Plaintiffs alleged that the Adirondack Park Agency engaged in selective enforcement pertaining to a particular permit which called for conditions on lots. In 2005, the Adirondack Park Agency found that the Plaintiff’s home violated the restriction on height, restrictions on removal of tree growth and a compulsory condition that homes be set back at least twenty feet from an abrupt change in slope. The District Court upheld the determination made by Adirondack Park Agency and denied the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs alleged a violation of the Equal Protection Clause under both the Federal Constitution and the state constitution. The District Court, however, held that the Plaintiff’s failed to allege they were members of a constitutionally protected class and that they were similarly situated to all other landowners in the subject subdivision. The court also noted that the Adirondack Park Agency monitors permit compliance mostly in instances where complaints have been filed. Prior to the Plaintiff’s complaint, the Adirondack Park Agency had received no complaints about possible permit violations. Thus, a reasonable jury could find that the Plaintiffs were not similarly situated to other homeowners.
The Adirondack Park Agency moved for summary judgment on the grounds that if the Plaintiff’s could not provide evidence to establish each element of their claim, summary judgment should be granted in favor of the Adirondack Park Agency. The court, however, determined that a reasonable jury could conclude that because the Adirondack Park Agency chose not to investigate permit violations by similarly situated homeowners, that the Plaintiffs were treated differently.
On the malicious intent claim, the Plaintiffs alleged that agency enforcement officer was “out to get them” but the court stated that there was no direct evidence of political animus. Plaintiffs also alleged that the Adirondack Park Agency diverged from their enforcement guidelines therefore ensuring they would incur substantial costs. The court, however, held that the alleged failure to follow enforcement guidelines “does not establish that the Agency or any of the individual defendants acted out of malice, politically motivated or otherwise.” Plaintiffs further argued that this is a case of spoliation and that they are entitled to an adverse inference of malice because two emails that were provided during discovery were blank. Here, the court held that the Plaintiffs did not establish all of the elements of a spoliation claim.
Lastly, the Plaintiff’s claim that the Adirondack Park Agency acted irrationally when it insisted, among other things, Plaintiff’s home not be visible from Lake Placid, by failing to determine the visual impact of a permit-complaint house on their lot, by finding Plaintiffs in violation of the setback requirement. The court dismissed each of these allegations finding the Agency had a rational basis for their determination.
Spiegel v. Adirondack Park Agency, 662 F. Supp.2d 243 (N.D.N.Y. 9/16/2009).
