Cornetta v. Town of Highlands

Background

Joseph Cornetta sued the Town of Highlands, the Village of Highland Falls, and several individual officials. He alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). Cornetta claimed that officials engaged in corruption, bribery, kickbacks, voter fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud, and that they discriminated and retaliated against him because of a shoulder injury and neck injury he sustained during an alleged altercation with Kenneth Scott. Cornetta alleged that he was later removed from or prevented from returning to his police duties.

The Village of Highland Falls, Joseph D’Onofrio, Kenneth Scott, and James DiSalvo—the “Village Defendants”—moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6). The Town and Frank Pierri did not join the motion.

RICO Claim

The court held that Cornetta did not plausibly allege the required injury to his business or property. The only injury that the court found plausibly personalized to Cornetta was the loss of his detective duties and his alleged virtual termination from Town duties. But Cornetta did not adequately explain how those employment injuries were caused by the alleged bribery, kickbacks, or other racketeering activity.

The court reasoned that the alleged theory—that Cornetta lost his job because he would not remain silent about corruption—was insufficient to establish the required causal connection for a civil RICO claim. The court also noted that any physical injuries from the alleged assault were not caused by the alleged mail or wire fraud. Because the RICO injury requirement was not plausibly alleged, the court dismissed the RICO claims without deciding whether the complaint adequately pleaded mail or wire fraud under the heightened fraud-pleading rule in Rule 9(b). The court also did not resolve whether the Village could be liable for damages under RICO.

ADA and NYSHRL Claims

The court dismissed any ADA claims against the individual Village Defendants because individuals cannot be held liable under the ADA’s employment-discrimination and retaliation provisions. The court stated that similar NYSHRL claims against individuals could potentially proceed under an aiding-and-abetting theory, but found other deficiencies in the disability-related allegations.

For the discrimination claims, the court held that Cornetta did not provide enough facts to show that his shoulder and neck injuries substantially limited a major life activity, as required for a qualifying disability under the ADA and NYSHRL. The complaint stated that he was scheduled for surgery and took worker’s compensation leave, but it did not describe the extent of his limitations, the expected recovery period, or the work tasks he could or could not perform.

The court also dismissed the hostile-work-environment claims because the complaint did not allege that the Village Defendants’ conduct was motivated by Cornetta’s alleged disability. Finally, the court dismissed the retaliation claims. Even assuming Cornetta had adequately alleged a qualifying disability, his complaints concerned alleged corruption, illegal acts, political conduct, and intimidation—not discrimination based on disability. The court therefore found no alleged protected activity under the ADA or NYSHRL.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted the Village Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Because the court described this as the first adjudication on the merits of Cornetta’s claims, it dismissed the claims without prejudice. Cornetta was given 30 days from the date of the Opinion and Order to file a second amended complaint containing all claims, allegations, and exhibits he wanted the court to consider. The court warned that failing to meet the deadline could result in dismissal with prejudice. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion.