Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Rossi v. City of New York
Citation: 75 F. App'x 18Docket: No. 02-9175
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; September 9, 2003; Federal Appellate Court
Dan Rossi, a street vending cart operator, appeals a judgment from the Southern District of New York that dismissed his claim of selective enforcement of vending laws by the City of New York, alleging a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Rossi argues that the summary judgment was improper due to existing material factual issues regarding the City's enforcement against him compared to other vendors. He claims this selective enforcement was in retaliation for his political activities in 1993 and 1994, including protests against the City's decision to close streets and his opposition to the management of a veterans' program. To survive a summary judgment motion in selective enforcement cases, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the laws were not applied equally to similarly situated individuals and that the different treatment was both irrational and intentional. Rossi asserts that the City enforced vending laws selectively concerning permits for selling food on Parks Department property. Although he won a contract to operate multiple pushcarts, the Department of Health (DOH) denied him additional permits, citing Local Law 15 of 1995, while allegedly granting permits to other vendors. The district court ruled it lacked jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents federal review of state court decisions. Additionally, Rossi claims that in retaliation for his political activities, DOH inspectors made it difficult for him to get his pushcarts approved unless he was personally present and threatened legal action. However, he fails to provide evidence of other manufacturers facing less stringent inspection processes, as he only compares his own experiences. Thus, his claims regarding both selective enforcement and retaliation lack sufficient evidence to proceed. The legal analysis cites precedent from *Village of Willowbrook* and *Harlen Associates* to establish that the evidence Rossi provided is insufficient to support his claim of selective enforcement regarding inspections. Rossi claims that the Department of Health (DOH) issued permits to vendors on Port Authority property while denying him permits for public spaces. However, the Port Authority, a joint state agency, is not subject to DOH regulations, and Rossi's lack of application for a permit on Port Authority property disqualifies him from being considered similarly situated to those who did. Rossi also contends that he faced discrimination because the DOH would not permit his family members, who are company officers, to hold permits. Yet, this is consistent with Local Law 15 of 1995, which prohibits such ownership. He further asserts that his family could resign their positions to obtain permits but was informed that he would still retain an "interest" in them. Rossi's claim of selective enforcement is weak because he relies on examples of other permit-holders with shared surnames and addresses, which do not sufficiently demonstrate intentional discrimination. Lastly, Rossi argues that the City inconsistently enforced vending laws against him compared to other vendors. However, he fails to identify any specific laws he violated, undermining his claim of selective prosecution. The court finds other arguments presented by Rossi to lack merit, ultimately affirming the district court's decision to grant summary judgment and dismiss his complaint.