Ent Intl Realty Corp. v. Cuomo
- P. Castel
- 1:20-cv-04277
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ent Int’l Realty Corp. v. Cuomo, Judge Castel granted defendants’ dismissal motions, entered judgment for defendants, and closed the case.
The named plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed, and judgment was entered for Governor Cuomo, Mayor De Blasio, and the New York City Department of Finance.
What happened
Ent Int’l Realty Corp. and the other plaintiffs challenged eviction moratoria, property-tax collection, and penalties for late tax payments. They sought court orders declaring the policies unlawful and stopping their enforcement.
Governor Andrew Cuomo, Mayor Bill De Blasio, and the New York City Department of Finance moved to dismiss. The plaintiffs were represented by counsel but did not oppose the motions before their response deadline.
Judge Castel ruled that the challenge to the eviction orders failed to state a claim and that the tax-related relief appeared barred by the federal Tax Injunction Act. Judge Castel granted both motions to dismiss, directed the Clerk to enter judgment for defendants, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Ent Intl Realty Corp. v. Cuomo · No. 1:20-cv-04277
- P. Castel
- Sept. 9, 2020
Background
Ent Int’l Realty Corp., H.P.S.O.N.Y., Inc., NLY.A.H., Inc., and R.C.F.H.P., Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, sued Andrew Cuomo in his personal and official capacities as Governor of New York, Bill De Blasio in his personal and official capacities as Mayor of New York City, and the New York City Department of Finance.
The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief concerning three subjects: enforcement of Executive Orders 202.8 and 202.28, which imposed moratoria on evictions; demands for property taxes due on July 1, 2020; and penalties and late fees for taxes due on that date. The defendants moved to dismiss. The opinion states that the plaintiffs were represented by counsel, did not oppose the motions, and did not request additional time after their response deadline passed.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ challenge to Executive Order 202.28 and its predecessor, Executive Order 202.8, failed to state a claim for relief. The court reached that conclusion for substantially the reasons stated in a June 29, 2020 order in Elmsford Apartment Assocs., LLC v. Cuomo, which rejected a challenge to Executive Order 202.28 under the Contracts Clause, Takings Clause, Petition Clause, and Due Process Clause, as well as for the reasons presented by defendant Cuomo in his motion to dismiss.
As to the claims against Mayor De Blasio and the New York City Department of Finance seeking to stop property-tax collection or penalties for nonpayment, the court stated that the requested relief appeared to conflict with the Tax Injunction Act. That federal law generally bars federal courts from stopping the assessment, levy, or collection of a state-law tax when the state courts provide a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy. The court also noted the defendants’ other asserted grounds for dismissal.
Disposition
The court held that the defendants had established a preliminary basis for dismissing all claims and that the plaintiffs had offered no argument for denying the motions. The court therefore granted both motions to dismiss, identified as Documents 28 and 31. It directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the claims under the pleading-stage dismissal framework rather than deciding the underlying legal claims on their merits.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.