Legal letter regarding premises liability case, January 2012

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

133. At all relevant times herein, DePietro was guaranteed the rights under the due process

and equal protection clauses of the constitutions of the United States and New York Stale

not to be deprived of his constitutionally protected interests in his property.

134. At all relevant times herein, Defendants were state actors and their conduct was

subject to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

135. The buildings on the Property were not in an emergency condition, much less were

they in an immediate emergency condition or an imminent emergency condition.

136. Since there was no emergency with respect to the condition of the buildings on the

Property, DePietro was entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing prior to the demolition of the

buildings, as required under the Fourteenth Amendment and under Administrative Code

Sections 26-236 through 26-249 (the “Unsafe Buildings Procedures”).

137. Defendants prevented DePietro from receiving a pre-deprivation hearing with respect

to the demolition of the buildings on the Property by failing to provide notice to DePietro

timely and adequately under the City's Unsafe Buildings Procedures.

138. As a result of their actions and inactions, Defendants unlawfully deprived DePictro of

his procedural due process rights, privileges and immunities secured to him by the Fifth

and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, in violation of 42 U.S.C.

Section 1983.

139. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' violations of DePietro's procedural

due process rights, DePietro suffered grievous financial, physical and emotional injuries

as described above.

140. Defendants' deceitful declaration of Immediate Emergencies with respect to the

Property and the unlawful demolition of the buildings, conducted in conspiracy in the

22

NYC-WTC_000159387