Weinberg v. Vill. of Clayton
| Decision Date | 29 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | 5:17-CV-0021 (NAM/ATB) |
| Citation | 537 F.Supp.3d 344 |
| Parties | Jaime H. WEINBERG, Esq.; Bradford J. Minnick; Thousand Islands Inn Holdings, LLC; and Thousand Islands Enterprises, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. VILLAGE OF CLAYTON, NEW YORK; Norma Zimmer, Mayor, Village of Clayton; Board of Trustees of the Village of Clayton, New York; and Richard Ingerson, Code Enforcement Officer, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
For Plaintiffs: Law Office of Jaime H. Weinberg, Esq., Jaime H. Weinberg, 20128 Carr Road Extension, Wellesley Island, NY 13640.
For Defendants: Goldberg Segalla LLP, Molly M. Ryan, John P. Coghlan, 5786 Widewaters Parkway, Syracuse, NY 13214.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Jaime H. Weinberg, Bradford J. Minnick, Thousand Islands Inn Holdings, LLC, and Thousand Islands Enterprises, LLC bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants Village of Clayton, Village Mayor Norma Zimmer, and Code Enforcement Officer Richard Ingerson violated Plaintiffs’ free speech, equal protection, and due process rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. (Dkt. No. 80). Currently pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 131–32).
II. BACKGROUND1
The Thousand Islands Inn (the "Inn") was constructed in 1897 and operated through September 2013. (Dkt. No. 80, ¶ 30). Plaintiffs Weinberg and Minnick purchased the Inn on December 19, 2013 and vested title to Thousand Islands Inn Holdings, LLC. (Id. , ¶ 35). Weinberg and Minnick own Thousand Islands Inn Holdings, LLC and are the proprietors of the Inn. (Dkt. No. 131-2, ¶ 3). The Inn formerly featured two floors of lodging, a restaurant, a bar, and a kitchen. (Id. , ¶ 4). Thousand Islands Holdings, LLC entered into a ten-year lease with Thousand Islands Enterprises, LLC, with the latter to use the property to operate a hotel, bar and restaurant. (Dkt. No. 132-5, pp. 294–96). Plaintiffs’ initial plan was to redecorate the Inn during the Spring of 2014 and then re-open for the 2014 tourist season. (Dkt. No. 80, ¶ 47). To assist with this work, Plaintiffs hired Absolute Construction as their contractor. (Id. , ¶ 50).
In April 2014, Absolute Construction identified a structural problem with the west wall of the Inn, specifically that it was supported by compromised studs. (Dkt. No. 132-14, p. 16). The studs in the western wall provided structural support for the entire building, carrying the load of the 2nd and 3rd floors and the roof. (Dkt. No. 132-12, p. 24). Grater Architects developed a plan to install temporary shoring for the west wall that would stabilize the structure while permitting additional work to move forward. (Id. ).
Plaintiffs obtained the necessary building permit, and Absolute Construction completed the temporary shoring work, which helped to ensure the 2nd and 3rd floors were properly supported. (Dkt. No. 132-7, pp. 212–16; Dkt. No. 132-14, p. 17). Absolute Construction also worked on the Inn's outdated electrical system, among other things disconnecting power from all parts but the kitchen. (Dkt. No. 132-14, p. 11). Absolute Construction later ran power to the bar, dining, and kitchen areas, but the second and third floors remained disconnected. (Id. , p. 25).
Plaintiffs opened a take-out window for the 2014 season, but the hotel, dining room, and bar area of the Inn remained closed. (Dkt. No. 80, ¶¶ 68–70). Defendant Ingerson, the Village of Clayton's Code Enforcement Officer, granted Plaintiffs a temporary certificate of occupancy which permitted them to use the kitchen of the Inn. (See Dkt. No. 132-6, p. 23).
As part of their plan to renovate the Inn, Plaintiffs consulted with architects regarding what would be needed to meet code requirements. (Dkt. No. 80, ¶ 117). The architects advised that Plaintiffs would need to install an automatic sprinkler system to meet the Existing Building Code of New York. (Dkt. No. 132-11, p. 78; Dkt. No. 132-13, p. 107). Plaintiffs asked the State for a variance to use a different type of automatic sprinkler, and Ingerson supported the request, but it was denied. (Dkt. No. 132-7, p. 131).
In December 2014, Plaintiffs received a large State grant for development of the Inn. (Dkt. No. 80, ¶ 118). As a result, Plaintiffs expanded their planned renovations. (Dkt. No. 132-6, p. 25). The grant required Plaintiffs to bid out the work to be done at the Inn; Plaintiffs put the work out to bid, but they only received two bids which exceeded their architects’ estimates. (Dkt. No. 80, ¶¶ 122, 124). Consequently, the renovations stalled. (Id. , ¶ 126).
Plaintiffs again operated a take-out window for the 2015 season. (Dkt. No. 80, ¶ 126). On June 22, 2015, Minnick hung a banner on the front of the Inn to congratulate Weinberg on his admittance to the New York Bar. (Id. , ¶ 349). Ingerson requested that Weinberg remove the banner, on the basis that banners are illegal in the Village of Clayton. (Dkt. No. 132-7, p. 119). Weinberg subsequently complained to Mayor Zimmer about the incident. (Id. ). Ingerson testified that he did not know that Weinberg had complained to Mayor Zimmer about the banner incident. (Id. , p. 120).
In late June, Weinberg and Minnick gave permission to the Inn's cook to stay overnight in the building. (Dkt. No. 131-2, ¶ 5; Dkt. No. 132-6, p. 32). Ingerson testified that on July 1, 2015, he received a citizen complaint that someone was occupying the second floor of the Inn. (Dkt. No. 132-7, pp. 19–21). Ingerson spoke with Weinberg on July 2, 2015, and Weinberg admitted that the cook occasionally slept at the Inn. (Id. , p. 24). Ingerson advised Weinberg that for safety reasons the individual was not permitted to sleep at the Inn, and Ingerson told Weinberg to remove the cook and not let him sleep there. (Id. , pp. 24, 41). Weinberg refused and told Ingerson that he did not believe that there was any legal basis for removing the cook, and that "[i]f that's what the law is, it's a stupid law." (Dkt. No. 132-6, p. 31).
Within hours of the cook dispute, Ingerson issued Weinberg a Letter of Violation, an Appearance Ticket, and he posted a Notice stating the Inn was unsafe for occupancy, with the exception of the kitchen. (Dkt. No. 131-3; Dkt. No. 131-4; Dkt. No. 131-5). The Letter of Violation stated that the Inn did not "meet the codes allowed by law to be occupied," and alleged violations of Town of Clayton Local Law #2 section 7(a), 19 NYCRR Part 1203.3 (), New York State Fire Code Section 107.2, and New York State Property Maintenance Code Section 107.1.3. (Dkt. No. 131-4). The Letter ordered Plaintiffs "to vacate any part of the structure other than the kitchen," and that Plaintiffs could only "enter the structure for the purpose of repair or construction." (Id. ). The Notice stated that the Inn was "deemed unsafe" for occupancy except the kitchen. (Dkt. No. 131-3). The Appearance Ticket charged Weinberg with violating the above laws and gave him a court date. (Dkt. No. 131-5).
Because the documents were initially issued in error in the name of the Town of Clayton, on July 13, 2020, Ingerson re-issued the Letter of Violation, Notice, and Appearance Ticket in the name of the Village of Clayton. (Dkt. No. 131-6; Dkt. No. 131-7; Dkt. No. 131-8). Weinberg was given a court date of July 23, 2015. (Dkt. No. 131-8).
Despite the Letter, Notice, and Appearance Ticket, Plaintiffs continued to permit their cook to sleep at the Inn. (Dkt. No. 131-2, ¶ 5; Dkt. No. 132-6, p. 35). On July 23, 2015, Weinberg was arraigned on the Appearance Ticket and provided with an Information that charged him with violating provisions of Chapter 70, Section 70-7 of the Village of Clayton Code, in that he "had illegally and without authorization" allowed the cook to occupy a space on the second floor of the Inn and that Weinberg refused to comply with Ingerson's order to remove the cook. (Dkt. No. 131-20). On July 24, 2015, Ingerson set up a camera to document instances when the cook parked at the Inn outside the hours of the kitchen's operation. (Dkt. No. 131-14, p. 15). On July 29, 2015, Thousand Islands Holdings, LLC requested a hearing pursuant to Section 70-9 of the Village of Clayton Code, which pertains to unsafe buildings and structures. (Dkt. No. 131-11). The Village declined to hold a hearing, stating in relevant part that "the provision permitting a building owner to request a hearing is found in Section 70-9, which applies only when a building owner has been served with an order to repair or demolish or remove an unsafe building." (Dkt. No. 131-12).
On August 10, 2015, the Village Board adopted a resolution that authorized the commencement of criminal and civil actions against Weinberg and Thousand Islands Holdings, LLC. (Dkt. No. 132-7, pp. 242–43). On August 20, 2015, Ingerson issued to Plaintiffs a Combined Notice of Violation and Compliance Order, which identified the applicable code provisions that Plaintiffs were allegedly violating by permitting the cook to sleep at the Inn. (Dkt. No. 132-7, pp. 259–61). The Order gave Plaintiffs 10 days to remove any persons occupying the Inn and 30 days to install the automatic sprinkler system and smoke alarms to bring the building to code. (Id. ). Nonetheless, Plaintiffs permitted the cook to sleep at the Inn through Labor Day of 2015. (Dkt. No. 132-6, p. 32).
On September 2, 2015, Weinberg and Thousand Islands Inn Holdings, LLC were charged in a Superseding Information with 22 criminal misdemeanors pertaining to alleged building code violations at the Inn.
(Dkt. No. 131-14; Dkt. No. 131-15). At the same time, they were sued in a civil proceeding by the Village of Clayton. (Dkt. No. 131-16).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AngioDynamics, Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc.
... ... to grant Bard summary judgment on AngioDynamics claim for damages under Section 4 of the Clayton Act at this time. At oral argument, the parties disagreed on whether the Court's granting of Bard's ... ...
-
Tyler v. City of Kingston
...City Council meeting—like the one at issue in this case—is normally considered a limited public forum. See Weinberg v. Vill. of Clayton , 537 F. Supp. 3d 344, 364 (N.D.N.Y. 2021). Neither party argues that the City Council meetings should be treated otherwise, and the Court cannot see any r......