104 S. Division St LLC v. City of Peekskill

Background

104 S. Division St LLC, Avrum Chaim Lebrecht, and Shia Lebrecht sued the City of Peekskill, Thomas Leonard, and Nicholas Cecere. The plaintiffs alleged that they were renovating the Riley Building, a four-story commercial building in Peekskill’s historic district, for mixed commercial and residential use. The project required permits, variances, and approvals.

The plaintiffs alleged that, after Leonard and Cecere became Peekskill’s building inspectors, they subjected the project to delays, duplicative work, stop-work orders, reinspections, and other obstructions because the plaintiffs were Jewish. They identified five other construction projects as comparators and alleged that those projects were allowed to proceed more quickly and with less oversight.

The plaintiffs asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing suits against people acting under state authority for violating constitutional rights. They alleged selective enforcement and discriminatory treatment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. They also asserted a claim under New York’s Human Rights Law.

Motion and Analysis

The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The court applied the same standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: the complaint had to contain enough factual matter to make a claim for relief plausible.

For a selective-enforcement equal-protection claim, a plaintiff must allege that the government treated the plaintiff differently from similarly situated people and that the different treatment was based on an impermissible reason, such as religion. The court applied the less demanding standard requiring comparators to be similar “in all material respects,” rather than the stricter standard used for a “class of one” claim.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not met even the less demanding standard. The complaint did not allege specific facts showing that the comparator projects underwent similar work, faced similar permitting or zoning requirements, or experienced different treatment. The fact that other, sometimes larger, buildings were completed sooner did not by itself show that they avoided similar delays or obstructions. The complaint also did not state whether the comparator properties were owned or operated by non-Orthodox Jews, a fact the court considered relevant to the alleged religiously selective enforcement.

State-Law Claim and Leave to Amend

Because the court dismissed all claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the New York Human Rights Law claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is a court’s authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice and granted leave to amend. The plaintiffs could file a Second Amended Complaint by March 3, 2025. The defendants were directed to answer or otherwise respond by March 25, 2025. If the plaintiffs failed to amend on time without showing good cause, claims dismissed without prejudice would be treated as dismissed with prejudice.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. All claims were dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 46.