Umeze v. New York City Department of Finance
- John Cronan
- 1:24-cv-05523
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Umeze v. New York City Department of Finance, Judge Cronan adopted a recommendation, denied amendment, and dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
The ruling affected Ben Umeze’s federal challenge to the tax classification of the property where he operates his medical practice, as well as the New York City Department of Finance and the other defendants. The case was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and Umeze was denied leave to amend and permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.
What happened
In Umeze v. New York City Department of Finance, Ben Umeze challenged the reclassification of the property where he operates his medical practice. He alleged that the reclassification increased his property taxes and sought a declaration, an order requiring reclassification, damages, and relief for alleged due process violations.
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker recommended dismissing the case because the federal court lacked authority to hear it under the Tax Injunction Act and principles governing respect for state and local tax systems. She also recommended denying Umeze permission to amend his complaint because amendment would be futile. No party objected to the recommendation before the deadline.
Judge Cronan reviewed the recommendation and adopted it in its entirety. He denied Umeze leave to amend and dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court also closed the case and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Umeze v. New York City Department of Finance · No. 1:24-cv-05523
- John Cronan
- July 30, 2025
Background
Ben Umeze sued the New York City Department of Finance and other defendants over the reclassification for tax purposes of the property where he operates his medical practice. He alleged that the reclassification resulted in higher property taxes. His complaint sought:
- a declaration that the reclassification was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful; - an injunction requiring the defendants to reclassify the property; - compensatory damages; and - relief for alleged violations of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.
The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation also construed the complaint as asserting a claim under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.
Report and Recommendation
On July 10, 2025, Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker recommended dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The recommendation concluded that the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, and principles of comity barred the action. The Tax Injunction Act generally limits federal-court challenges to state and local taxes when an adequate remedy is available in state court; the opinion identifies the Act and comity as the grounds for the recommendation but does not further explain those principles in the order adopting it.
Judge Parker also recommended denying Umeze leave to amend his complaint because amendment would be futile. The recommendation advised the parties of their deadlines to object and warned that failing to object would waive objections for purposes of appeal. No objections were filed, and the objection period expired.
Ruling
Although no objections were filed, Judge Cronan conducted a full review of the Report and Recommendation rather than only reviewing it for clear error. He found it well reasoned and its conclusions well founded, adopted it in its entirety, denied Umeze leave to amend his complaint, and dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.