Calley v. Town of Cortlandt

Background

Wayne Calley and Jared Wayne Calley filed this action without lawyers against the Town of Cortlandt; Linda D. Puglisi, identified as the Town of Cortlandt Supervisor; the Town of Cortlandt Court Clerk Audrey Stewart; the Westchester County Police Department; and Westchester County Police Officer Coffee. The claims concerned their eviction from a residence in or near a mobile home park in the Town of Cortlandt.

On July 8, 2019, the court ruled that the complaint failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted, but allowed the plaintiffs 60 days to file an amended complaint. They did not amend, and on September 20, 2019, the court dismissed the complaint.

Motion for Relief from the Judgment

On January 10, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, along with a document labeled “supplemental information.” The motion sought relief from the dismissal.

The supplemental information alleged that the Town of Cortlandt damaged underground water pipes on or near the plaintiffs’ property and then sent them a water bill of nearly $3,000. The plaintiffs also raised claims for the first time that mobile-home-park residents became ill from toxins released when the park was demolished, although the opinion states that they did not allege that they personally were affected.

The plaintiffs also made extensive arguments about property ownership under New York law and appeared to claim that they acquired rights to the property through adverse possession. They did not address the deficiencies identified in the court’s earlier order. For example, the court had found that they failed to allege what Officer Coffee personally did or failed to do that violated their rights. The plaintiffs stated that they could not change the facts and that an amended complaint would be the same as the original complaint.

Court’s Analysis

Rule 60(b) permits a court to grant relief from an order or judgment for specified reasons, including mistake or excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction or reversal of the judgment, and other reasons justifying relief.

The court held that, even under a liberal reading of the plaintiffs’ motion, they had not alleged facts showing that any of the first five grounds applied. The court therefore denied relief under those grounds.

The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which covers reasons not included in the first five grounds. Such a motion must be filed within a reasonable time and must show extraordinary circumstances. The court found that the plaintiffs had not alleged facts demonstrating extraordinary circumstances.

The opinion states that the order addressed whether to reconsider the dismissal of the claims in the complaint. It did not address whether the plaintiffs could pursue a new or different claim against the Town of Cortlandt.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. It directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to the plaintiffs and record service on the docket. The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiffs permission to appeal without paying filing fees.