VINCENT L. BRICCETTI, District Judge.
Plaintiff Pulte Homes of New York, LLC ("Pulte"), brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Town of Carmel (the "Town") and Town of Carmel Planning Board (the "Planning Board"), alleging defendants violated its constitutional rights to equal protection and procedural and substantive due process, and seeking damages, declaratory relief, and equitable relief.
Now pending are (i) defendants' motion for reargument of one aspect of the Court's September 5, 2017, Opinion and Order, which granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint (Doc. #36), and (ii) plaintiff's motion to certify an appeal of the Court's September 5, 2017, Opinion and Order (Doc. #35).
For the following reasons, defendants' motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion is DENIED AS MOOT.
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Familiarity with the factual background of the case is presumed. Of relevance to the instant motions are the following facts:
On February 3, 2006, the Planning Board "granted final site plan approval" for the property to be developed with a total of 313 "dwelling units." (Am. Compl. ¶ 22).
In 2008, Pulte sought site plan amendments, which reduced the overall unit and building count. Later that year, Pulte was informed it would be required to pay a $3,500 recreation fee per dwelling unit. On October 28, 2008, Pulte paid $385,000 in recreation fees "under protest" for Lot 4. (Am. Compl. ¶28). On November 12, 2008, the Planning Board passed three resolutions adopting Pulte's site plan amendments (the "2008 Resolutions").
On June 28, 2012, Pulte applied for additional site plan amendments for Lots 3 and 5, which again reduced the number of units, and sought Planning Board approval. From May through September 25, 2013, the Planning Board held public hearings, and by resolutions dated September 27, 2013, it approved the plans and imposed a recreation fee of $3,500 per unit (the "2013 Resolutions"). On October 18, 2013, Pulte paid the Town $364,000 in recreation fees for Lots 3 and 5, again "under protest." (Am. Compl. ¶ 38).
On October 17, 2016, plaintiff commenced this action with the filing of a complaint.
In its September 5, 2017, Opinion and Order, the Court concluded Pulte's claims stemming from the 2008 Resolutions were barred by the applicable statute of limitations, but that its claims stemming from the 2013 Resolutions were timely. (Doc. #33).
"The Court has authority under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), as well as the inherent power of the court, to reconsider a prior decision at any time before the entry of final judgment."
"A party seeking reargument must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying motion and that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court."
Defendants argue the Court overlooked controlling precedent in its September 5, 2017, Opinion and Order, when it determined Pulte's claims related to the 2013 Resolutions were timely.
The Court agrees. Accordingly, upon reconsideration, the Court concludes its determination in this regard was erroneous.
"The statute of limitations applicable to claims brought under . . . [Section] 1983 in New York is three years."
"The crucial time for accrual purposes is when the plaintiff becomes aware that he is suffering from a wrong for which damages may be recovered in a civil action."
Here, in its September 5, 2017, Opinion and Order, the Court found that "[t]he latest point at which Pulte was allegedly injured and thus knew or should have known of the harm, was when it paid the recreation fees of which it complains," which, for the 2013 Resolutions, was on October 18, 2013. (Doc. #33 at 5). The Court therefore concluded Pulte's claims related to the 2013 Resolutions, included in its complaint filed on October 17, 2016, were timely.
However, upon reconsideration, and in light of the binding precedent discussed above, the Court concludes Pulte's claims related to the 2013 Resolutions accrued not when it paid the recreation fees, but instead at the latest on September 27, 2013, when the Planning Board passed the Resolutions and imposed the recreation fees on Pulte.
In particular, Pulte alleges "[t]he Planning Board held protracted public hearings from May, 2013 through September 25, 2013, during which Pulte requested the Planning Board conduct fact-finding and assess the present and future need for recreation space on the Property and the Town of Carmel, or imposing a fee in lieu thereof." (Am. Compl. ¶ 33). Pulte further alleges the 2013 Resolutions were signed "[u]pon closing of the public hearing on Lot 3 and Lot 5," and were dated September 27, 2013. (
Thus, the allegations contained in its amended complaint show Pulte knew or should have known of of the allegedly unconstitutional acts related to the 2013 Resolutions—the denial of Pulte's right to be heard, and the imposition of the recreation fees—by September 27, 2013, when the 2013 Resolutions were passed.
Accordingly, Pulte's claims related to the 2013 Resolutions are time-barred.
Because the Court's determination that Pulte's claims are time-barred mandates dismissal of the case, appeal as of right is now permitted. Accordingly, the Court need not consider the arguments raised in Pulte's motion to certify an appeal.
Defendants' motion for reargument is GRANTED, and the amended complaint is DISMISSED.
Plaintiff's motion to certify an appeal of the Court's September 5, 2017, Opinion and Order is DENIED AS MOOT.
The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motions (Docs. ##35, 36) and close this case.
SO ORDERED: