Stoner v. Atlantic Realty Apts., LLC
154 A.D.3d 552
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Martin Stoner sued Atlantic Realty Apts., LLC and others in New York County alleging housing-related claims; he proceeded pro se.
- Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and sought injunctive relief, sanctions, and leave to further amend to add a § 1983 claim against a DHCR official.
- Defendants (including Atlantic Realty and the NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal) moved to dismiss; plaintiff cross-moved for injunctive relief and other relief.
- Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motions, granted defendants’ cross motions to dismiss, and denied leave to amend and to renew.
- Plaintiff appealed the denials; the Appellate Division, First Department reviewed exhaustion, injunctive-relief standards, leave to amend, and renewal/reargument rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies before suing | Stoner proceeded in court without further administrative proceedings | Defendants argued failure to exhaust administrative remedies | Court: Plaintiff failed to exhaust; dismissal proper (Town of Oyster Bay governs). |
| Whether plaintiff was entitled to a preliminary injunction | Stoner argued he faced irreparable harm and would succeed on merits | Defendants argued no likelihood of success, no irreparable harm, equities opposed | Court: Denied injunction—no probability of success, no irreparable harm, equities not in plaintiff's favor (Nobu Next Door standard). |
| Whether leave to amend to add § 1983 claim against DHCR official (Woody Pascal) should be allowed | Stoner sought to add § 1983 claim against Pascal | Defendants argued the proposed amendment was legally insufficient because state officials in official capacities are not "persons" under § 1983 | Court: Denied leave as futile; § 1983 claim palpably insufficient (Will v Michigan Dept. of State Police). |
| Whether plaintiff's renewal/reargument should be granted | Stoner submitted new facts on renewal/reargument | Defendants argued plaintiff failed to reasonably explain omission and new facts wouldn't change result | Court: Denied renewal and reargument for failing to show reasonable excuse or that facts would alter outcome (CPLR 2221 standards). |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Oyster Bay v. Kirkland, 19 N.Y.3d 1035 (N.Y. 2012) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies bars court relief)
- Nobu Next Door, LLC v. Fine Arts Hous., Inc., 4 N.Y.3d 839 (N.Y. 2005) (standards for injunctive relief: probability of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities)
- Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1989) (states and officials sued in their official capacities are not "persons" under § 1983)
- MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Greystone & Co., Inc., 74 A.D.3d 499 (1st Dept. 2010) (proposed amendments that are palpably insufficient may be denied)
- American Audio Serv. Bur., Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 33 A.D.3d 473 (1st Dept. 2006) (standards for renewal under CPLR 2221)
- Lopez v. Post Mgmt. LLC, 68 A.D.3d 671 (1st Dept. 2009) (denial of motion to reargue is not appealable)