Winston v. City of Syracuse
| Decision Date | 08 September 2016 |
| Docket Number | 5:16-cv-0235 |
| Citation | 205 F.Supp.3d 238 |
| Parties | Jaqueline WINSTON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SYRACUSE, and Deborah Somers in her official capacity as the Commissioner of Water, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
Joshua T. Cotter, Legal Services of Central New York, Syracuse, NY, for Plaintiffs.
John A. Sickinger, City of Syracuse Corporation Counsel, Syracuse, NY, for Defendants.
DECISION & ORDER
Plaintiff Jaqueline Winston1 commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting that the City of Syracuse's "policy and practice of terminating water service to blameless tenants based upon their landlord's failure to pay the water bill" violates her rights to equal protection and substantive due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Compl., dkt. # 1, ¶ 2. Defendants City of Syracuse and Deborah Somers move to dismiss the action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). Dkt. 10. Plaintiff opposes the motion, dkt. # 19, and Defendants have filed a reply. Dkt. # 20. The Court elects to decide the motion without oral argument. For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
The standard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) is identical to that under Rule 12(b)(6). Patel v. Contemporary Classics of Beverly Hills , 259 F.3d 123, 126 (2d Cir.2001). On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court must accept "all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and draw[ ] all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor." Holmes v. Grubman , 568 F.3d 329, 335 (2d Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). This tenet does not apply to legal conclusions, non-factual matter, or "conclusory statements" set forth in a complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678–79, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).
"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). A claim will have "facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id.
"In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a district court may consider the facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached to the complaint as exhibits, and documents incorporated by reference in the complaint." DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C. , 622 F.3d 104, 111 (2d Cir.2010). T he Court may also review "any matter of which the court can take judicial notice for the factual background of the case." Jenkins v. Cnty of Washington , 126 F.Supp.3d 255, 274–75 (N.D.N.Y.2015).
The City of Syracuse, New York ("the City") is a municipal corporation that is the sole supplier of water service within the City. Compl. ¶¶ 15-16. Plaintiff Jacqueline Winston currently resides at 653 West Moreland Ave. Syracuse, New York with her husband, her sister, and her sister's nine-year-old son. Id. ¶ 26.2 She has lived at the property since 2005. Id. This residence is a rental unit. Id. ¶ 31. Ms. Winston's rent is $600 per month, and she is also responsible to pay the National Grid utility charges for her residence. Id. Ms. Winston is current on her rental bill and her National Grid utility bill. Id. ¶ 33.
The City supplied Ms. Winston and her family with water to their home through the Water Department. Id. ¶ 32. The water bill for water service from the City has always been the responsibility of the landlord. Id. ¶ 31. The City's Water Department website "advises individuals renting homes not to apply for water service, as the water department is ‘not involved in any lease agreement between owner and tenant.’ " Id. ¶ 17.
On January 19, 2016, Ms. Winston received a notice on her door informing her that her water would be shut off if the water bill of $472.97 was not paid in full within thirty days. Id. ¶ 34. Ms. Winston contacted the maintenance man at the property who assured her the bill would be paid. Id. ¶ 35. Ms. Winston assumed "everything would be fine and her family would continue receiving water service." Id. However, on February 23, 2016, the water service was shut off to Ms. Winston's home by the City's Water Department. Id. ¶ 36. Ms. Winston again contacted the maintenance man, who once again assured her the bill would be taken care of, id. ¶ 37, but it was not. After one day without water, Ms. Winston contacted the Syracuse City Water Department to pay the bill herself. Id. ¶ 38. She was informed by an employee of the City Water Department that she would "be allowed to pay the [water] bill but would not be able to get water service restored to the property because she is not the owner." Id.
Id. § 39. Ms. Winston alleges that she and her family were "irreparably harmed without water service to her home." Id. ¶ 40. She contends that the termination of the water service "disrupt[ed] the structure that is so important to her daughter with autism's
day to day life." Id. Moreover, under the Syracuse Code of Ordinances, upon the termination of water service the residence is deemed uninhabitable. Id. ¶ 22.3
Syracuse's Code of Ordinances provides that water services offered by the City are "to be connected to by the property owner when he makes application for a service to said property." Syracuse Code of Ordinances, Part M ("the Code"), § 16-11. The Code further provides that Id. , ¶ 16–53. "If a bill remains unpaid for sixty (60) days from the date on the bill, the water may be turned off provided notice is given to the consumer4 and any known occupant(s) in accordance with the provisions of section 16-108(b) and section 16-108(c)." Id.
Syracuse's standard Notice of Water Shut-Off, which was presumably the notice that Plaintiff received on her door on January 19, 2016, see Compl. ¶ 34, provides:
The Department of Water shall shut off the water at this property in 30 days.
Water shut off may be because of, but is not limited to,
one or more of the following reasons:
OWNER(S) & OCCUPANT(S) HAVE THE RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL HEARING BEFORE WATER IS SHUT OFF:
Any owner(s) and/or known occupant(s) of the above stated property have the right to request an impartial hearing to contest the shut off of water at the site. A request for a hearing must be received by the Department of Water; 106 City Hall, 233 East Washington Street, Syracuse, NY 13202 within fifteen (15) days of receiving this notice.
The request for a hearing may be made in any of the three following ways:
Sickinger Affirm., Ex. A.5
The Code provides that following service of this notice, the owner or known occupants have the right to request a hearing before a hearing officer designated by the commissioner of water. See Code § 16-108(d). "The hearing officer shall not be an employee of the department of water." Id.
The Code provides that "[t]he department of water may shut off the water to any property where the owner failed to correct the violation and no hearing was requested either by the owner or any known occupant(s) after suitable notice has been served." Id. When a hearing is requested, "the department of water may only shut off the water at the premises after the hearing has been held and a written decision has been made upholding the basis for the water shutoff." Id.
Where "an event [that could result in termination of water service] is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Casanova v. Wyndham Grand Rio Mar Beach Resort & Spa
...be dismissed as well."). Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims brought pursuant to Puerto Rico law are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE .205 F.Supp.3d 238IV. CONCLUSIONFor the reasons stated above, this Court hereby GRANTS Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 13). Accordingly, Pl......
-
Winston v. City of Syracuse, 17-1017-cv
...protection.The district court (McAvoy, J. ) granted the City's motion and entered judgment for the City. Winston v. City of Syracuse , 205 F.Supp.3d 238 (N.D.N.Y. 2016). The district court concluded that the City has a rational basis for those water account and water service policies. As to......