Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Maynard Baker et al v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


December 8, 2011

MAYNARD BAKER ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary L. Sharpe District Court Judge

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiffs*fn1 commenced this action under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12133, and the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, alleging that defendants*fn2 "adoption, administration, enforcement, application and compliance with New York State Land Master Plan" violated both the ADA and the U.S. Constitution. (See Compl. ¶¶ 1-2, Dkt. No. 1.) Pending are plaintiffs' motion to amend their Complaint and defendants' cross motion for judgment on the pleadings.*fn3 (See Dkt. Nos. 19, 24.)

Having reviewed all of the parties' submissions, the court concludes that: (1) plaintiffs' proposed Amended Complaint fails to cure the deficiencies raised in defendants' motion;*fn4 (2) defendants' argument regarding plaintiffs' standing is premature; (3) plaintiffs' argument under the Supremacy Clause is unavailing and conflates the purpose of the "Aviation Program" statutes they cite;*fn5 and (4) plaintiff Franklin failed to plead factual allegations which show he is entitled to relief under the ADA.

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to amend (Dkt. No. 19) is DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiffs shall-in accordance with requirements of, inter alia, N.D.N.Y. L.R. 7.1(a)(4)-file an Amended Complaint to cure the deficiencies articulated above, within thirty (30) days of this order; and it is further

ORDERED that defendants' cross motion for judgment on the pleadings and in opposition to plaintiffs' motion to amend (Dkt. No. 24) is DENIED with leave to renew within fourteen (14) days after the filing of the Amended Complaint; and it is further

ORDERED that if defendants elect not to challenge the sufficiency of the Amended Complaint, they must file the appropriate responsive pleadings within the time allotted by the rules; and it is further

ORDERED that the parties shall contact Magistrate Judge Treece to schedule further proceedings in accordance with this order; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order to the parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.