Rosario v. Town of Mount Kisco

Background

Ramona J. Rosario sued individually and as administrator of the estate of Haniel Reyes-Rosario. The defendants included the Town of Mount Kisco, the Village of Mount Kisco, Francesca Luppino, Francesca Luppino 2013 Revocable Living Trust, Antonio Luppino, and Sharon DaSilva. The complaint asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, along with state-law claims.

The case arose from Haniel’s death in a fire on January 20, 2016, in the basement apartment where he lived. Rosario alleged that Mount Kisco had a policy of not enforcing housing regulations at buildings it knew were occupied by Hispanic immigrants. She also alleged that Antonio Luppino was responsible for maintenance, repairs, safety, and regulatory compliance at the property.

The court had previously dismissed earlier claims but allowed Rosario to amend some claims against Mount Kisco and Antonio Luppino. Rosario then filed a Second Amended Complaint with additional allegations, including claims about housing conditions, Mount Kisco’s knowledge of alleged violations, enforcement statistics, and the Luppinos’ responsibilities at the property.

Legal standard

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). At this stage, the court had to accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true and decide whether they stated a claim that was plausible—not merely possible—on its face. The court generally could consider the complaint, materials attached to or incorporated into it, judicially noticeable matters, and documents integral to the complaint, but not factual assertions supplied only through outside affidavits.

Mount Kisco’s municipal-liability claim

To hold a municipality liable under Section 1983, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that an official policy or custom caused the constitutional injury. The court found that Rosario had adequately alleged the existence of a possible Mount Kisco policy or custom. Her allegations described a longstanding policy of discrimination against Hispanic immigrants and alleged that Mount Kisco implemented it by failing to enforce housing regulations, increase affordable housing, and regulate landlords.

The court nevertheless found that Rosario had not adequately alleged causation. A municipal policy must be the direct or “moving force” behind the injury. The complaint alleged that Mount Kisco knew the basement was occupied, failed to inspect the property for nearly six years, and did not enforce applicable regulations. But the court found only an attenuated connection between that conduct and Haniel’s death. It held that the complaint did not allege facts showing that Mount Kisco had actual or constructive notice that its failure to inspect would likely result in Haniel being trapped in the basement and dying in the fire started by DaSilva.

Equal Protection claims

The court separately addressed two Equal Protection theories.

For selective enforcement, Rosario had to allege that Haniel was treated differently from a similarly situated comparator and that the difference was based on an impermissible consideration, such as race. The court explained that she did not need to present evidence of comparators at the pleading stage, but she still had to provide enough facts for the court to determine whether the proposed comparators could plausibly be considered similarly situated. The complaint’s general reference to buildings occupied by nonimmigrant tenants was too vague. The court therefore granted Mount Kisco’s motion to dismiss the selective-enforcement claims.

For intentional discrimination, Rosario alleged that Mount Kisco applied facially neutral housing regulations in a discriminatory manner and that the regulations had an adverse effect on Hispanic immigrants because of discriminatory intent. The court found that the complaint relied on conclusory statements and did not identify specific events or circumstances supporting a plausible inference of discriminatory intent.

The complaint also cited Mount Kisco enforcement statistics showing relatively low enforcement from 2007 through 2016 and a substantial increase in 2017. The court held that these statistics did not identify the racial or ethnic makeup of the residents in the affected buildings. As a result, they did not plausibly show a disparate impact on Hispanic immigrants or connect any such impact to a discriminatory purpose.

The court therefore granted Mount Kisco’s motion to dismiss the federal claims.

State-law claims and disposition

After dismissing the only federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court considered whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. It declined to do so because the case had not progressed beyond the pleading stage and no discovery had occurred. The court concluded that judicial economy, fairness, and respect for state courts favored allowing the state-law claims to proceed in state court.

The court dismissed the remainder of Rosario’s state-law claims without prejudice so that she could refile them in state court. It directed the Clerk to terminate the motions, mail the opinion to pro se defendant Sharon DaSilva, and close the case.