Altman v. The Incorporated Village of Lynbrook
2:18-cv-04984
E.D.N.YMar 31, 2020Background
- Plaintiffs Daryl Altman and Robert Shepard kept a backyard beehive at 44 Rowe Ave., Lynbrook; after neighbor complaints and multiple inspector visits, the Village obtained an administrative search warrant on June 22, 2017.
- On June 26, 2017 Village officials (building inspector Daly, Police Officer Taylor) and a contractor (Blohm) entered the backyard pursuant to the warrant and removed the beehive and bees; plaintiffs were not present and later learned of the removal.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York common law alleging procedural and substantive due process violations, unlawful search and seizure, uncompensated taking, trespass, conversion, and related claims.
- Defendants moved to dismiss (styled as Rule 12(b)(6) but filed after answers) and alternatively sought judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment; the magistrate treated the filing as a Rule 12(c) motion and declined to convert it to summary judgment.
- The magistrate recommended denying the motion to dismiss as to the Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim (and Monell theory tied to the Village Attorney/final decisionmaker), while declining to decide other constitutional and common-law claims at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 12(c) motion should be converted to summary judgment | Plaintiffs argued conversion premature and discovery not done; they opposed summary judgment | Defendants sought alternative relief and relied on some outside materials | Court declined conversion: discovery incomplete and defendants relied mainly on complaint allegations; extrinsic materials excluded |
| Whether failure to give Village Code §59-2 notice (pre-warrant notice) violates procedural due process | Altman: no required notice was given before obtaining the administrative warrant | Village: circumstances required inspection for public welfare; plaintiffs had repeated contact and notice of violation | Court: statutory notice-rule violations alone do not create federal due-process violations; lack of §59-2 notice by itself does not state a §1983 claim |
| Whether absence of pre- or post-deprivation hearing violated procedural due process | Altman: no pre- or post-deprivation hearing was provided for the removal of property (beehive) | Village: contends notice and opportunity to cure were provided and exigent dangers justified action (factual dispute) | Court: claim survives — where deprivation occurs pursuant to established state procedures, pre-deprivation process may be required; existence of exigency is a factual question for discovery |
| Municipal (Monell) liability based on Village Attorney/final decisionmaker | Altman: Ledwith (Village Attorney) and Board had final authority to seek warrant; official policy/custom or final-decision liability supports Monell claim | Village: did not address Monell in motion | Court: Plausible Monell claim sufficiently alleged because actions by an official with final decisionmaking authority may constitute municipal policy; this aspect survives dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Patel v. Contemporary Classics of Beverly Hills, 259 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2001) (12(b)(6) filed after answer should be treated as Rule 12(c))
- Hernandez v. Coffey, 582 F.3d 303 (2d Cir. 2009) (non-movant on notice that motion could be converted to summary judgment may forfeit formal notice requirement)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (random/unauthorized deprivations can be remedied by adequate post-deprivation remedies)
- Hellenic Am. Neighborhood Action Comm. v. City of New York, 101 F.3d 877 (2d Cir. 1996) (distinguishes deprivations under established procedures from random acts)
- Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986) (action by official with final policymaking authority may constitute municipal policy)
- Monell v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires official policy/custom causing constitutional violation)
- Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Aniero Concrete Co., 404 F.3d 566 (2d Cir. 2005) (district court discretion to convert 12(b)(6) motion to summary judgment)