MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDERI. INTRODUCTION This action arises from the demolition of a historic office building located at 439 Fulton Street in the Village of Waverly, New York. Plaintiff Seedan Real Estate Holding, LLC, the owner of the building, brings claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against Defendants Mayor Daniel Leary, Code Enforcement Officer Robert Chisari, and the Village of Waverly (collectively the “Village Defendants”), alleging that the demolition violated its constitutional rights. (Dkt. No. 17). Now before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, (Dkt. No. 50), and Plaintiff’s papers in opposition. (Dkt. No. 53). For the following reasons, Defendants’ motion is granted.II. BACKGROUNDA. PROCEDURAL HISTORYPlaintiff filed its initial complaint on May 20, 2016. (Dkt. No. 1). The Court then granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 15). In that decision, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s state law negligence claim, along with Plaintiff’s claim under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. (Id., pp. 5-6). However, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s §1983 causes of action for alleged violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Id., pp. 6-9). The Court also granted Plaintiff’s cross-motion to amend its complaint. (Id., p. 5). The Amended Complaint again alleges that the demolition of the building constituted an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and further that Plaintiff was denied due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. (Dkt. No. 17).B. FACTSThe following undisputed facts are derived from Defendants’ Statement of Material Facts, affidavits, and supporting exhibits, (see Dkt. No. 50), as well as the supporting exhibits that Plaintiff provided in its opposition papers, to the extent they are in admissible form. (See Dkt. No. 53). Plaintiff failed to directly respond to Defendants’ Statement of Material Facts as required under Local Rule 7.1(a)(3).1 Accordingly, the Court accepts Defendants’ facts as true to the extent they are supported by admissible evidence in the record. See N.D.N.Y. L.R. 7.1(a)(3); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2) (“If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party’s assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion.”). The Court construes the facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff.1. The PropertyThe National Protective Legion Building (“NPL Building”), located at 439 Fulton Street in Waverly, New York, was originally constructed in the late 1800s for use as office space. (Dkt. No. 50-14, p. 2). The building lay vacant from 1999 until its eventual demolition in 2015. (Id.). In September 2005, Plaintiff, through its sole proprietor Mousa A. Kahlil, purchased the NPL Building and underlying property for $6,000. (Dkt. No. 50-3, pp. 38:8-39:2). At all relevant times, Mr. Kahlil was in charge of managing and maintaining the property. (Dkt. No. 53, 4).2. Village Code Regarding “Unsafe Buildings”Under the Village Code, “[n]o person, firm, corporation or association owning, possessing or controlling a building in the Village of Waverly shall permit, suffer or allow said building now or hereafter to be or become unsafe to the public and/or residents from any cause whatsoever.” (Village of Waverly Village Code §54-3; see Dkt. No. 50-16, p. 3). The Village Code defines an “unsafe building” as one that has any or all the following defects:A. Interior or exterior bearing walls or other vertical structural members that list, lean or buckle to such an extent as to weaken the structural support they provide.B. Thirty-three percent or more damage to or deterioration of the supporting member or members or 50 percent damage to or deterioration of the nonsupporting, enclosing or outside walls or covering.C. Improperly distributed loads upon the floors or roofs or in which the same are overloaded or which have insufficient strength to be reasonably safe for the purpose used.D. Those which have been damaged by any cause so as to have become dangerous to life, safety or the general health and welfare of the occupants or the people of the Village of Waverly.E. Those which are so dilapidated, decayed, unsafe and/or unsanitary that they are unfit for human habitation in accordance with normally accepted standards set for human habitability.F. Light, air and sanitation facilities inadequate to protect the health, safety or general welfare of human beings who may live therein, with particular reference to the requirements of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code as a determinant.G. Those having inadequate facilities for exit in case of fire or other emergency or those having insufficient stairways, elevators or fire escapes, again referencing the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code as a determinant.H. Parts thereof which are so inadequately attached that they may fall and injure members of the public or property.I. Those which consist in the main of debris, rubble or parts of buildings left on the ground after demolition, reconstruction, fire or other casualty.J. Those which, because of their condition, are unsafe, unsanitary or dangerous to the health, safety or general welfare of the people of the Village of Waverly.(Village Code §54-2; see Dkt. No. 50-16, pp. 2-3).The Village Code requires the Village Code Enforcement Officer to make regular reports to the Village Board of any unsafe buildings within village limits. (Village Code §54-4; see Dkt. No. 50-16, p. 3). “The Village Board shall consider the reports of the Code Enforcement Officer and, if in the opinion of the Village Board the report so warrants, shall determine that the building is unsafe and order its repair or demolition, if the same cannot be safely repaired, and further order that a notice shall be given to the owner….” (Village Code §54-5; see Dkt. No. 50-16, p. 3).Following a building’s designation as an “unsafe building,” a “hearing shall be conducted before the Village Board [at which] the Code Enforcement Officer shall present his or her report to the Village Board in writing. The owner or his or her representative, if present, shall call such witnesses as he or she deems necessary. The Village Board shall make written findings of fact from the testimony offered as to whether or not the building in question is an unsafe building…. If such owner shall neglect, fail or refuse to comply and shall fail to appear at said hearing, then the Village Board shall direct the repair or demolition of the building forthwith.” (Village Code §54-7(A)-(B); see Dkt. No. 50-16, p. 4).In the case of an emergency, where, “in the opinion of the Village Board, [there exists] actual and immediate danger of the falling of a building so as to endanger public safety, life or property so as to be an actual or immediate menace to health or public welfare as a result of the conditions present in or about a building, the Village Board shall cause the necessary work to be done or render such a building temporarily safe….” (Village Code §54-9(A); see Dkt. No. 50-16, pp. 4-5). “In the event that the emergency does not permit any delay in correction, the notice [to the property owner] shall state that the Village has corrected the emergency situation,” and that “the corrective costs of the emergency will be assessed against the owner pursuant to the [Village Code].” (Village Code §54-9(C)-(D); see Dkt. No. 50-16, p. 5).3. History of Building Maintenance and Code ViolationsAfter taking ownership of the property in 2005, Plaintiff spent $126,478.00 on maintenance and repairs of the NPL Building, including costs associated with rebuilding the roof, extensive trash removal, and repairs to the building’s façade. (Dkt. No. 53,
5-6). Mr. Khalil acknowledged at his deposition that he purchased the property knowing that it was “a big huge building and it need[ed] a lot of work and that’s why it [was] cheap because nobody want[ed] to buy it to take responsibility.” (Dkt. No. 50-3, p. 40:9-11).On numerous occasions throughout Plaintiff’s ownership of the NPL Building, Plaintiff was cited and summoned to Village Court for violations of the New York State Property Maintenance Code. (Dkt. No. 50-7, 15; see generally Dkt. No. 50-18, pp. 2-61). In February 2006, the Village cited Plaintiff for infractions related to maintenance of the building’s foundation, exterior walls, roof and drainage system, windows, and door frames. (Dkt. No. 50- 18, p. 2). In June 2006, the Village cited Plaintiff again for similar violations. (Id., p. 4). In 2007, the Village demanded that Plaintiff address unsecured windows and remediate discarded refuse surrounding the building. (Id., pp. 9-10). The Village later informed Plaintiff that juveniles had obtained access to the building through unsecured windows on the ground level, causing concern that someone could be injured or cause damage to the building. (Id.).In November 2007, the Village Attorney informed Plaintiff that the Code Enforcement Officer was “very concerned about the condition of the building” and demanded that Plaintiff address the needed repairs before the end of the year. (Dkt. No. 50-18, p. 16). In 2008, Plaintiff paid $40,000 to a contractor to rebuild the building’s roof. (Dkt. No. 53, 5).In November 2013, Plaintiff provided the Village with keys and authorization to access all areas of the building for inspections when the Village deemed necessary. (Dkt. No. 17-4, p. 2). On December 2, 2013, Code Enforcement Officer Chisari wrote to Plaintiff detailing the findings of a building inspection conducted in November 2013 which found a variety of hazardous code violations. (Dkt. No. 50-18, pp. 25-26). Mr. Chisari wrote:The roof is obviously leaking. The 3rd level has a pool of standing water on the floor in front of the fireplace…. There is evidence of water damage on all levels due to the leakage from the roof above. The concrete ceiling is sagging about 8″ and rusted rebar is exposed due to deterioration of the ceiling. There is evidence that the interior of the building is shifting. This is demonstrated by the fact that interior walls and partitions show buckling to the point that glass panes have been blown out of their frames, and door frames have been forcibly split and the doors were ejected and broken into pieces. Concrete floors and ceilings on every level are uneven and some floor areas show buckling as well.(Id., p. 25).On March 21, 2014, Mr. Chisari sent another letter reiterating the findings from the November 2013 inspection and further stating:In a telephone conversation on 12/19/13, you informed Code Enforcement that a local contractor would be calling us in regard to repairing the broken windows; and boarding them up per the NYS code requirements for vacant buildings. We were also informed that you were to bring a “team” to review the condition of the NPL building at the end of January 2014 with the intention of making repairs to the structure. As of this date, none of this has occurred. No further communication has been received in regard to your intentions in this matter, therefore, Violation Notices have been issued with a compliance date of 03/31/14.(Id., p. 35).4. Designation as an “Unsafe Building”On October 14, 2014, the Village Board formally designated the NPL Building as an “unsafe building” under Waverly Village Code §54-5. (Dkt. Nos. 50-7, 19; 50-5, p. 63). On November 6, 2014, the Village Attorney notified Plaintiff by letter of the Village Board’s determination and warned that if Plaintiff did not complete the necessary repairs within 30 days, including “repair[ing] the roof which is leaking an[d] causing structural damage,” the Village reserved the right to “[i]nstitute a special proceeding to collect the costs of demotion [sic], including legal expenses.” (Dkt. No. 50-18, pp. 40-41). Thereafter, pursuant to Village Code §§54-5-54-7, the Village Board scheduled a hearing for December 8, 2014. (Id.). At Mr. Khalil’s request, the Village Board adjourned the hearing until December 22, 2014. (See id., pp. 43, 46).On December 10, 2014, the Village sent Plaintiff a letter stating that he should schedule a time to go through the property with Code Enforcement Officer Chisari as the building was in “serious disrepair.” (Dkt. No. 50-18, p. 46). The letter further informed Plaintiff that following the Village Board’s review of a report by Chisari, the Board ordered that Plaintiff “begin to secure all windows, doors and opening in the property, remove pigeons living in the property, repair or remove the fire escape which is rusted and deteriorated, secure stairwell leading to the basement entrances and repair the roof which is leaking an[d] causing structural damage, within ten (10) days of [his] receipt of this notice and that said actions shall be completed with[in] thirty (30) days thereafter.” (Id.). The letter stated that if Plaintiff did not do so, the Village Board was “authorized to: 1. Provide for the securing and/or repair of the building as set forth above; 2. Assess all expenses thereof against [the land, insurance proceeds, owners, or any combination thereof]….” (Id., p. 47).Neither Mr. Khalil, nor any other representative of the Plaintiff, appeared at the rescheduled Village Board hearing on December 22, 2014. (Dkt. No. 50-4, p. 38:3-17). On January 20, 2015, the Village Attorney wrote to Plaintiff again, stating that:The Village Board requested that I contact you again regarding its findings from the hearing held on December 22, 2014, regarding the [NLP Building]. Enclosed is a copy of my letter to you on December 29, 2014 advising you of the Board’s findings. At the Village Board meeting on January 13, 2015, the Board was presented with a letter from Code Enforcement Officer Robert Chisari which sets forth the items which you need to repair immediately. If the repairs are not completed prior to the Board’s next meeting on February 10, 2015, the Board will pursue proposals from contactors for the listed work. The cost of the contractor’s work will be your responsibility.(Dkt. No. 50-18, p. 60). Mr. Chisari’s January 13, 2015 letter to Plaintiff included a list of items that needed to be performed to secure and repair the NPL Building, including demands that Plaintiff: 1) remove all pigeons; 2) provide additional coverage for windows currently boarded with inadequate plywood, paneling and hardboard with weather resistant plywood and fasteners of adequate strength and weather resistance; 3) remediate the deteriorated wall and stairs in the basement entry; and 4) secure other at-risk windows. (Dkt. No. 50-18, p. 50).After January 20, 2015, there was no further communication between the parties until after the partial roof collapse on April 6, 2015. The record contains no evidence that Plaintiff made any effort to address the aforementioned maintenance problems. Mr. Khalil claims that he was “unable to have the building immediately repaired.” (Dkt. No. 53, 17).5. Roof Collapse, Inspection, and DemolitionOn April 6, 2015, Code Enforcement Officer Chisari and several contractors went up on the roof of the NPL Building to assess remedial measures for the building’s various code violations. (Dkt. No. 50-17, 10). During that inspection, Mr. Chisari “noticed that there was a large area of water pooled on the roof with dimensions of about 25 feet in length, 15 feet wide and 6 inches deep.” (Id., 11). Moments later, while Chisari and the contractors were still on the roof, they heard a loud cracking sound followed by the collapse of a large section of the roof into the third floor of the NPL Building. (Id.,
