden, Donald Manes, and Anthony R. Goeta, or their successors in office, constituting the members of the Board of Estimate of the City of New York, and the City of New York, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

574 F. Supp. 52

STRATFORD PLACE CORP. and Solil Management Corp., Plaintiffs, v. James CAPALINO, or his successor in office as Commissioner of General Services of the City of New York, and Edward I. Koch, Harrison J. Goldin, Carol Bellamy, Andrew S. Stein, Stanley Simon, Howard Golden, Donald Manes, and Anthony R. Goeta, or their successors in office, constituting the members of the Board of Estimate of the City of New York, and the City of New York, Defendants.

No. 82 Civ. 1610 (RLC).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

September 21, 1983.

Costigan, Hyman & Hyman, P.C., Garden City, N.Y., for plaintiffs; George B. Costigan, Jr., Dale Allinson, Garden City, N.Y., Harvey Zeichner, of counsel.

Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Corp. Counsel, New York City, for defendants; Robert Bergen, Susan Wagner, New York City, of counsel.

OPINION

ROBERT L. CARTER, District Judge.

Plaintiffs have brought this action to declare null and void New York City's ("The City") interest in their property and for damages for the defendants' alleged violation of plaintiffs' constitutional rights. Defendants have moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, F.R.Civ.P., on the grounds that the action is barred by res judicata. The facts and procedural history of this case were treated recently in Stratford v. Capalino, 82 Civ. 1610, slip op. (Oct. 25, 1982), where the court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. There, I held that plaintiffs could not meet the requisites for a preliminary injunction and that furthermore, relief would be barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. I see no reason to deviate from that position.

The dispute centers on plaintiffs' failure, since 1974, to pay taxes on property owned on Beaver and William Streets. The amount of the unpaid taxes and interest gave the city a lien on the property in excess of $2,500,000. Plaintiffs attempted unsuccessfully to have the Board of Estimate reconvey the property. Failing to do so, they instituted an Article 78 proceeding in State Supreme Court in New York County in September, 1979. The petition was dismissed on February 21, 1980. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, and leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals was denied on December 17, 1980. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration before the State Supreme Court pursuant to CPLR § 5015 was likewise denied on June 30, 1982.

Plaintiffs now contend that the issues argued here either were not raised in the state court proceedings or, if they were, were not sufficiently litigated. Specifically, plaintiffs urge that § D17-25.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York be declared unconstitutional on its face and as applied to them because it violates equal protection and substantive and procedural due process guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs' claims have no merit.

On appeal to the Appellate Division, First Department, plaintiffs raised the same issues, albeit couched in slightly different terms. There, they argued that the Board of...