Gizzo v. Ben-Habib, 44 F. Supp. 3d 374

Plaintiff owned Samba Na Brasa, a restaurant in Mount Vernon; licensing with the City granted parking rights for a proposed supermarket.
In 2009, the City and Plaintiff entered a Licensing Agreement giving FFC exclusive rights to parking spaces for a contemplated supermarket at 42 Broad Street.
The City was to complete extensive improvements to Fleetwood Parking Garage and designate 45 supermarket spaces by Sept. 1, 2009; the agreement terminated if FFC/its successors failed to operate a grocery store.
Plaintiff alleges the City failed to fulfill licensing obligations, including parking designations, electrical for a parking arm, and elevator maintenance.
Tensions included the removal of key contractor, alleged City Building Department delays, and preferred treatment of a competing supermarket; FFC later opened, but was financially harmed.
Plaintiff acquired bankruptcy-related claims against the City and filed suit alleging procedural and substantive due process violations, Monell claims, and breach of contract.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Licensing Agreement creates a constitutionally protected property interest	Plaintiff asserts a property interest in the License.	Defendants contend ordinary contracts do not create protected property interests.	No protected property interest; claims dismissed.
Whether the City/Young's actions breached procedural due process	Procedural due process was violated by failure to perform licensing duties.	Contract rights do not automatically create due process rights.	Dismissed; no protectible property interest established.
Whether Ben-Habib’s campaign infringed substantive due process	Ben-Habib’s actions irrationally punished Plaintiff.	No cognizable protected property right identified.	Dismissed; no substantive due process interest established.
Whether Monell liability lies for City building department actions	City policy/failure to supervise caused constitutional harm.	No underlying constitutional violation to predicate Monell liability.	Dismissed without prejudice as no underlying violation shown.
Whether the state-law breach-of-contract claim survives supplemental jurisdiction	Breach of contract is proper state claim within supplemental jurisdiction.	Federal claims dismissed, but state claim should be treated separately.	Dismissed without prejudice; discretionary supplemental jurisdiction applied.

S & D Maintenance Co. v. Goldin, 844 F.2d 962 (2d Cir.1988) (contractual rights not automatically protected; entitlement limits exist)
Walentas v. Lipper, 862 F.2d 414 (2d Cir.1988) (contract disputes alone not Section 1983 claims; protectible interests limited)
Martz v. Inc. Village of Valley Stream, 22 F.3d 26 (2d Cir.1994) (ordinary contracts generally not protectible; employment contracts treated specially)
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (Supreme Court, 1970) (due process protection in welfare benefits contexts)
Syracuse Hotel, Inc. v. Young, 805 F.Supp.1073 (N.D.N.Y.1992) (contractual rights to ownership of a hotel not protected like tenure)
General Electric Co. v. New York State Dept. of Labor, 936 F.2d 1448 (2d Cir.1991) (statutory entitlement can create property interest; not purely contractual)
Ezekwo v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 940 F.2d 775 (2d Cir.1991) (appointment/status interests may be protected; not every contract right)
Horowitz, 28 F.3d 1335 (2d Cir.1994) (contract rights to payment discussed in context of entitlements)
Christ Gatzonis Electrical Contractor, Inc. v. New York City School Construction Authority, 23 F.3d 636 (2d Cir.1994) (timely payment rights can be protectible where statutory framework supports entitlement)