Murphy v. County of Chemung et al

Filing 15

ORDER that the decision and order of United States Bankruptcy Judge John C. Ninfo, II, dated September 30, 2010 in bankruptcy case 06-21371 is in all respects AFFIRMED and the complaint in the adversary proceeding in that case is hereby dismissed. ***CLERK TO FOLLOW UP. Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 5/17/11. (EMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CHRISTOPHER M. MURPHY,
Appellant,
DECISION AND ORDER
-vs-

10-CV-6628L

COUNTY OF CHEMUNG, et al.,
Appellees.

Christopher M. Murphy (“Murphy” or sometimes “the Debtor”) filed a petition in 2006
initiating a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. In that action, Murphy commenced an adversary proceeding
against the County of Chemung and various officials of that municipality. In the course of that
proceeding, Murphy filed a motion, pro se, to withdraw the adversary proceeding from the
bankruptcy court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). This Court issued a decision and order (Dkt. #8)
in 09-CV-6154 denying the motion.
The matter then proceeded before United States Bankruptcy Judge John C. Ninfo, II. In that
proceeding, Murphy advanced three causes of action: the first against Chemung County and some
of its officials. He requested an order that the in rem tax foreclosure action against certain property
located at 757 Linden Place, Elmira, New York (the “property”) be deemed null and void due to the
allegedly defective notice served on the Debtor and on one Wallace Williams, the alleged transferee
of the property formerly owned by the Debtor. The second and third causes of action assert due
process and equal protection claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on claims that on a certain day
in August, 2006 representatives of the defendant County forced the Debtor from his property. The
third cause of action describes the same event but claims a violation of Section 853 of the New York

Real Property Actions and Proceedings law. Thereafter, Murphy filed a motion to amend the
complaint and the defendants cross-moved for summary judgment.
In a lengthy and thorough decision and order, dated September 30, 2010, Judge Ninfo granted
defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint in the adversary
proceeding. He also denied the Debtor’s motion to amend the complaint. It is that decision and order
that is now on appeal before this Court.
After considering Judge Ninfo’s decision, the papers filed on this appeal, and the entire
record before the Bankruptcy Court, I affirm the bankruptcy judge’s decision in all respects.
The standard of review is well established. Factual findings by the bankruptcy court are
accepted unless clearly erroneous. Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Proceeding 8013. In reviewing a
grant of summary judgment, however, a bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
This is so because determinations that there are no genuine issues of material fact constitute a legal
conclusion. See In Re Association of Graphic Communications, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 35702
at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
Bankruptcy Judge Ninfo set forth in exhaustive detail the facts and the numerous proceedings
that have occurred in this case. As the County suggests in its brief (Dkt. #11) at page 5, the
remaining issue is “a rather straightforward and simple [one] involving only the second and third
causes of action.”
As to the first cause of action, as Judge Ninfo indicated in his decision at page 25, Murphy,
in proceedings before the Bankruptcy Court, advised that he was no longer pursuing the first cause
of action concerning the propriety of the in rem tax foreclosure proceeding. That claim had become
moot, since subsequent to filing the adversary proceeding, the County conveyed the property subject
to the tax foreclosure to Williams, who then reconveyed the property back to Murphy. Therefore,
Murphy is again in possession of the property once subject to the in rem tax foreclosure proceeding.
Judge Ninfo found that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to the second and third
causes of action, and that summary judgment in the County’s favor was warranted. I agree with
-2-

Judge Ninfo’s determination that Murphy had failed to establish any genuine issue of material facts
relating to either the second or third cause of action. Murphy appears to rely on mere conclusions
and allegations in the complaint, without providing reference to any facts or evidence that would
support either cause of action. Defendants have set forth in their papers and accompanying exhibits
all matters relevant to the issues surrounding Murphy’s alleged removal from the property. Judge
Ninfo concluded that no material facts existed to warrant a further proceeding and that Murphy’s
claims are based largely on speculation, surmise and conjecture and merit no further consideration
by this Court.
In addition, for the reasons stated by Judge Ninfo, I find that the Debtor’s motion to amend
was also properly denied.
CONCLUSION

The decision and order of United States Bankruptcy Judge John C. Ninfo, II, dated September
30, 2010 in bankruptcy case 06-21371 is in all respects AFFIRMED and the complaint in the
adversary proceeding in that case is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________________________________
DAVID G. LARIMER
United States District Judge
Dated: Rochester, New York
May 17, 2011.

-3-