Alroy v. City of New York Law Department, 69 F. Supp. 3d 393

Plaintiff Daniel Alroy alleged the City of New York Parks Department destroyed his sculpture in the Rock & Rose Garden and filed a state-law takings claim in 2007; the same sculpture project connected AvalonBay, Casale, and related entities to oversee garden integration.
In 2005 the Parks Department began integrating the Rock & Rose Garden with an adjacent garden and contracted AvalonBay, which subcontracted with Tony Casale, Inc.
On December 4, 2006, Casale workers demolished the sculpture without advance notice to Alroy or an opportunity to remove it.
Alroy brought a 2007 action against the City for damages arguing the demolition was an illegal taking and improper in state court; AvalonBay and others were later joined in the Avalon Action (2009) and consolidated in 2010.
The state court granted summary judgment in favor of the City Defendants on June 21, 2012, finding Alroy’s collusion theories unfounded; AvalonBay’s responsibility was resolved in the Avalon Action, which remains pending.
Alroy commenced this federal action in 2013, amended in 2014, alleging due-process and access-to-courts violations arising from the State Action; Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rooker-Feldman bars the federal case	Alroy seeks federal review of state-court judgment	Rooker-Feldman deprives jurisdiction over claims arising from a state-court judgment	Rooker-Feldman bars the claim
Whether the due-process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is cognizable	State-action conduct violated due process and access to courts	Attorneys acting under color of state law are immune; no constitutional violation shown	No § 1983 claim; absolute and procedural due process deficiencies not established
Whether the complaint states a plausible § 1983 claim against private entities	AvalonBay and Casale conspired with City actors	No willful participation or concerted action shown; private entities not liable	Conspiracy claim fails; no underlying unconstitutional act stated
Whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims	State-law claims should be heard	Rooker-Feldman blocks federal jurisdiction; no supplemental jurisdiction	Action dismissed for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction; dismissal with prejudice
Whether absolute immunity defeats § 1983 claims against government attorneys	City attorneys’ conduct violated rights	Attorney immunity bars claims for damages	Absolute immunity bars § 1983 claim against government attorneys

Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2006) (liberal pleading standards for pro se litigants; special solicitude)
McKithen v. Brown, 481 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2007) (elaborates Rooker-Feldman applicability and independent claim standard)
Verizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. 635 (U.S. 2002) (Rooker-Feldman backdrop; jurisdiction principles)
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (U.S. 2005) (limits of Rooker-Feldman; narrow application)
Hoblock v. Albany Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (factors for applying Rooker-Feldman; causal connection)
Anctil v. Ally Fin., Inc., 998 F. Supp. 2d 127 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (illustrates causation and state-judgment injury in Rooker-Feldman)
Ciambriello v. Cnty. of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2002) (private-public actor liability under § 1983; need for underlying unconstitutional act)
Spe ar v. Town of W. Hartford, 954 F.2d 63 (2d Cir. 1992) (concerning substantive due process and conspiracy claims)
Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (U.S. 1982) (due process rights of civil litigants; meaningful hearing)
Brady v. Town of Colchester, 863 F.2d 205 (2d Cir. 1988) (procedural due process; hearing opportunities)
Green v. Mattingly, 585 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2009) (Rooker-Feldman interpretation post-Exxon)