Case Information
*1 12-3923-cv
Edelhertz v. City of Middletown
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2012 (Argued: May 7, 2013 Decided: May 8, 2013)
Docket No. 12-3923-cv
____________________ ___________________________________________ M ELVYN E DELHERTZ and H ELAINE E DELHERTZ , as trustees of the Melvyn and Helaine Edelhertz Revocable Living Trust, Plaintiffs-Appellants , v.
C ITY OF M IDDLETOWN , N EW Y ORK , Defendant-Appellee. [*]
_______________________________________________________________
Before: ABRANES , W ESLEY , and W ALLACE , † Circuit Judges.
*2 Fourteenth Amendment. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Edgardo Ramos, Judge ) granted summary judgment to the City, concluding that the change of zoning rules did not offend the procedural guarantees of the Due Process Clause because the zoning amendment was prospective and generally applicable, and was therefore “legislative” in character rather than “adjudicative.” We affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the District Court’s opinion.
Affirmed.
J AMES G. S WEENEY , James G. Sweeney, P.C., Goshen, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant A LEX S MITH , Assistant Corporation Counsel of the City of Middletown, Middletown, NY, for Defendant-Appellee . P ER URIAM :
Fourteenth Amendment. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Edgardo Ramos, Judge ) granted summary judgment to the City, concluding that the change of zoning rules did not offend due process principles because the zoning amendment was prospective and generally applicable, and was therefore “legislative” in character rather than “adjudicative.”
Having conducted a de novo review, see Bailey v. Pataki , 708 F.3d 391, 399 (2d Cir. 2013), we agree with the analysis of the District Court and affirm for substantially the reasons stated its excellent opinion and order of September 14, 2012. See Edelhertz v. City of Middletown , No. 11-CV- 1943 (ER), --- F. Supp. 2d ---- (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2012). Although actions by legislative bodies can, in some circumstances, offend constitutional principles of due process, see, e.g. , Nathan S. Chapman *3 & Michael W. McConnell, Due Process as Separation of Powers , 121 Y ALE L.J. 1672 (2012) (discussing historical and jurisprudential bases for various due process constraints on legislative action), the District Court ably explained why the City’s failure to provide notice before it adopted a prospective and generally applicable zoning amendment did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED
[*] The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as shown above. † The Honorable J. Clifford Wallace, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.