From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grossi v. City of New York

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Dec 1, 2009
08-CV-1083 (RRM) (ALC) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2009)

Summary

finding claims not ripe for review when the plaintiff did not allege that it applied for a special permit

Summary of this case from ROMAN C. DIOCESE OF ROCKVILLE CENTRE v. INC. VIL

Opinion

08-CV-1083 (RRM) (ALC).

December 1, 2009


ORDER


By Motion filed July 1, 2009 (Docket Entry No. 39), Defendants the City of New York, Michael R. Bloomberg, and Police Officer Michael Rice (collectively, the "City Defendants") moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint in part pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). By Order entered July 15, 2009, this Court referred that motion to the assigned Magistrate Judge, the Honorable Andrew L. Carter, for a Report and Recommendation. On November 4, 2009, Judge Carter issued a Report and Recommendation (the "R R") that the City Defendants' motion be granted. Judge Carter reminded the parties that, pursuant to Rule 72(b), any objection to the R R was due within ten days. Neither party has filed any objection.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, the Court has reviewed the R R for clear error and, finding none, adopts the R R in its entirety. See Covey v. Simonton, 481 F. Supp. 2d 224, 226 (E.D.N.Y. 2007). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the City Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in part is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' First Cause of Action is DISMISSED, insofar as it relates to the landmark designation of Plaintiffs' property, for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Plaintiffs' Second and Third Causes of Action are DISMISSED, insofar as they relate to the landmark designation of Plaintiffs' property, because they are unripe for adjudication and fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Plaintiffs' Fourth Cause of Action is DISMISSED, insofar as it relates to the landmark designation of Plaintiffs' property, because it is unripe for adjudication.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Grossi v. City of New York

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Dec 1, 2009
08-CV-1083 (RRM) (ALC) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2009)

finding claims not ripe for review when the plaintiff did not allege that it applied for a special permit

Summary of this case from ROMAN C. DIOCESE OF ROCKVILLE CENTRE v. INC. VIL

dismissing retaliation claim for lack of plausibility where plaintiffs' pleading indicated that there was an alternate, non-retaliatory motive for the defendant's conduct

Summary of this case from Sutton v. Stony Brook Univ.

dismissing retaliation claim for lack of plausibility where plaintiffs' pleading indicated that there was an alternate, non-retaliatory motive for the defendant's conduct

Summary of this case from Salvatierra v. Connolly

noting that Plaintiffs “simply surmise[d]” retaliatory motives, and that Plaintiffs' allegations of retaliatory intent were contradicted by other allegations suggesting ulterior motives for defendants' conduct

Summary of this case from Schubert v. City of Rye
Case details for

Grossi v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:JOHN GROSSI and LORI GROSSI, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, MICHAEL…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. New York

Date published: Dec 1, 2009

Citations

08-CV-1083 (RRM) (ALC) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2009)

Citing Cases

Where Heart Is LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank

J.S., ex rel. N.S. v. Attica Cent. Sch., 386 F.3d 107, 110 (2d Cir. 2004) (“We may consider affidavits and…

Twerksy v. Town of Hempstead

Moreover, federalism principles weigh in favor of a requirement of finality. Murphy, 402 F.3d at 348 ("[The…