Summer Crest LLC v. Town of Monroe

── Summer Crest LLC v. Town of Monroe ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 21, 2026 Category: General 25-1346 Summer Crest LLC v. Town of Monroe UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 21st day of April, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, DENNY CHIN, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges _____________________________________ SUMMER CREST LLC, PAMELA LEE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, 18 SERGIO LANE LLC, SERGIO LANE LLC, 9 LAKE REGION BLVD LLC, 111 LAKE REGION BLVD LLC, 127 LAKES RD LLC, Plaintiffs,  v. No. 25-1346 TOWN OF MONROE, Defendant-Appellee. _____________________________________ For Plaintiffs-Appellants: BRIAN J. ISAAC, Pollack, Pollack, Issac & DeCicco, LLP, New York, NY. For Defendant-Appellee: ADAM L. RODD (Stephen J. Gaba, on the brief), Drake Loeb PLLC, New Windsor, NY. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Judith C. McCarthy, Magistrate Judge). 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the May 12, 2025 judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Summer Crest LLC and its principal owner Pamela Lee (collectively, “Summer Crest”) appeal from the district court’s judgment in favor of the Town of Monroe, New York (the “Town”) following a trial at which the jury found that a Town law limiting the number of properties that a residential landlord could own did not proximately cause damage to Summer Crest. On appeal, Summer 1The parties consented to transfer the case to a magistrate judge for all proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73. 2 Crest argues that the district court “fundamentally” erred by improperly articulating the proximate-cause standard in its verdict form and abused its discretion by (i) excluding certain evidence that Summer Crest did not disclose in its initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and (ii) admitting evidence of a key witness’s prior conviction in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 609(b). Summer Crest also contends that the jury’s verdict was “contrary to the trial evidence.” Summer Crest Br. at 26 (capitalization altered). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision. I. Background Lee owns several companies, including Summer Crest, that manage five residential properties with around twenty units in the Town. She manages the properties with her partner, Timothy Mitts, who was convicted of aiding and assisting tax fraud in 2009. In February 2023, the Town enacted Local Law No. 3, which prohibited any person or entity from owning