Edelhertz v. City of Middletown, No. 12-3923 (2d Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Second Circuit US Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Second Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
The City amended it's zoning laws to prohibit the nonconforming use of non-owner-occupied multiple dwellings in various zoning districts. Plaintiffs alleged that the City's failure to notify them, as affected property owners, prior to enacting this zoning change violated their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that the change of zoning rules did not offend the procedural guarantees of the Due Process Clause because the zoning amendment was prospective and generally applicable, and was therefore "legislative" in character rather than "adjudicative."
Download PDF
12-3923-cv Edelhertz v. City of Middletown UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2012 (Argued: May 7, 2013 Decided: May 8, 2013) Docket No. 12-3923-cv _______________________________________________________________ MELVYN EDELHERTZ and HELAINE EDELHERTZ, as trustees of the Melvyn and Helaine Edelhertz Revocable Living Trust, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF MIDDLETOWN, NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellee.* _______________________________________________________________ Before: CABRANES, WESLEY, and WALLACE, Circuit Judges. In 2009, the Common Council of the City of Middletown, New York ( the City ), amended the City s zoning laws to prohibit the nonconforming use of non-owner-occupied multiple dwellings in various zoning districts. The plaintiffs allege that the City s failure to notify them, as affected property owners, prior to enacting this zoning change violated their due process rights under the * The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as shown above. The Honorable J. Clifford Wallace, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation. 1 Fourteenth Amendment. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Edgardo Ramos, Judge) granted summary judgment to the City, concluding that the change of zoning rules did not offend the procedural guarantees of the Due Process Clause because the zoning amendment was prospective and generally applicable, and was therefore legislative in character rather than adjudicative. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the District Court s opinion. Affirmed. JAMES G. SWEENEY, James G. Sweeney, P.C., Goshen, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant. ALEX SMITH, Assistant Corporation Counsel of the City of Middletown, Middletown, NY, for Defendant-Appellee. PER CURIAM: In 2009, the Common Council of the City of Middletown, New York ( the City ), amended the City s zoning laws to prohibit the nonconforming use of non-owner-occupied multiple dwellings in various zoning districts. The plaintiffs allege that the City s failure to notify them, as affected property owners, prior to enacting this zoning change violated their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Edgardo Ramos, Judge) granted summary judgment to the City, concluding that the change of zoning rules did not offend due process principles because the zoning amendment was prospective and generally applicable, and was therefore legislative in character rather than adjudicative. Having conducted a de novo review, see Bailey v. Pataki, 708 F.3d 391, 399 (2d Cir. 2013), we agree with the analysis of the District Court and affirm for substantially the reasons stated its excellent opinion and order of September 14, 2012. See Edelhertz v. City of Middletown, No. 11-CV1943 (ER), --- F. Supp. 2d ---- (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2012). Although actions by legislative bodies can, in some circumstances, offend constitutional principles of due process, see, e.g., Nathan S. Chapman 2 & Michael W. McConnell, Due Process as Separation of Powers, 121 YALE L.J. 1672 (2012) (discussing historical and jurisprudential bases for various due process constraints on legislative action), the District Court ably explained why the City s failure to provide notice before it adopted a prospective and generally applicable zoning amendment did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
