49 EAST MAPLE AVENUE INC v. LONIEWSKI (2008)

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 for alleged violations of constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, and the taking of property without just compensation, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Alessandro, J.), dated June 26, 2006, which, among other things, in effect, granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1).

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Court of Appeals has observed that “ ‘42 USC § 1983 is not simply an additional vehicle for judicial review of land-use determinations' ” (Bower Assoc. v. Town of Pleasant Val., 2 N.Y.3d 617, 627, 781 N.Y.S.2d 240, 814 N.E.2d 410, quoting Bower Assoc. v. Town of Pleasant Val., 304 A.D.2d 259, 263, 761 N.Y.S.2d 64).   The “denial of a permit-even an arbitrary denial redressable by an article 78 or other state law proceeding-is not tantamount to a constitutional violation under 42 USC § 1983;  significantly more is required” (id.).   Here, “the documentary evidence submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law” (Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511;  see CPLR 3211[a][1] ).   The defendants' conduct was not tantamount to a constitutional violation under 42 USC § 1983 of the plaintiffs' substantive due process rights (see Bower Assoc. v. Town of Pleasant Val., 2 N.Y.3d at 628, 781 N.Y.S.2d 240, 814 N.E.2d 410), nor was it a violation of the plaintiffs' right to equal protection (id. at 631, 781 N.Y.S.2d 240, 814 N.E.2d 410;  see Darby Group Cos., Inc., Distribs. v. Village of Rockville Ctr., N.Y., 43 A.D.3d 979, 980, 842 N.Y.S.2d 75;  Staatsburg Water Co. v. Dutchess County, 291 A.D.2d 552, 553-554, 739 N.Y.S.2d 166), nor was it a taking without just compensation (see de St. Aubin v. Flacke, 68 N.Y.2d 66, 77, 505 N.Y.S.2d 859, 496 N.E.2d 879;  Spears v. Berle, 48 N.Y.2d 254, 263, 422 N.Y.S.2d 636, 397 N.E.2d 1304;  Putnam County Natl. Bank v. City of New York, 37 A.D.3d 575, 577, 829 N.Y.S.2d 661;  Briarcliff Assoc. v. Town of Cortlandt, 272 A.D.2d 488, 490-491, 708 N.Y.S.2d 421).   Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) (1).

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.