Narrative Opinion Summary
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. The case involves the Town of Islip's issuance of a certificate of occupancy (C/O) that included revoking notations regarding the plaintiff’s nonconforming use of his property. The court agrees with the District Court's findings that the Town violated the plaintiff's right to procedural due process and awards the plaintiff attorneys' fees as the prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The court grants a declaratory judgment affirming that the 1990 C/O is valid and that the property retains its nonconforming status unless the Town revokes it in accordance with due process. However, the court denies the plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction against the Town's actions related to the use of the premises as a two-family dwelling, dismisses the plaintiff's substantive due process claim, and denies the defendants' motion for summary judgment. All defendants' arguments have been considered and found without merit.
Legal Issues Addressed
Attorneys' Fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff was awarded attorneys' fees as the prevailing party due to the procedural due process violation.
Reasoning: The court agrees with the District Court's findings that the Town violated the plaintiff's right to procedural due process and awards the plaintiff attorneys' fees as the prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
Declaratory Judgment on Certificate of Occupancysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court confirmed the validity of the 1990 certificate of occupancy, asserting that the property's nonconforming status remains unless lawfully revoked.
Reasoning: The court grants a declaratory judgment affirming that the 1990 C/O is valid and that the property retains its nonconforming status unless the Town revokes it in accordance with due process.
Denial of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendants' motion for summary judgment was denied, as their arguments were considered and found meritless.
Reasoning: The court denies the defendants' motion for summary judgment. All defendants' arguments have been considered and found without merit.
Denial of Permanent Injunctionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court refused to grant a permanent injunction preventing the Town from actions concerning the use of the property as a two-family dwelling.
Reasoning: However, the court denies the plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction against the Town's actions related to the use of the premises as a two-family dwelling.
Dismissal of Substantive Due Process Claimsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff's substantive due process claim was dismissed by the court.
Reasoning: The court denies the plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction against the Town's actions related to the use of the premises as a two-family dwelling, dismisses the plaintiff's substantive due process claim.
Procedural Due Process Violationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Town of Islip's actions were found to violate the plaintiff's right to procedural due process by issuing a certificate of occupancy that improperly included revoking notations.
Reasoning: The court agrees with the District Court's findings that the Town violated the plaintiff's right to procedural due process.