Mendelson

Background

Harold L. Mendelson purchased property at 351 Primrose Hill Road in Rhinebeck, New York, intending to renovate and resell it. Town officials told him that the property was a designated historic site and that additional approvals were required before permits could issue. The Mendelsons disputed that designation. They alleged that a town building inspector entered the property without consent, stopped contractors’ work, denied a permit, and that town officials and outside attorneys continued to rely on the historic-site designation.

The Town later issued the required building permits and a certificate of occupancy, and Harold Mendelson sold the property on September 15, 2023. The Mendelsons alleged that the earlier actions caused construction delays, professional fees, unnecessary compliance expenses, and reduced property value.

The First Amended Complaint asserted five causes of action: a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Town and Elizabeth Spinzia; fraud and deceit; negligence; trespass; and prima facie tort. The court considered separate motions to dismiss filed by the town-related defendants and by John F. Lyons and Kimberly A. Garrison.

Section 1983 Claim

The court held that Mildred Mendelson lacked standing to bring the Section 1983 claim. Standing requires a plaintiff to show a concrete personal injury caused by the defendant that a court can remedy. The court found that Mildred did not own the property, was not physically restrained or formally barred from Town Hall, and left voluntarily after Spinzia directed her to leave. The court also concluded that a temporary request to leave a municipal building did not violate a constitutionally protected right to freedom of movement or access to that particular building.

The court further held that the complaint did not state a Section 1983 claim against the Town. It did not adequately allege that a Town policy, custom, or practice caused a constitutional injury. The court also held that the allegations against Spinzia described at most a single discretionary interaction and did not adequately allege personal involvement in a constitutional violation, deliberate indifference, or action under an official Town policy.

The court declined to consider a Section 1983 theory against Lyons and Garrison because the First Amended Complaint did not assert that claim against them and the Mendelsons could not add a new claim through their opposition papers. The court also stated that, even if such a claim had been properly pleaded, the attorneys were private attorneys and their representation of the Town did not make them state actors for Section 1983 purposes.

State-Law Claims

The court dismissed the state-law claims for fraud and deceit, negligence, trespass, and prima facie tort because the Mendelsons did not timely serve a notice of claim. Under New York law, a notice of claim generally must be served on a municipality within 90 days after the claim arises. The court calculated that the notice was due by August 22, 2023, but the Mendelsons did not serve it until September 20, 2023.

The Mendelsons argued that Town officials had actual knowledge of the underlying events and were not prejudiced by the late notice. The court rejected that argument because the Mendelsons did not seek permission to serve a late notice of claim, and the alleged actual knowledge did not excuse the failure to comply with the statutory requirement.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted both defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court dismissed the state-law claims with prejudice because amendment would be futile. It dismissed the remaining Section 1983 claims against the Town and Spinzia without prejudice and granted the Mendelsons leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by December 8, 2025. The order stated that, if they did not timely amend and could not show good cause, claims dismissed without prejudice could later be deemed dismissed with prejudice. The defendants were directed to answer or otherwise respond by December 30, 2025.