New Page at 63 Main, LLC v. Incorporated Village of Sag Harbor
674 F. App'x 23
2d Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiffs New Page at 63 Main, LLC and 63 Main LLC operate a restaurant in the Village of Sag Harbor and had an outdoor-dining license for sidewalk seating.
- Village officials (Mayor Brian Gilbride and inspector Timothy Platt) disputed the restaurant’s occupancy load and suspended/revoked the outdoor-dining license; plaintiffs challenged the revocation in state court (Article 78) and lost.
- Plaintiffs then sued in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting: First Amendment retaliation, a bill of attainder, substantive and procedural Due Process violations, Equal Protection, and unlawful entry (Fourth Amendment).
- The district court dismissed all claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); plaintiffs appealed.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo, accepting the complaint’s allegations as true and affirming the district court in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment retaliation | Plaintiffs said they engaged in protected criticism of permit processing and defendants revoked the license in retaliation | Defendants argued plaintiffs failed to plead causation linking protected speech to the revocation | Dismissed — complaint lacks facts showing defendants were motivated by plaintiffs’ speech |
| Bill of attainder | Plaintiffs characterized the Board’s resolution revoking the license as a legislative punishment targeted at them | Defendants argued the resolution was an administrative contractual decision, not a legislative punitive law | Dismissed — allegations do not plausibly plead a bill of attainder |
| Substantive & Procedural Due Process | Plaintiffs claimed defendants engaged in criminal/egregious acts and deprived them of a property interest in the license without adequate process | Defendants argued allegations are conclusory, no shocking conduct shown, and plaintiffs lack a legitimate entitlement to the license; Article 78 provided post-deprivation process | Dismissed — no facts showing conscience-shocking behavior or a protected property interest; Article 78 sufficed for process |
| Equal Protection | Plaintiffs alleged they were singled out relative to other restaurants | Defendants argued plaintiffs failed to identify a similarly situated comparator or plead facts excluding mistake | Dismissed — no adequately pleaded similarly situated comparator; claim fails |
| Fourth Amendment (unlawful entry) | Plaintiffs alleged inspectors entered the premises without consent to intimidate and harm their business | Defendants argued inspections are regulatory with lowered privacy expectations and plaintiffs provided only vague, conclusory allegations | Dismissed — allegations lack specificity (dates/circumstances) and do not plausibly show unlawful entries |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. Time Warner, 282 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2002) (Rule 12(b)(6) de novo review and accepting complaint allegations)
- Dorsett v. County of Nassau, 732 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 2013) (elements of First Amendment retaliation claim)
- ACORN v. United States, 618 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2010) (definition and limits of bill of attainder)
- Selective Service Sys. v. Minnesota Pub. Interest Research Group, 468 U.S. 841 (U.S. 1984) (bill of attainder framework)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1998) (substantive due process standard: shocking the conscience)
- Ahlers v. Rabinowitz, 684 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2012) (procedure for pleading procedural due process deprivation)
- Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (U.S. 2005) (property interest and entitlement standard)
- Ruston v. Town Bd. for Town of Skaneateles, 610 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 2010) (standard for equal protection similarly situated comparator)