Sunrise Detox V, LLC v. City of White Plains
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 18840
2d Cir.2014Background
- Sunrise Detox V, LLC applied for a special permit to operate a short-term, medically monitored substance-use detox facility (33 beds, ~5.7-day average stay) at a property in White Plains zoned R2-2.5.
- The zoning ordinance allows operation in that zone only if the use qualifies as a “community residence” or a “domiciliary care facility” and the city grants a special permit.
- The Planning Board initially recommended approval; public opposition led to extended hearings and Sunrise’s December 2012 request that the city treat its project as a “community residence” (a request framed as a reasonable accommodation).
- In February 2013 the Building Department commissioner concluded the proposed services were ‘‘Crisis Services’’ and thus most appropriately classified as Hospitals/Sanitariа — a use not permitted in the zone — and instructed Sunrise to seek a variance or appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals before the city could act further.
- Sunrise did not pursue the variance or appeal and instead sued under the ADA alleging intentional discrimination and failure to provide a reasonable accommodation; the district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as the claims were unripe.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, holding Sunrise failed to obtain a final administrative decision and did not show futility or an independent injury that would excuse the final-decision requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ripeness/final-decision requirement bars Sunrise’s ADA land-use claims | Sunrise: intentional discrimination claims are immediately ripe because discriminatory acts cause immediate injury; need not await final zoning decision | City: land-use disputes require a final, definitive decision from local authorities before federal review; Sunrise must pursue variance/appeal | Held: Final-decision requirement applies; claims unripe because Sunrise did not obtain a final administrative determination |
| Whether an exception applies for intentional discrimination (allowing immediate federal suit) | Sunrise: intentional discrimination creates a uniquely immediate injury that should be excepted from Williamson County final-decision rule | City: even if motivated by discrimination, plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to authorize the development, so final administrative process must run | Held: No categorical exception; discrimination claims seeking injunctive relief are subject to final-decision rule unless plaintiff shows an injury independent of the land-use decision |
| Whether Sunrise’s failure to pursue administrative remedies was excused as futile or because the application was constructively denied | Sunrise: city effectively denied the application/failed to accommodate, so pursuing a variance or appeal would be futile or unnecessary | City: ordinance provides avenues (variance, ZBA appeal); Board has discretion to grant relief; claimant must use administrative procedures first | Held: Futility/constructive-denial exceptions not met; Sunrise did not apply to ZBA or seek a variance, so administrative remedies were not exhausted |
| Whether Sunrise adequately gave the city an opportunity to accommodate under ADA procedures | Sunrise: its December accommodation request should have been treated as sufficient and exhausted administrative options | City: reasonable-accommodation claim requires using established administrative procedures; Sunrise’s midstream abandonment deprived city of opportunity to accommodate | Held: Sunrise failed to afford the city a chance to accommodate through established procedures; claim not ripe |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. New Milford Zoning Comm’n, 402 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2005) (applies final-decision requirement to zoning-related federal claims)
- Williamson Cnty. Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (final administrative decision required before takings claim ripe)
- Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla., 457 U.S. 496 (allowing federal suit for damages for constitutional violations without exhaustion of state remedies)
- Dougherty v. Town of N. Hempstead Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 282 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2002) (ripeness purpose: concrete injury requirement)
- Tsombanidis v. West Haven Fire Dept., 352 F.3d 565 (2d Cir. 2003) (plaintiff must give government opportunity to accommodate through established procedures)