15-3836 

Wisoff v. City of Schenectady 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY 

ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF 

APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER 

IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN 

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY 

ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 

2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 

New York, on the 21st 3 day of November, two thousand sixteen. 

4 

5 PRESENT: 

6 AMALYA L. KEARSE,

7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 

8 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,

9 Circuit Judges. 

10 _____________________________________ 

11 

12 Andrew E. Wisoff, 

13 

14 Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant - Appellant, 

15 

16 v. No. 15-3836 

17 

18 City of Schenectady, New York, 

19 

20 Defendant-Counter-Claimant - Appellee. 

21 _____________________________________ 

22 

23 FOR APPELLANT: Andrew E. Wisoff, pro se, Schenectady, New York. 

24 

25 FOR APPELLEE: Carl G. Falotico & Ryan P. Bailey, Corporation Counsel for 

26 the City of Schenectady, Schenectady, New York. 

27 

28 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

29 New York (Norman A. Mordue, Judge). 
2 

1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 

2 DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. 

3 Andrew Wisoff, pro se, appeals from the grant of summary judgment by the United States 

4 District Court for the Northern District of New York (Mordue, J.) in favor of the City of 

5 Schenectady on his Fourth Amendment challenge to the validity of the City’s rental certificate 

6 ordinance (“RCO”). The RCO generally prohibits owners from renting property without a rental 

7 certificate, which can be issued pursuant only to an inspection of the property by a building 

8 inspector; a temporary certificate may be obtained upon the owner’s submission of an affidavit of 

9 compliance with the RCO if the inspector is unable to inspect the premises within five business 

10 days of the owner’s application. The RCO authorizes municipal employees to conduct 

11 inspections either with the consent of the owners or, absent consent, pursuant to a search warrant. 

12 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and record of the prior proceedings, to which we 

13 refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. 

14 We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment, which is appropriate only 

15 “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is 

16 entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Sousa v. Marquez, 702 F.3d 124, 127 (2d Cir. 2012) 

17 (quotation marks omitted). Upon review, we conclude that the District Court properly granted 

18 summary judgment to the City of Schenectady. We therefore affirm for substantially the reasons 

19 stated by the District Court in its decision of October 28, 2015. See generally Marshall v. 

20 Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 320-21, 323 (1978) (“[p]robable cause in the criminal law sense is 

21 not required[ f]or purposes of an administrative search” pursuant to a warrant that is “authorized 

22 by statute” and issued “pursuant to an administrative plan containing specific neutral criteria”). 
3 

1 We have considered all of Wisoff’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are 

2 without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court. 

3 FOR THE COURT: 

4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk