Court Opinion

ID: 9405789
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-29 15:00:36.050117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:24.612522
License: Public Domain

22-3040-cv
     Li v. Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court

                               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 “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING 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
 3   City of New York, on the- 29th day of June , two thousand twenty-three.
 4
 5          PRESENT: GERARD E. LYNCH,
 6                           RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
 7                           JOSEPH F. BIANCO,
 8                                   Circuit Judges.
 9          ------------------------------------------------------------------
10          YU CHAN LI,
11
12                          Plaintiff-Appellant,
13
14                    v.                                                         No. 22-3040-cv
15
16          APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE NEW YORK
17          SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT,
18          STATE OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY
19          LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION,
20          SARAH CARROLL, MARK A. SILBERMAN,
21          JOHN WEISS, CLAVA BRODSKY,
22
23                          Defendants-Appellees.

                                                         1
 1
 2         ------------------------------------------------------------------
 3
 4         FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT:                                             MARC H. GERSTEIN, New
 5                                                                              York, NY
 6
 7         FOR CITY DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES:                                       KATE FLETCHER, Of
 8                                                                              Counsel, New York City
 9                                                                              Law Department
10                                                                              (Richard Dearing,
11                                                                              Rebecca L. Visgaitis, Of
12                                                                              Counsel, on the brief), on
13                                                                              behalf of Sylvia O. Hinds-
14                                                                              Radix, Corporation
15                                                                              Counsel of the City of
16                                                                              New York, New York,
17                                                                              NY
18
19         FOR STATE DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES:                                      KWAME N. AKOSAH,
20                                                                              Assistant Solicitor
21                                                                              General (Barbara D.
22                                                                              Underwood, Solicitor
23                                                                              General, Ester
24                                                                              Murdukhayeva, Deputy
25                                                                              Solicitor General, on the
26                                                                              brief), on behalf of Letitia
27                                                                              James, Attorney General
28                                                                              for the State of New
29                                                                              York, New York, NY
30
31         Appeal from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the

32   Southern District of New York (P. Kevin Castel, Judge).

33         UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

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

 2         Yu Chan Li appeals from a November 7, 2022 judgment of the United

 3   States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Castel, J.) dismissing

 4   her complaint alleging various constitutional violations arising from her public

 5   hearing before the Landmarks Preservation Commission (“LPC”) and

 6   subsequent proceedings that she initiated in New York state court. We assume

 7   the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the record of prior

 8   proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to

 9   affirm.

10         Li filed the present action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Appellate

11   Division of the New York Supreme Court and the State of New York

12   (collectively, the “State defendants”), as well as the LPC and various city officials

13   (collectively, the “City defendants”). She alleges that the defendants violated her

14   procedural and substantive due process rights during the LPC hearing and in the

15   state court proceedings, and that both the New York City Landmarks

16   Preservation Law and New York Civil Practice Law & Rules § 5701 are

17   unconstitutional. The District Court dismissed Li’s claims against the State

18   defendants as barred by the Eleventh Amendment and her claims against the

                                               3
 1   City defendants as precluded under the collateral estoppel doctrine. We review

 2   the District Court’s findings of fact for clear error and its legal conclusions de

 3   novo. See Brokamp v. James, 66 F.4th 374, 386 (2d Cir. 2023).

 4         At the outset, we note that Li does not challenge the District Court’s

 5   determination that her claims against the State defendants are barred by the

 6   Eleventh Amendment. See Appellant’s Br. 6 n.5, 19. We therefore affirm the

 7   District Court’s dismissal of Li’s claims against the State defendants, including

 8   her constitutional challenge to § 5701.

 9         All that remains are Li’s claims against the City defendants: (1) her

10   procedural and substantive due process claims concerning the LPC hearing, and

11   (2) her challenge to the constitutionality of the Landmarks Preservation Law.

12   The District Court ruled that Li is collaterally estopped by a final judgment of the

13   New York Supreme Court from relitigating her claims against the City

14   Defendants. “Collateral estoppel . . . prevents parties or their privies from

15   relitigating in a subsequent action an issue of fact or law that was fully and fairly

16   litigated in a prior proceeding.” Phoenix Light SF Ltd. v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 66

17   F.4th 365, 371 (2d Cir. 2023) (quotation marks omitted). The doctrine applies

18   where: “(1) the identical issue was raised in a previous proceeding; (2) the issue

                                               4
 1   was actually litigated and decided in the previous proceeding; (3) the parties had

 2   a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue; and (4) the resolution of the issue

 3   was necessary to support a valid and final judgment on the merits.” Wyly v.

 4   Weiss, 697 F.3d 131, 141 (2d Cir. 2012) (quotation marks omitted).

 5         We agree with the District Court that Li’s claims against the City

 6   defendants are barred by collateral estoppel. The New York Supreme Court has

 7   already considered and rejected Li’s claim that the LPC hearing violated her

 8   procedural due process rights. See Joint App’x 21–22, 99–101; see also

 9   Appellant’s Br. 25 (“The New York Supreme Court rejected Plaintiff-Appellant’s

10   claim that it did not have an adequate opportunity to effectively present legal

11   argument at the LPC’s [hearing].”). It further rejected Li’s argument that the

12   LPC’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, see Joint App’x 98–99, which lies at

13   the heart of her substantive due process claim, see Harlen Assocs. v. Inc. Vill. of

14   Mineola, 273 F.3d 494, 505 (2d Cir. 2001). And it also determined that the

15   Landmarks Preservation Law is constitutional. See Joint App’x 102–03. Li does

16   not dispute that these issues were fully litigated and decided by the New York

17   Supreme Court or that their resolution was necessary to support a valid and final

18   judgment on the merits. And insofar as Li argues that she did not have “a full

                                                5
 1   and fair opportunity to litigate” because she “has not had the opportunity to

 2   appeal an adverse finding,” Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 76, 91 (2d Cir.

 3   2007) (quotation marks omitted), we disagree. Here, even though Li ultimately

 4   failed to perfect her appeal to the Appellate Division, she nevertheless had the

 5   opportunity to appeal directly from the state court’s initial adverse ruling.

 6   Under these circumstances, we conclude that Li’s claims against the City

 7   defendants are precluded by the collateral estoppel doctrine. We therefore

 8   affirm the District Court’s dismissal of Li’s claims against the City defendants.

 9         Li also suggests that we must reverse or vacate the District Court’s ruling

10   even if it correctly determined that her claims are barred by collateral estoppel,

11   because holding otherwise would itself violate her procedural due process rights.

12   But her arguments in support of that proposition simply restate her claim that

13   the LPC violated her due process rights. That claim, as we have explained, is

14   barred by collateral estoppel. Nor does the application of collateral estoppel

15   cause a deprivation of due process rights, since the doctrine itself requires that

16   litigants are afforded “a full and fair opportunity to litigate” before it can apply.

17   Wyly, 697 F.3d at 141.

                                               6
1          We have considered Li’s remaining arguments 1 and conclude that they are

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

3   AFFIRMED.

4                                             FOR THE COURT:
5                                             Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
6

    1
     To the extent that Li also asks us to consider the constitutional implications of the state
    court judgment itself, rather than the constitutional implications of the LPC hearing that
    the state court addressed in its decision, we lack subject matter jurisdiction to do so. See
    Hoblock v. Albany Cnty Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77, 83–92 (2d Cir. 2005) (discussing
    the Rooker-Feldman doctrine).
                                                 7