Tang v. Visnauskas, 1:19-cv-00508

Plaintiff filed a DHCR "Illusory Sublet" complaint in July 2014 seeking both a lease renewal and rent overcharge refunds (including treble damages); DHCR addressed only the renewal portion.
DHCR issued an initial decision June 3, 2015 and a final decision January 26, 2016 terminating the proceeding as to the renewal lease.
Plaintiff alleges property interests in the overcharge refunds and asserts violations of procedural due process and the equal protection clause.
Plaintiff challenged DHCR’s handling via an Article 78 proceeding in New York Supreme Court and the petition was denied; the district court took judicial notice of those rulings.
Plaintiff filed this § 1983 action pro se on January 25, 2019 and filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) on September 13, 2019; defendants moved to dismiss and the court treated the filings as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
The court dismissed the SAC for failure to state a claim and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Due Process: Did DHCR’s alleged failure to process overcharge refund violate procedural due process?	Tang says he had a property interest in rent-overcharge refunds and was deprived of pre-deprivation process when DHCR refused to resolve the refund claim.	Defs. argue Tang had an adequate post-deprivation remedy (Article 78) and that an agency’s failure to follow its own rules does not create a federal property interest.	Dismissed: Article 78 was an adequate post-deprivation remedy; state-law procedural violations do not create a federal due-process property interest.
Equal Protection (class-of-one): Was Tang intentionally treated differently without rational basis?	Tang alleges "reverse selective enforcement" and discrimination based on race, national origin, citizenship, and tenant status because DHCR didn’t follow Fact Sheet #7 fully.	Defs. contend the claim is untimely and, in any event, Tang’s allegations are conclusory and lack facts showing similarly situated comparators or intentional discriminatory motive.	Dismissed: Court assumed arguendo timeliness but found allegations conclusory and insufficient to state a class-of-one equal protection claim.

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (sets three-factor test for what process is due)
Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (Mathews balancing is fact-specific)
Hudson v. Palmer, 486 U.S. 517 (distinguishing established procedures from random acts for due process analysis)
Rivera-Powell v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Elections, 470 F.3d 458 (discussing categories of due-process claims)
Hellenic Am. Neighborhood Action Comm. v. City of New York, 101 F.3d 877 (noting when established procedures govern due-process analysis)
Torres-Rosado v. Rotger-Sabat, 335 F.3d 1 (agency’s failure to follow internal rules does not by itself create federal due-process claim)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (conclusory allegations insufficient to survive Rule 12(b)(6))
Zahra v. Town of Southold, 48 F.3d 674 (elements and motive requirement for class-of-one equal protection claims)
Harlan Assocs. v. Inc. Vill. of Mineola, 273 F.3d 494 (standard for selective treatment and rational-basis inquiry)
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (standard for determining good-faith appeal under § 1915)