Opinion ID: 4523521
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Christopher Lilakos’s Standing

Text: The district court dismissed Christopher’s parallel due process claims on the ground that he does not have a legally cognizable property interest in the house, because he is neither an owner nor a tenant of the property. It is likely that Christopher does have 1 Plaintiffs do not raise any arguments about several of their claims not noted above and have therefore abandoned any challenge to those claims. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92 (2d Cir. 1995). 4 standing under New York law—at least to the extent he challenges an alleged wrongful eviction as opposed to deprivation of property. Although the New York State Court of Appeals has not spoken on this issue, the weight of lower state court authority counsels that a minor child has an independent possessory right to reside in the family home. See, e.g., Nauth v. Nauth, 42 Misc. 3d 672, 675 (N.Y. Civ. Ct., Bronx Cty. 2013) (collecting cases). That “right to reside” confers standing to challenge an alleged wrongful displacement. 2 That Christopher has standing, however, does not mean he was properly before the district court. As a minor, Christopher could not represent himself, and as a nonlawyer, his father could not bring an action on his behalf. Cheung v. Youth Orchestra Found. of Buffalo, Inc., 906 F.2d 59, 61 (2d Cir. 1990). An attorney never appeared to represent Christopher; the district court could have dismissed his claims for that reason. And though Christopher is no longer a minor, the matter is of no moment, as each of Christopher’s would-be claims fails. 2 Christopher also argues that he has a legally cognizable property interest in the house under New York’s intestate laws. See N.Y. Est. Powers & Trusts Law § 4-1.1(a)(3) (property of decedent with no spouse is distributed to issue by representation); N.Y. Est. Powers & Trusts Law § 1-2.16 (by representation means equal shares distributed among surviving issue in next generation). A potential future interest in possibly inheriting a share in the value of a house, however, does not give rise to a cognizable property interest permitting suit in this context. Christopher’s interest is a “contingent, future executory interest in property (an interest that might become possessory at some point down the road).” Luis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1083, 1093 (2016). Moreover, Lilakos sold the property in November 2014, eliminating any chance of inheritance for Christopher. 5