13‐4606 Vosse v. City of New York

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 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 12th day of January, two thousand fifteen.

PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, PETER W. HALL, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges. ____________________________________________

BRIGITTE VOSSE,

Plaintiff ‐ Appellant,

‐v.‐ No. 13‐4606

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, COMMISSIONER ROBERT D. LIMANDRI, of the New York City Department of Buildings,

Defendants ‐ Appellees. ____________________________________________

FOR APPELLANT: TIMOTHY L. COLLINS (Gideon Orion Oliver, on the brief), Collins, Dobkin & Miller LLP, New York, NY.

FOR APPELLEES: ELIZABETH S. NATRELLA (Pamela Seider Dolgow, on the brief), for Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, City of New York, New York, NY. ____________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Rakoff, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and

hereby is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff‐Appellant Brigitte Vosse brought this action against the City of

New York and the Commissioner of the New York City Department of

Buildings. Vosse alleged that the City infringed upon her right to free speech by

fining her for hanging an illuminated peace symbol outside the 17th‐floor

window of her condo. The district court dismissed for lack of standing in a

memorandum and order dated November 8, 2013. Vosse now appeals.

2 We AFFIRM for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court

in its memorandum.1

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

1 To the extent that Vosse attempted to bring a First Amendment claim that was not based on content discrimination and thus was not subject to the district court’s standing analysis, we conclude that this issue has been inadequately presented on appeal. See Krist v. Kolombos Rest. Inc.,

(2d Cir. 2012).

3