Case ID: f-appx_4/html/0086-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Norman E. ROTH, University Hill Realty, Ltd., Stampede, Llc., Stampede II, Llc. and Stampede III, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF SYRACUSE, Syracuse Housing Authority, Frederick R. Murphy, individually and in his professional capacity as Director of Syracuse Housing Authority, Roy Bernardi, individually and in his professional capacity as Mayor, Vito Sciscioli, individually and in his professional capacity as Director of Community Development and Terry Kresser, individually and in his professional capacity as the Supervisor of Syracuse Housing Authority's Section 8 Program, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 00-7727.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 20, 2001.
    Alan J. Pierce, Hancock & Estabrook, Syracuse, NY, for appellants.
    Karen M. Richards, Ass’t Corp. Counsel, Syracuse, NY, for appellees City of Syracuse, Bernardi, and Sciscioli.
    Robert Kirchner, Bond, Schoeneck & King, Syracuse, NY, for appellees Syracuse Housing ' Authority, Murphy, and Kresser.
    Present Van GRAAFEILAND, KEARSE and LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, and was argued by counsel for appellants and the City appellees, and was submitted by counsel for the Housing Authority appellees.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Mordue’s Memorandum-Decision and Order dated May 5, 2000. Giving consideration to 24 C.F.R. § 982.306 as a whole, which provides housing authorities with considerable discretion to determine which landlords may participate in Section 8 programs and states that “[njothing in this rule is intended to give any owner any right to participate in the program,” see id. § 982.306(e), we conclude that plaintiffs did not show an entitlement to participate in such programs or a property interest sufficient to support their due process claims.

We have considered all of plaintiffs’ contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.