City plans to sue Adam Food Market once again

After a judge dismissed a public nuisance complaint against Adam Food Market last year, the city again will try to close the business after undercover Albuquerque Police Department officers say they bought narcotics inside the East Central convenience store.

At a Tuesday news conference, Mayor Tim Keller and Police Chief Harold Medina said they believe they have a “stronger case” to shut down the business this time by filing an amended public nuisance complaint.

“We know that this has been a problematic part of our city for a long time,” Keller said. “The challenge that we’re seeing is it continues just to get worse. … We tried to do something about this last year, and it didn’t work. So we’re going to try it again.”

During a Feb. 1 narcotics operation, Medina said officers purchased narcotics from people standing just inside the doors of the business at 7817 Central NE, between Louisiana and Wyoming. The sellers were not employees of the business, he said, but were in view of store workers.

APD Southeast Area Cmdr. Luke Languit said the following week, officers recovered a firearm and trafficking levels of narcotics from two vehicles outside the property.

Britany Schaffer, the attorney representing market operators Jamal Kahalah and Anna Marie Delgado, said the tenants were working with the city toward an out-of-court settlement. She said the city’s Tuesday announcement was unexpected.

Schaffer said she didn’t have any details about the February narcotics operation.

“It’s frustrating to hear that that’s the direction that they’re taking,” Schaffer said. “... I did not know there was going to be a press conference. I did not know that we were not going to be working together anymore.”

In an email to the Journal, city spokesperson Staci Drangmeister responded that the city has “always made clear that it intends to file an amended complaint.”

She wrote the city “has participated in, and is willing to continue participating in, settlement discussions” but still needs to file an amended complaint in case the discussions fall through.

APD spokesperson Rebecca Atkins said in a statement the owners “refuse to work” with APD and the city on potential solutions to “curb the constant violent and ongoing criminal activity occurring there.”

The Journal previously reported the city made several recommendations to the business through the Abandoned and Dilapidated Abatement Property Team, or ADAPT, in 2021.

In a 2023 email, a Planning Department spokesperson said the business made the suggested changes, including replacing broken windows, removing graffiti and trash, and installing no-trespass signs. But, he continued, after an initial drop in crime at the location, it later increased.

The building has new owners. It was bought from previous owner Sharif Rabadi, who put the building up for sale after the first complaint was filed.

However, city officials say crime is still prevalent around the property.

They cited an officer-involved shooting from January that injured officer Zachary Garris and showed a video of a man being beaten and robbed outside the store. Keller said calls to the property have cost upward of $400,000 over the past four years and spread emergency response thin.

The city plans to file an amended complaint next week, city attorney Lauren Keefe said. Drangmeister said the building is still structurally sound, so if the lawsuit is successful, it likely wouldn’t be demolished.

When asked about the impact of a new vacant property in the International District, Drangmeister responded that the property owner would be required to keep the building secure and “maintain structural integrity.”

Languit said Tuesday that APD has successfully been able to reduce calls for service at other properties like Adam Food Market. A spokesperson for APD later pointed to the Bow and Arrow Lodge, down the street at 8300 Central SE. She said there has been a 93% decrease in calls for service at the property since APD and the property owner started efforts there, including renovations and improvements to the business suggested by ADAPT.

In the dismissal last year, state District Judge Joshua Allison wrote that despite some issues with fact verification in the 700-plus pages of reports attached to the complaint, “the factual allegations contained within the complaint are sufficient to state a claim for a public nuisance.”

But some concerns about the constitutionality of the underlying public nuisance ordinance were also raised.

In a motion to dismiss the 2023 case, attorneys for the tenants and owner argued the ordinance was “overbroad” because it held property owners and tenants responsible if they “permit, fail to prevent, or otherwise let happen” any public nuisance or crime, leading to the result of “holding a property owner and/or tenant liable for being the victim of a crime.”