MEMORANDUM — DECISION and ORDERI. INTRODUCTION On July 19, 2017, pro se plaintiff Gerald Ruggiero (“Ruggiero” or “plaintiff”) initiated this civil rights action against defendants County of Cortland, New York (the “County”), Cortland County District Attorney Mark Suben (“District Attorney Suben”), the City of Cortland, New York (the “City”), Mayor Brian Tobin (“Mayor Tobin” or “Tobin”), Corporation Counsel Richard Van Donsel (“Attorney Van Donsel”), Tax Assessor David Briggs (“Tax Assessor Briggs”), Zoning Officer Robert Rhea (“Zoning Officer Rhea”), Director of Administration and Finance Mack Cook (“Director Cook”), Director of Code Enforcement William Knickerbocker (“Director Knickerbocker”), Fire Chief Charles Glover (“Fire Chief Glover” or “Glover”), Zoning Board of Appeals Chairperson Mary Kay Hickey (“Chairperson Hickey”), Planning Commission Member Jim Reeners (“Commission Member Reeners”), Planning Commission Member Troy Beckwith (“Commission Member Beckwith”), Alderman Kathryn Silliman (“Alderman Silliman”), Alderman Ken Dye (“Alderman Dye”), Alderman Thomas Michales (“Alderman Michales”), Alderman John Bennett, Jr. (“Alderman Bennett”), Chief of Police F. Michael Catalano (“Police Chief Catalano”), Deputy Chief of Police Paul Sandy (“Deputy Chief Sandy”), Police Officer Brian Myers (“Officer Myers”), Police Officer Kenneth Bush (“Officer Bush”), and John and Jane Does (collectively the “Does”).Ruggiero’s operative complaint1 sets forth eight causes of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§1983 and 1985 as well as the New York State Constitution. The County and District Attorney Suben (collectively the “County defendants”) have moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(c) for a judgment on the pleadings dismissing plaintiff’s operative complaint insofar as it asserts one or more claims against them. The City, Mayor Tobin, Attorney Van Donsel, Tax Assessor Briggs, Zoning Officer Rhea, Director Cook, Director Knickerbocker, Fire Chief Glover, Chairperson Hickey, Commission Member Reeners, Commission Member Beckwith, Alderman Silliman, Alderman Dye, Alderman Michales, Alderman Bennett, Police Chief Catalano, Deputy Chief Sandy, Officer Myers, and Officer Bush (collectively the “City defendants”) have also filed a Rule 12(c) motion requesting complete dismissal of the various claims asserted against them.Ruggiero opposes both motions, which have been fully briefed and will be considered on the basis of the submissions without oral argument.II. BACKGROUND2Since the early 1990s, Ruggiero has invested in rental properties in and around the City. Am. Compl. 34. In 2009, the City passed Rental Housing Law §102 (“Section 102″). Id. 41. According to plaintiff, Section 102 was intended to “provide the City with better information and tools to enforce laws limiting the number of unrelated persons per dwelling unit, and [to] stop[ ] the excess paving of green space to accommodate the excess tenants.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that Tobin, then a City alderman, “conspired to steer the direction of the development of the rental permit law [Section 102] for the economic benefit of [Chris] Calabro against the legislative intent of the local zoning ordinances” and the City’s comprehensive zoning plan. Id. 42. As plaintiff explains, Chris Calabro (“Calabro”) was, and remains at all times relevant here, Mayor Tobin’s “friend and political donor.” Id. 39.On July 19, 2011, former City Corporation Counsel Patrick Perfetti (“Attorney Perfetti”) wrote an e-mail admonishing then-mayoral candidate Tobin for arguing “that some citizens should get special treatment.” Am. Compl. 38. According to Ruggiero, Tobin’s argument explicitly “condone[d] the breaking of City laws by some landlords.” Id.On August 15, 2011, then-candidate Tobin, in apparent disregard of Attorney Perfetti’s advice, e-mailed the City’s aldermen stating “Chris Calabro was not breaking the laws and therefore was entitled to special treatment.” Am. Compl. 39. Candidate Tobin’s e-mail further indicated “he was proud to have the financial support of his friend and donor and would stand by and support him.” Id.On August 12, 2011, Glover, then the Director of Code Enforcement, “admitted that the City of Cortland selectively enforces the zoning laws through the use of improperly issued [zoning permits], specifically to Calabro.” Am. Compl. 40. At that time, Glover placed the blame for this practice “on the lawyers and politicians.” Id. According to plaintiff’s complaint, Glover’s statements were captured “in a tape recorded and transcribed conversation.” Id.On January 1, 2012, Tobin became Mayor. Am. Compl. 43. According to the amended complaint, Mayor Tobin’s administration has “intentionally enforced the zoning and code enforcement laws differently for his donor [Calabro] and for others connected to the City. Id.At some point, Ruggiero “was placed on the agenda” of the November 18, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) meeting to “discuss fraudulently issued [zoning permits] by the City.” Am. Compl. 45. However, plaintiff alleges Attorney Van Donsel conspired with Chairperson Hickey to remove plaintiff from the proceeding. Id. 46. According to the amended complaint, Attorney Van Donsel asked Chairperson Hickey “to not communicate the reasons for the removal to the other ZBA members or to allow any discussion.” Id.On March 7, 2014, during an Article 78 proceeding brought by Ruggiero, Attorney Van Donsel “intentionally and with malice misrepresented the zoning ordinances and case law in an effort to mislead the Chenango County State Supreme Court.” Am. Compl. 47.Thereafter, Ruggiero requested to meet with the City’s “Ethics Board” to “discuss the corruption and the selective enforcement of the zoning laws and illegal tax assessments in the City” as well as the “unlawful and discriminatory acts by the Defendants.” Am. Compl. 48. Plaintiff alleges Mayor Tobin’s administration “never set up” the Ethics Board, which is itself a “violation of the City Charter.” Id. Plaintiff further alleges the issue was “hurriedly” placed on the Common Council’s May 20, 2014 agenda. Id.On May 20, 2014, the Common Council appointed Attorney Van Donsel as well as former alderman Clay Benedict (“Benedict”) to the ethics committee to fill two of the three vacant positions. Am. Compl. 49. Four days later, plaintiff e-mailed Mayor Tobin requesting a meeting with the Ethics Board, the aldermen, and/or Mayor Tobin “to discuss the selective enforcement of the zoning laws.” Id. 50. Mayor Tobin responded by advising plaintiff to “share whatever documentation you have with the City Corporation Counsel so he can make a determination about its validity and the appropriate actions, if needed.” Id. According to the amended complaint, “filter[ing]” complaints through Attorney Van Donsel violated the City Charter and plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Id.On May 27, 2014, Calabro received approval from the City Planning Commission “to add a drywell to the backyard and raise a rear roof on his property at 89 Tompkins Street.” Am. Compl. 52. According to the amended complaint, the Planning Commission’s approval “ignored the necessity of variances in violation of their duty in §300-135(B)(1).” The complaint further alleges that this work and other, related improvements made by Calabro at the Tompkins Street property were performed “all without necessary permits and variances.” Id.On November 12, 2014, at 12:00 p.m., Zoning Officer Rhea told Ruggiero “that the zoning laws are not enforced equally, and [p]laintiff is a fool if he thinks they should be.” Am. Compl. 53. According to plaintiff’s complaint, Zoning Officer Rhea then “made the decision that a variance was not required for [Calabro's Tompkins Street] property.” Id. 54. Plaintiff appealed the decision to the ZBA, which put the matter on the December 8, 2014 agenda. Id. 55.Thereafter, in an e-mail sent on December 3, 2014, Zoning Officer Rhea, Attorney Van Donsel, Director Cook, and Chairperson Hickey “unsuccessfully conspired in ex parte communication to rule against” Ruggiero. Am. Compl. 55. Plaintiff further alleges that Attorney Van Donsel “attempted to remove” plaintiff from the proceeding in a communication with Chairperson Hickey. Id. 56.On December 8, 2014, Ruggiero presented his case at the ZBA hearing. Am. Compl. 57. The ZBA then “closed the hearing for deliberations, requested documents from both sides, and tabled the appeal until the January 12, 2015 meeting.” Id.On December 24, 2014, pursuant to a request made by the ZBA at the last meeting, Ruggiero submitted to the aldermen, the ZBA members, and City officials “substantial evidence proving discriminatory enforcement of the zoning laws for political reasons.” Am. Compl. 58. After reviewing the evidence, the aldermen “recommended an independent committee to review the evidence” at the upcoming meeting of the Common Council. Id. The complaint alleges the aldermen never formed any such committee. Id. 59.On December 29, 2014, Zoning Officer Rhea conspired with Attorney Van Donsel to remove Ruggiero from the ZBA’s January 12, 2015 agenda. Am. Compl. 60. After Zoning Officer Rhea told plaintiff he had been removed from the agenda, plaintiff “immediately appealed and the matter was placed back on the agenda.” IdOn January 12, 2015, between 9:05 a.m. and 9:26 a.m., Attorney Van Donsel and Chairperson Hickey exchanged a series of e-mails in which they conspired to remove Ruggiero from the ZBA’s agenda. Am. Compl. 61. According to the amended complaint, the pair planned to use police to remove plaintiff. Id. During the meeting, ZBA member David Funk (“ZBA Member Funk”) refused Attorney Van Donsel’s request to dismiss plaintiff’s case for running afoul of the relevant statute of limitations. Id. 62. The ZBA again tabled their deliberations and asked for more information from the City. Id.On or about January 19, 2015, Alderman Linda Ferguson (“Alderman Ferguson”) contacted Ruggiero to tell him that “City officials were manufacturing a harassment case to silence him regarding the selective enforcement of the zoning laws.” Am. Compl. 63. Among other things, Alderman Ferguson told plaintiff “she was aware of evidence that contradicted this manufactured case.” Id.On January 20, 2015, Ruggiero met with Police Chief Catalano “to discuss the corruption in the City” and the “manufacturing of a false harassment charge.” Am. Compl. 64. The amended complaint alleges that Director Cook, “in a tape recorded conversation,” agreed with plaintiff about the “discriminatory enforcement of the zoning and code enforcement laws and illegal tax assessments.” Id. 65. Plaintiff e-mailed the aldermen to alert them to these recorded admissions. Id.On February 9, 2015, the ZBA “made clear” that “no evidence exists” to establish that Calabro’s Tompkins Street project did not need a variance. Am. Compl. 66. At this meeting, ZBA Member Christine Place (“ZBA Member Place”) “admitted on the record” that ZBA members were aware of selective enforcement of the zoning regulations by unnamed City officials. Id. 67. ZBA Member Place also “admitted awareness” of “unequal tax assessments favoring connected landlords.” Id.On March 2, 2015, “in a taped and transcribed conversation,” Zoning Officer Rhea told Ruggiero the City was “creating a Certificate of Compliance to take care of the defects in the statute of limitations argument that were adjudicated at the last ZBA meeting.” Am. Compl. 68.On March 4, 2015, Zoning Officer Rhea told Ruggiero that “the grandfather date for occupancy restrictions can be different for each landlord, agreed that Calabro needed a variance, and that the City can enforce zoning laws different against landlords in similar situations.” Am. Compl. 69. Plaintiff documented this discussion in an e-mail. Id.On March 9, 2015, at a fourth ZBA meeting, ZBA Member Place “produced a Certificate of Compliance that was “allegedly found on that day” by the property owner Calabro.” Am. Compl. 71 (emphasis in original). However, ZBA Member Funk expressed on the record his belief that the document was not real because Calabro had “told him a few months earlier that he was never given a Certificate of Compliance.” Id.On April 4, 2015, Alderman Dye conspired with other unnamed defendants to retaliate against Ruggiero by e-mailing District Attorney Suben to request that plaintiff be prosecuted for harassment. Am. Compl. 70. The amended complaint alleges that Alderman Dye’s e-mail suggested District Attorney Suben was “an outside source” that “would shield the involvement of the City Defendants.” Id.On April 7, 2015, at a “videotaped public meeting held in City Hall,” Mayor Tobin and Zoning Officer Rhea violated Ruggiero’s “personal space” in front of approximately fifty people. Am. Compl. 76.On April 28, 2015, Chairperson Hickey e-mailed Attorney Van Donsel describing a “conspiracy” — how Calabro “reneged on a side agreement to remove excess parking at 89 Tompkins Street for the agreement to end [Ruggiero's] appeal.” Am. Compl. 77. The amended complaint alleges that Chairperson Hickey’s e-mail indicated the City’s actions proved that it selectively enforced the zoning laws and that “several ZBA members would be angry enough to quit.” Id.On June 12, 2015, Ruggiero called Zoning Officer Rhea to discuss a new zoning violation at Calabro’s Tompkins Street property. Am. Compl. 78. In response, Zoning Officer Rhea requested an in-person meeting with plaintiff. Id. A few minutes into this meeting, plaintiff “confronted” Zoning Officer Rhea with the “taped conversations” he had recorded of their previous interactions. Id. According to plaintiff, Zoning Officer Rhea started a “physical confrontation.” Id. Plaintiff left the meeting and reported the incident to Attorney Van Donsel and other City officials. Id.On July 9, 2015, Ruggiero was diagnosed with shingles and put on “several strong medications.” Am. Compl. 79. Two days later, on plaintiff’s twenty-third wedding anniversary, Officer Myers arrested plaintiff for second degree harassment based on the earlier June 12 confrontation with Zoning Officer Rhea. Id. 80. Officer Myers placed plaintiff in the back of a City police car. Id. 81.Ruggiero, an asthmatic, could not breathe for the “roughly 5 minute car ride” and asked Officer Myers for assistance, which was denied. Am. Compl. 81. Unknown police officers also denied plaintiff access to his pain medication until “several hours later.” Id. After the arraignment, plaintiff’s wife told him that “the arrest was the final straw” and that “she wanted a divorce.” Id. 82. Plaintiff alleges Director Cook, Mayor Tobin, Deputy Chief Sandy, and Attorney Van Donsel conspired to have him arrested. Id.
83-91.On August 10, 2015, District Attorney Suben offered to dismiss the criminal charge against Ruggiero if he would agree not to sue for false arrest and malicious prosecution. Am. Compl. 92. Plaintiff declined. Id. Thereafter, District Attorney Suben told plaintiff he knew that City officials selectively enforced the zoning laws. Id.
