A judge dismissed the public nuisance complaint against Adam Food Market. But, facing falling revenue and a for sale sign, the property's woes aren’t over.

The building that houses Adam Food Market — an International District convenience store recently at the center of a legal battle — is up for sale, despite the dismissal of a public nuisance complaint against the property.

Sharif Rabadi, who owns several commercial properties around Albuquerque, bought the building at 7817 Central NE in 2017. Earlier this year, the city of Albuquerque called on a state judge to order the store either be demolished or closed for three years, after the Albuquerque Police Department reported half-a-dozen homicide investigations and hundreds of service calls at the location.

The building was listed a few months ago. Attorney Wayne Baker, who represents property owner Rabadi, said the owner didn’t initially plan to list the building — but the cost of litigation pushed Rabadi to sell.

On Aug. 21, state District Judge Joshua Allison dismissed the complaint brought by the city, although the city will be able to refile.

The judge’s decision allowed the business to stay open for now, although it’s uncertain whether Adam Food Market will be able to continue operating under new ownership.

“With this all over the head of the property, (Rabadi) hasn’t received any offers,” Baker said. “He felt obviously satisfied with the court’s decision, and feels that if it goes all the way down the road, he’ll be vindicated. But again, the expenses involved and the unknown are sufficient for him as an elderly gentleman to say, ‘Maybe it’s better if somebody else had this.’”

City spokesperson Ava Montoya told the Journal by email that the city is still evaluating whether refiling is the best step forward, and is interested in “exploring all available solutions to improve public safety in the area.”

Dismissal details and constitutional debate

The court found that not all the facts in the over 700 pages of reports attached to the complaint, which included police reports and affidavits, were verified and thus admissible as evidence.

“Nonetheless,” Allison wrote, “the factual allegations contained within the body of the complaint are sufficient to state a claim for a public nuisance.”

The city’s request to close the store for three years was dismissed with prejudice, so the city will not be able to pursue it again; but, the complaint itself can be reintroduced, and the building could potentially be demolished.

The dismissal also raised “potential constitutional flaws” about the underlying public nuisance abatement ordinance.

Lawyers for both the tenants and property owners also questioned the constitutionality of the ordinance. Baker called the ordinance overly broad, pointing to a long list of potential remedies and a lack of clear guidelines on what constitutes a “nuisance property.”

In March, the City Council voted to beef up the public nuisance abatement ordinance. Now, the city can assess civil penalties — which start with a $200 fine, but can increase to $500 if a property repeatedly fails to come into compliance — against properties in violation of the ordinance.

And, crime prevention standards recommended by the Abandoned and Dilapidated Abatement Property Team, or ADAPT, are no longer just suggestions. Now, owners of nuisance properties are required by law to implement the standards relating to the crime experienced on the property.

In 2021 — before the enforcement changes were made — the city gave Adam Food Market several recommendations to reduce crime through the ADAPT program. Recommendations included general maintenance like replacing broken windows, removing graffiti and trash and installing no trespass signs.

Planning Department spokesperson Tim Walsh said in an email to the Journal the tenants followed all the recommendations; however, although there was an initial decrease in crime for the first three months, over the next year and a half, there were more than 500 calls for service on the property.

In the original filings, the city argued that the property was siphoning valuable APD time; the city claimed that in one year, $98,983 worth of officer time was spent in response to the property. Five fentanyl buys were made by undercover officers in or around the property — three inside the store.

Declining profits and ‘reputation’

In the months since the complaint was filed, revenue for the market has diminished, said the attorney representing the building tenants. Britany Schaffer said her clients have reported a decrease of about $2,000 per day, which also worries Rabadi, who is concerned the tenants will be unable to meet the terms of their lease, Baker said.

But even more costly, Schaffer said, has been the damage to the reputation of the tenants. Anna Marie Delgado and partner Jamal Kahalah were interested in buying the property from Rabadi, Schaffer said, but have been unable to secure a loan.

“There is a reputation that they’re criminals,” Schaffer said, saying that Delgado and Kahalah feel the publicity about the case negatively impacted their ability to apply for a loan.

The market is located about two miles east of the now-closed Walmart on San Mateo. When the Walmart closed in March, some raised concerns that the area would become a food desert with the dearth of grocery stores in the area.

Schaffer said Delgado and Kahalah felt some of their attempts to remedy the situation — including offering to put a police substation across the street or pay for an off-duty police officer to patrol the area — went unheeded. And, Schaffer continued, in recent months the tenants have noticed more police patrols in the area, which she said led to a reduction in crime in the area.

APD was unable to provide information about the number of calls for service in recent months, with agency spokesperson Gilbert Gallegos citing difficulties due to calls coming from both the location and surrounding area. Gallegos declined to comment about the complaint dismissal and whether APD felt closing the business was still the best solution.

Are other properties next?

This isn’t the first time the city has pursued legal action against a nuisance property, and it may not be the last. In 2018, the city filed a civil nuisance action against the crime-plagued Sahara Motel at 5915 Gibson SE. But a district judge later that year ruled to keep the motel open, as long as it made a specific set of improvements within six months. The parties agreed to dismiss the complaint after the business made significant headway on the recommendations.

Walsh said the city is currently evaluating a few locations and is in the process of deciding what actions — including possible legal action — to take to reduce nuisance properties around Albuquerque.

At a March news conference, city officials including Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller and Police Chief Harold Medina indicated that Adam Food Market may not be the only property that the city would take legal action against.

Schaffer said she’s heard from property owners who are worried about having similar cases filed against them.

“I’m not aware of any other properties that have been filed against,” Schaffer said. “But we know from the press conference that the city has said that this is a new tactic that they intend to employ.”