Vlahadamis v. Kiernan

• Citation: 837 F.Supp.2d 131
• Decision Date: 28 September 2011
• Docket Number: No. 08 CV 2876(DRH)(AKT).,08 CV 2876(DRH)(AKT).
• Parties: Frank VLAHADAMIS, Maria Vlahadamis, and Hampton Bays Diner Corp., Plaintiffs, v. James KIERNAN, Vincent Cagno, Stephen A. Frano, Cheryl Kraft, Chris Hansen, and Brian K. Williams, in their individual capacities; The Southampton Town Police, The Town of Southampton, and John/Jane Does 1–7, Defendants.
• Court: United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)

837 F.Supp.2d 131

Frank VLAHADAMIS, Maria Vlahadamis, and Hampton Bays Diner Corp., Plaintiffs,

v.James KIERNAN, Vincent Cagno, Stephen A. Frano, Cheryl Kraft, Chris Hansen, and Brian K. Williams, in their individual capacities; The Southampton Town Police, The Town of Southampton, and John/Jane Does 1–7, Defendants.

No. 08 CV 2876(DRH)(AKT).

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

Sept. 28, 2011.

Campanelli & Associates, P.C., by: David A. Antwork, Esq., Charles A. Martin, Esq., Garden City, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Devitt, Spellman, Barrett, LLP, by: Kelly E. Wright, Esq., Jeltje de Jong, Esq., Smithtown, NY, for Defendants Kiernan, Cagno, Frano, Kraft, Hansen, Williams, The Southampton Town Police Department, and the Town of Southampton.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

HURLEY, Senior District Judge:

Plaintiffs bring this Civil Rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 (“§ 1983”) and 1985 (“§ 1985”), claiming violations of the Equal Protection clause, due process, as well as claims for malicious prosecution and for conspiracy to violate plaintiffs' Civil Rights. Presently before the Court is defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Frank and Maria Vlahadamis own and operate the Hampton Bays Diner Corporation, which has done business in Hampton Bays, New York ¹ as the Hampton Bays Diner (“the Diner”) since 1990. (Defs' Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Facts (“56.1 Stmt.”) ¶¶ 2–3.) Plaintiff Frank Vlahadamis also owned a diner with a different business partner at the same location under the name “Vlorio Restaurant” since 1983. (56.1 Stmt. ¶ 7.)

Beginning in 1983, Mr. Vlahadamis enjoyed a relationship with the Southampton Town Police that he describes as “excellent,” (“Deposition of Frank Vlahadamis” (“FV Dep.”) at 29; 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 18), and a relationship with the Town's Building Department and Fire Marshal that he describes as “very close,” (FV Dep. at 30; 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 19; see 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 20). These relationships, however, allegedly began to sour in 2006 when the Diner began hiring a Disc Jockey (“DJ”) to play “Hispanic-oriented music” and held “a weekly ‘Hispanic Night’ with the intent of drawing patrons of Hispanic and Latino ancestry to the[ ] restaurant.” (Compl. ¶¶ 6–7; see 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 32.) Plaintiffs claim that once the Diner was successful at attracting a steady stream of Hispanic customers,² defendants began to “launch a series of attacks upon the plaintiffs, with the intent to prevent the[m] from continuing to draw Hispanics into their restaurant, and to punish then for doing so in the first instance.” (Compl. ¶ 7.) Allegedly, the defendants' ultimate goal was to “create a false basis upon which they could seek to induce the New York State Liquor Authority [“SLA”] to cancel or revoke the plaintiffs' [ ] Liquor license.” (Compl. ¶ 96.) These purported “attacks” took the form of the following acts by the defendants:

1. Since 2006, the time in which the Diner hired a DJ and began hosting “Hispanic nights,” “fire marshals and code enforcement officers began coming into the bar at the Diner every weekend.” (56.1 Stmt. ¶ 48; FV Dep. at 93.)

2. After the commencement of weekend “Hispanic nights,” there was a noticeable increase in police presence in the restaurant's parking lot. (FV Dep. at 59–60.) With a frequency not specified in the record, officers would stop their cruiser in the parking lot and “harass” the customers by “mak[ing] them open the[ir] cars and search[ing] their vehicles.” ( Id.) According to Mr. Vlahadamis's testimony, in the years before the restaurant targeted Hispanic patrons, “there were a lot more people in the restaurant [with] lines around the building and we never had police presence there, ever.” (FV Dep. at 63–64.)

3. On an unspecified Thursday night, sometime before May 25, 2008 ( see FV Dep. at 120:23–24), when the Diner was offering a free buffet and “Spanish music,” two police cruisers pulled into the parking lot by the entrance to the establishment, turned on their interior lights, and displayed their weapons, “exchanging bullets back and forth playing with the guns with each other.” (FV Dep. at 121.) This display alarmed a number of customers who would not leave while the officers remained outside. (FV Dep. at 121.)

4. On September 3, 2006, the Town Police conducted an undercover investigation at the Diner, in which an officer entered the Diner after midnight and purchased cocaine from one of the patrons in a bathroom stall. (Ps' Ex. G.)

5. On September 16, 2006, the Town Police conducted a second undercover investigation in which an officer entered the Diner and again purchased cocaine from two separate patrons in a bathroom stall. (Ps' Ex. G.)

6. On October 8, 2006, during a third undercover investigation, a patron in the bathroom of the Diner gave the undercover Town police officer cocaine. (Ps' Ex. G.)

7. On January 31, 2007, the Town Police issued four referrals to the SLA, reporting on each of the incidents in which drugs were given or sold to undercover officers at the Diner. The referrals alleged that plaintiffs violated Section 106(6) of the New York Alcoholic Beverage Control Law by allowing the Diner to become “disorderly,” ³ to wit, failing “to implement proper procedures to detect and/or deter drug sales from occurring within the premises.” (Ps' Ex. H.) If the charges in a referral to the SLA are sustained by an Administrative Law Judge, it could lead to the revocation, suspension, or termination of an establishment's liquor license. N.Y. Alcoholic Beverage Control Law (“NY ABC Law”) § 106. The Town had never before issued a referral to the SLA that involved the Diner. (FV Dep. at 68.)

8. On May 7, 2007,⁴ the Town Fire Marshal cited the Diner for “fail[ing] to maintain an accurate count of the occupant load within the establishment.” (Ps' Ex. O; 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 49.) The Diner's count estimated 21 occupants were present, while the actual count by the fire marshal reflected approximately 85.⁵ (Ps' Ex. O; 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 49.)

9. On May 20, 2007 just after one in the morning, Stephen Frano, one of the Town's Code Enforcement Officers (Ps' Ex. R), and Chris Hansen, a Town Fire Marshals (Ps' Ex. Q), arrived at the Diner for an inspection. As a result, the Diner was cited for three separate infractions: (1) allowing a cesspool at the back of the premises to overflow and spill waste onto the parking lot (Ps' Ex. Q; 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 54), (2) failing to cover the opening to the cesspool (Ps' Ex. Q), and (3) operating a “bar/nightclub” without first obtaining a certificate of occupancy for such use,⁶ (Ps' Ex. R; 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 53).

10. On June 20, 2007, the Town's Fire Marshal's Office issued a referral to the SLA, listing a number of Diner's violations, including operating a nightclub, having an overflowing cesspool, failing to cover the opening to the cesspool, and failing to maintain an accurate count of the patrons inside the establishment. (Ps' Ex. S.)

11. On May 25, 2008,⁷ Town police officers and agents from the SLA conducted an “inspection” of the Diner. (56.1 Stmt. ¶ 55.) During the inspection, Mr. Vlahadamis signed a statement that was prepared by either Town officers or an SLA agent, declaring that the Diner “operated the rear [of the building] as a nightclub on Fridays and Saturdays from around 11 p.m. to around 4 a.m....” (Ps' Ex. Z.) ⁸

12. On an unspecified night, the Town Police pulled over a car that was leaving a nearby nightclub to conduct a “DWI check.” (FV Dep. at 126.) During that stop, the cruisers blocked the entrance and exit to the Diner's parking lot “for over an hour” preventing customers from entering or leaving the Diner. ( Id.) According to plaintiffs, in the years prior to the “Hispanic Nights,” officers would always guide drivers who were being pulled over into the parking lot, leaving the entrance clear. ( Id.)

In response to the Town's administrative referrals, the SLA held hearings on the matter. In a June 20, 2008 decision, regarding the January 31, 2007 referrals for the sale of drugs on the premises, an Administrative Law Judge held that the charges for “suffering or allowing the premises to become disorderly by allowing the trafficking of narcotics on the three different occasions” could not be sustained. (Ds' Ex. M.) The opinion noted that plaintiffs hired a retired police officer with 30 years experience to oversee security, installed a number of security cameras, and that Mr. Vlahadamis was present at the Diner “on a regular basis.” ( Id.) Additionally, the drug sales took place in a bathroom stall outside the presence of other customers or any employees. The Judge therefore found that plaintiffs “did everything in their power to prevent improper behavior or disorder,” and that “[t]here was no evidence presented that [plaintiffs] knew (or should have known) that there were any sales of cocaine being conducted on the premises.” ( Id.)

A subsequent administrative decision was issued by the SLA regarding the Town's second referral to the State authority. The referral alleged violations of Rule 54.3 of the Rules of the SLA, see9 NYCRR 48.3, in that plaintiffs failed to conform with “applicable building codes, and/or fire, health, safety and governmental regulations,” which can be cause for revocation or suspension of a liquor license. (Ps' Ex. U); N.Y. ABC Law § 106. Regarding the citation for the overflowing cesspool, the SLA's May 9, 2008 opinion stated that plaintiffs swiftly responded to remedy an “emergency situation,” and that any charge that the overflowing cesspool could serve as ground to revoke the Diner's license could not be sustained. ( Id.) The SLA also ruled that because plaintiffs filed for a “change of use” with the Town to add a bar, and because the signage designated the business as a “diner” the Authority did not find that it had been used as a “nightclub.” The opinion did,...