793 F. Supp. 2d 533
E.D.N.Y2011Background
- Leroy sought to place her name on the Democratic primary ballot for City Council, District 28, Queens, in 2009.
- BOE found defects in the cover sheet and amended cover sheet, notifying Leroy to cure within 72 hours.
- After cures, BOE held a determination meeting and determined Leroy's name would not appear on the ballot.
- Leroy filed a related special proceeding in Queens Supreme Court; it was dismissed as untimely, and the Appellate Division affirmed.
- Leroy thereafter filed suit in this court alleging damages for due process, gender-based discrimination, and conflict-of-interest claims; damages sought were $28 million.
- BOE moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), and the court grants the motion, dismissing with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Leroy states a due process claim | Leroy contends due process was violated by ballot denial | Rivera-Powell controls; adequate process provided | Due process claim dismissed; process adequate under Rivera-Powell |
| Whether Leroy has a protected property interest in ballot status | Leroy claims a property interest in ballot access | No property interest in elected office exists | No protected property interest; claim deficient |
| Whether Leroy's equal protection claim shows intentional discrimination | Gender-based or class-of-one discrimination in ballot access | No similarly situated individuals treated differently; no discrimination shown | Equal protection claim dismissed |
| Whether Leroy's conflict-of-interest claim has legal merit | Defendant violated federal election laws via conflict of interest | Claim conclusory and legally unsupported | Conflict-of-interest claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rivera-Powell v. N.Y. City Bd. of Elections, 470 F.3d 458 (2d Cir. 2006) (post-deprivation review and adequacy of process under NY Election Law §16-102)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1976) (three-factor due process test for notice, hearing, and burdens)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1985) (pre-deprivation notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Chase Grp. Alliance LLC v. City of N.Y. Dep’t of Fin., 620 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2010) (due process requires notice and hearing when deprivation is threatened)
- Interboro Inst., Inc. v. Foley, 985 F.2d 90 (2d Cir. 1993) (brief adjudicatory procedures may suffice without full evidentiary hearing)
- Oberlander v. Perales, 740 F.2d 116 (2d Cir. 1984) (pre-deprivation procedural considerations need not be formal hearings)