OPINION & ORDER Before the Court is Defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint. (Doc. 46.)I. BACKGROUNDA. FactsI accept as true the facts, but not the conclusions, set forth in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. (Doc. 1 at 1-8 (“Compl.”).)1Plaintiffs Kathleen Herman and Jeff Ghiazza were the owners of a mobile home situated in lot 45 of the Riveredge Mobile Home Park located on Riverview Avenue in the Town of Cortlandt, New York (the “Town”). (Id. at 1; id. 20.) Defendants include the Town and several of its board members and employees, who are sued in both their individual and official capacities. (See id.
6-19.) On or about February 22, 2016, Plaintiffs found that their mobile home in the park was gone. (Id. 21.) They later learned that the Town’s employee Robert Dykeman, “under instruction and order” from the Town, broke into and thereafter demolished Plaintiffs’ mobile home. (Id.) On February 23, Ghiazza went to the New York State Police Troop K substation located in the Town to report the theft of Plaintiffs’ property. (Id. 22.) The Town had previously sent numerous letters offering to purchase the Plaintiffs’ property, all of which Plaintiffs refused. (Id. 25; see id. Exs. 4-12.)2 Plaintiffs were renting the home to a tenant for $850 per month, resulting in annual rental income of $10,200. (Id. 26.) Plaintiffs were using the income to make mortgage payments on their primary residence located in Pleasant Valley. (Id. 27.) Plaintiffs had been upgrading their mobile home at the time it was demolished. (Id. 28.) The Town offered $3,000 in compensation, which Plaintiffs refused. (Id. at 37-43 (“Ps’ Aff.”) 12.)On March 23, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an information request pursuant to New York’s Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”), N.Y. Pub. Off. Law §84, et seq. (McKinney 2019),3 to obtain information from Defendants about the demolition of their mobile home. (Compl. 23; see id. Ex. 2.) Following this request, Defendants provided only the previous offers from the Town to acquire Plaintiffs’ property, but not the documents Plaintiffs requested. (See id. 37.) Plaintiffs made a second FOIL request on April 29, 2016, which they allege was ignored. (Id.
