Masic v. Town of Franklinville New York
1:24-cv-00018
W.D.N.Y.Aug 27, 2025Background
- Mario and Bethany Masic sued the Town of Franklinville, NY, alleging a targeted campaign of harassment, selective enforcement of zoning/code laws, and violations of constitutional and statutory rights from 2017-2023.
- Plaintiffs claim Town officials, motivated by personal animus, trespassed on their property, enforced non-existent/inapplicable codes, and interfered with their use of land for dog breeding and agriculture.
- Defendant Town moved to dismiss; Plaintiffs moved to amend the complaint, remand to state court, and file a late notice of claim.
- The court, on a motion to dismiss, accepts Plaintiffs’ alleged facts as true; focuses on whether claims are plausibly pleaded and timely.
- The decision addresses both federal constitutional claims (§ 1983 for Equal Protection, Due Process, Fourth Amendment, First Amendment) and state law claims (negligence, trespass, emotional distress, etc.).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remand to State Court | Case should be remanded; late notice of claim | Remand untimely; federal jurisdiction proper | DENIED—Remand untimely, federal jurisdiction proper |
| Equal Protection (Selective Enf.) | Town selectively enforced laws with animus | No comparators; no Monell liability | DENIED—Sufficient facts for claim under Monell |
| Statute of Limitations (Sec. 1983) | Continuing violation; recent acts within period | All acts before 2020 time-barred | DENIED—Ongoing policy; acts within period pled |
| Substantive Due Process | Deprived of property use arbitrarily | No protected interest; claim time-barred | DENIED—Protected interest and plausible arbitrary acts |
| Fourth Amendment Search/Seizure | Warrantless inspection/trespass by Town | Not Town policy; time-barred | GRANTED—No policy or timely facts alleged |
| First Amendment Retaliation | Retaliation for complaints and FOILs | Complaint does not support intent | GRANTED—No plausible retaliation facts |
| State Law Negligence | Town owed duty for fair permit/code practices | No special duty owed | GRANTED—No special duty under NY law |
| Trespass (State Law) | Town employees trespassed on property | Not within employment; time-barred | GRANTED—Not in scope of employment; time-barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep't of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under § 1983 requires official policy or custom)
- Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (selective enforcement/class-of-one Equal Protection theory)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for motion to dismiss)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (procedural due process requirements)
- Patsy v. Bd. of Regents, 457 U.S. 496 (no exhaustion requirement under § 1983)
- Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (property interest due process standard)
- Brady v. Town of Colchester, 863 F.2d 205 (substantive due process in land use, arbitrary denial of use)