Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
_________________
17
MAURICE CROWLEY
18
Plaintiff,
22
vs.
CITY OF SYRACUSE, SYRACUSE
POLICE DEPARTMENT, POLICE
OFFICER VALLON SMITH, CHIEF OF
POLICE FRANK FOWLER, and Does 1100,
23
Defendants.
19
20
21
24
25
26
27
28
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NOTICE OF CLAIM
(General Municipal Law 50-e)
1. Violation Of Civil Rights (42
U.S.C. 1983
2. Assault;
3. False Arrest;
4. False Imprisonment;
5. Intention Infliction Of Emotion
Distress;
6. Malicious Prosecution;
7. Negligent
Training,
Hiring,
Retention, And Supervision;
8. Monel Claim Against City Of
Syracuse 42 U.S.C. 1983
9. Respondeat Superior Liability Of
City Of Syracuse;
10. Punitive
Damages
Against
Individual Police Officers In Their
Individual Capacity.
11. 42 USC 1985, Conspiracy CLAIM
12. 42 USC 1986 CLAIM
13. Malicious Prosecution
1
2
3
TO:
5
6
7
1.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2. CLAIMANTS ATTORNEYS:
RYDER LAW FIRM
Jesse P. Ryder, Esq.
6739 Myers Road
E. Syracuse, NY 13057
Tel: (315) 382-3617
Fax: (315) 295-2502
ryderlawfirm@gmail.com
2CHARLES A. BONNER, ESQ. SB# 85413
Pro Hac Vice
A. CABRAL BONNER, ESQ. SB# 247528
LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES A. BONNER
475 GATE FIVE RD, SUITE 212
SAUSALITO, CA 94965
TEL: (415) 331-3070
FAX: (415) 331-2738
charles@bonnerlaw.com
cabral@bonnerlaw.com
3. THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM
Mr. Maurice Crowleys Claims are listed as Claims 1-15, as reflected above on the Caption of
this Notice of Claim.
23
24
4. THE TIME WHEN, THE PLACE WHERE, AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE
CLAIM AROSE:
25
26
27
Claimants damages include, but are not limited to the following: anxiety, mental and emotional
28
distress, humiliation, fear, discomfort, loss of enjoyment of life, inconvenience and suffering,
attorneys fees, loss of wages, medical bills, loss of work benefits, physical and psychic injuries,
including, but not limited to, brain damage, bruise on side of head, bruised and injured left arm,
concussion syndrome with headaches, nightmares, insomnia, and misery. The injuries, illnesses
and harms caused, and continue to cause, Claimant to seek and obtain medical treatment and
ongoing medical care for his injuries, illnesses and medical conditions, and to incur medical
I. NON-MONETARY DEMAND
10
A.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
(1) Police Officer will Photograph License Plate of alleged violator/Registered Owner
of vehicle
(2) Mail citation to alleged violator/Registered Owner of vehicle
2. CITY AGREES THAT SPD WILL CEASE AND DESIST ALL NON-VIOLENT NON-
23
24
a. Purpose:
25
26
27
28
This is the procedure employed throughout Europe. There, no citizens are beaten, shot or
killed because a tail light is out or because they are selling CDs or cigarettes on the
street. As a country, can we do better than the status quo? We call on the District
Attorney, the Mayor, and the elected officials to implement these reasonable policy
changes forthwith. This policy discussion obviously excludes probable cause based
felonies and misdemeanors based on warrants, as well as any crime threatening public
10
11
12
13
b. Power to set Rules for Mandatory Criminal Prosecution for any Police
Officer who shoots any citizen in the back, without justification.
14
15
16
II. MONETARY:
17
A. $3,000,000 as Compensation for Deprivation of Civil Rights against Officer Vallon Smith.
18
19
C. Punitive Damages against Officer Vallon Smith to protect the citizens and the community
20
from such illegal conduct, and to deter further Civil Rights Violations by those sworn to up hold
21
22
A. STATEMENT OF FACTS
23
24
7. On Thursday July 28, 2016, a video-taped recording shows the following: DEFENDANT
25
OFFICER VALLON SMITH carrying out a stop of a vehicle, searching the driver. OFFICER
26
SMITH is dressed in police issued attire, consisting of khaki pants, police gun belt, with
27
handcuffs hanging in the back, and the word POLICE written in bold white letters across his
28
black, short-sleeved shirt. DEFENDANT OFFICER SMITH completes the vehicle stop and
search of an individual, handcuffs and escorts that person to the right side of his police vehicle,
and instructs that person to sit on the grassy median at the curb, adjacent to his vehicle.
8.
DEFENDANT OFFICER SMITH then opens the passenger door of his patrol car,
removes a black glove from his left hand and, while standing with the passenger door open, he
6
7
points with his right hand, while yelling over the traffic noise of two-way passing vehicles, to
Mr. Maurice Crawley, who is sitting on his bicycle on the sidewalk, approximately 60 feet away,
directly opposite to the patrol car and OFFICER SMITH. Mr. Crawley, exercising his United
10
States Constitutional Rights, and at all times is conducting himself in a lawful manner, is
11
12
recording the arrest of the individual across the street on his cell phone, as he is wont to do in
13
order to help maintain good conduct on the streets of Syracuse. DEFENDANT OFFICER
14
SMITH yells: Say one word and your ass is going to jail, just so you know. To which Mr.
15
Crawley replies: I did not hear you. Say it again officer. I am sorry. I didnt hear you.
16
DEFENDANT OFFICER SMITH reaches for the black glove now lying on the seat, slams the
17
18
passenger door, and walks rapidly to the front and around the patrol car, taking approximately 10
19
full-stride steps, while putting on the black glove again. As he approaches the yellow double
20
21
9. DEFENDANT OFFICER SMITH proceeds, walking briskly across the double yellow center
22
dividing lines for an additional 10 full-stride steps, still adjusting his black gloves. Watching
23
24
DEFENDANT OFFICER SMITH continuing to adjust his black gloves while walking rapidly
25
towards him, Mr. Crawley fearfully asks again: What are you doing, Officer? I didnt hear you.
26
What did you say? DEFENDANT OFFICER SMITH, as he moves close, to within
27
28
around! DEFENDANT OFFICER SMITH is now reaching for and grabbing Mr. Crawley, pulls
him off his bicycle, slams him to the ground, and strikes, hits, and punches Mr. Crawley on both
sides of his head, face and body, sending Mr. Crawleys cell phone flying. WhooWhooo
Whoo! YoYoYo Mr. Crawley cries out. DEFENDANT OFFICER SMITH angrily
threatens: Dont fucking move, you understand me? Dont fucking move! I am going to fuck
6
7
you up! Put your hand behind your back! DEFENDANT OFFICER SMITH is now pressing his
knee into Mr. Crawleys ear and face, and continues to hit him in the face, prompting Mr.
Crawley to gasp, Ive got a defibrillator in my chest, man. DEFENDANT OFFICER SMITH
10
spits out, I dont give a fuck what you got! I told you to stop fucking coming around here.
11
12
DEFENDANT OFFICER SMITH hits Mr. Crawley in excess of six or seven additional times in
13
14
10. Mr. Crawley is a community activist. He attends functions at schools, funerals of police
15
shootings, track and field meets, churches, and other public events to help maintain the peace.
16
Mr. Crawley has been associated with the community group called the OGs, Old Guys Against
17
18
Violence, a group to help get guns off the street and promote non-violence in his Syracuse
19
Community.
20
21
11. It was at this time that I observed Maurice Crawley sitting on his bicycle on the sidewalk in
23
front of 127 South Ave, while utilizing his cellphone to record our stop. It should be noted that
Crawley was standing approximately twenty feet away from my location. [Emphasis
added]
24
22
25
26
THE TRUE FACTS: Mr. Crawley was sitting on, straddled, his bicycle approximately 60 feet
away from OFFICER SMITH.
27
28
1
2
10. As I attempted to further conduct our drug investigation, I observed Crawley begin
to swirl his hand in a circular motion above his head."
THIS IS A WILLFUL PERJURED FALSE STATEMENT.
THE TRUE FACTS: Mr. Crawley did not swirl his hand in a circular motion above his head.
But even if Mr. Crawley had swirled his hand, he has a privileged First Amendment Right of
Freedom of Expression.
11. During the felony narcotics investigation, Crawley was intentionally impairing and
preventing my ability to perform my investigation as a public servant. His (tornado) hand
gestures and his mere presence caused my attention to be diverted away from my partner
and involved parties and towards him.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
THE TRUE FACTS: Mr. Crawley did not engage in tornado hand gestures and the video
evidence shows that OFFICER SMITH conducted a thorough full body search, between the legs
and crotch, of the drug suspect, escorted the suspect to the passenger side of the patrol vehicle,
sat the suspect on the side curb, hands cuffed behind his back, and only after completing his
arrest did his attention focus on Mr. Crawley. It was OFFICER SMITH who first initiated verbal
contact with Mr. Crawley, followed by him committing the vicious beating of Mr. Crawley.
15
16
18
12. When Crawley inserted himself into our investigation to intentionally impede the
same, he divided our attention further thereby creating an increasingly dangerous situation
and potentially deadly situation to officers, citizens and himself.
19
17
20
21
22
23
THE TRUE FACTS: Mr. Crawley never inserted himself into the officers investigation. The
officers attention was not diverted from their arrest. OFFICER SMITH completed his arrest of a
suspect and abandoned his partner, who was talking to a female suspect standing on the
sidewalk, and went directly to and with the intent to, and did commit an assault, battery, false
arrest of Mr. Crawley.
24
25
13. The DEFENDANTS, and each of them, conspired, agreed, and acted in furtherance of their
26
agreements to present false testimony as evidence by the false deposition testimony, as herein
27
28
alleged. This illegal conspiracy was intended to, and did, deprive Mr. Crawley of his
1.
The filing of a Notice of Claim under General Municipal Law 50-e only applies to State
Law Causes of Action and those requirements are not applicable to the Plaintiff's first cause of
action asserted pursuant to 42. U.S.C. 1983 (see Felder v Casey, 487 U.S. 131; Rowe v NYCPD,
85 AD3d 1001, 1002 [2d Dept 2011]; ["[A]; notice of claim is not a condition precedent to a
cause of action, asserted pursuant to 42 USC 1983, which seeks to recover damages premised
10
11
Federal Law 42. U.S.C. 1983 provides in pertinent part: Every person who, under color
12
of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of
13
Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person
14
within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured
15
by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity,
16
17
2.
18
19
force while detaining or arresting individuals. Jones v. Parmley, 465 F.3d 46, 61 (2d Cir. 2006)
20
(citing Thomas v. Roach, 165 F.3d 137, 143 (2d Cir. 1999)). When determining whether police
21
officers have employed excessive force in the arrest context, the Supreme Court has instructed
22
that courts should examine whether the use of force is objectively reasonable in light of the facts
23
and circumstances confronting them, without regard to the officers underlying intent or
24
motivation. Jones, 465 F.3d at 61 (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989))
25
(punctuation omitted). Among the most relevant facts and circumstances are (1) the severity of
26
the crime allegedly committed; (2) the threat of danger to the officer and society; and (3) whether
27
the suspect was resisting or attempting to evade arrest. Thomas, 165 F.3d at 143.
28
Reasonableness is generally a question of fact. See McKelvie v. Cooper, 190 F.3d 58 (2d Cir.
As the True Facts above prove, the force Police Officer SMITH inflicted upon Mr.
Crawley was objectively excessive and unreasonable. At all times, while Mr. Crawley was a law
abiding citizen, and was encased and enshrined in the protection of the United States
Constitution, the Police Officers engaged in the following unreasonable, excessive and illegal
force:
3. Obstructing Justice and Conspiracies to Interfere with Civil Rights
8
9
Federal Law 42 U.S.C. 1985 states in relevant parts: [T]he party so injured or deprived
10
may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation,
11
against any one or more of the conspirators: [I]f two or more persons conspire for the purpose
12
of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any
13
14
State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure
15
him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
To recover under a 1985 conspiracy claim for deprivation of civil rights, a plaintiff
must prove: "(1) a conspiracy; (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any
person or class of persons of equal protection of the laws . . .; (3) an act in furtherance of the
conspiracy; (4) whereby a person is . . . deprived of any right of a citizen of the United States."
In this case, the Claimant has alleged facts which render a civil rights conspiracy claim
plausible. Claimant alleges that Defendant police officers acted in concert to coerce and fabricate
24
25
statements and conceal exculpatory evidence. They allege that the fabrication of Defendants
26
statements was an overt act in furtherance of this conspiracy, as were the subsequent acts of
27
28
OFFICER SMITHS following false testimony deprived Mr. Crawley of his liberty, due
1
2
It should be noted that Crawley was standing approximately twenty feet away from my
location.
During the felony narcotics investigation, Crawley was intentionally impairing and
6
7
gestures and his mere presence caused my attention to be diverted away from my partner
10
When Crawley inserted himself into our investigation to intentionally impede the same, he
11
12
divided our attention further thereby creating an increasingly dangerous situation and
13
14
5. Defendant Chief Frank Fowler Liability for Neglect to Prevent Violation of Constitutional
15
Rights
16
42 U.S. Code 1986 provides: Every person who, having knowledge that any of the
17
18
wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be
19
committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same,
20
neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party
21
injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such
22
23
24
Chief Fowler at all relevant times knew that OFFICER SMITH was filing a false
25
Deposition, covering up and fictionalizing the true facts in order to attempt to exonerate himself
26
and fellow police officers and convict an innocent American Citizen. He reviewed the
27
depositions of Officer Smith and his partner and was aware of the clear and plain material willful
28
variations in the officers testimony compared to each other, and compared to the video tape
recording of the incident. Defendant Chief Fowler, after viewing the video tape recording of the
incident, still allowed Officer Smith to make a false sworn deposition calculated to further
deprive Mr. Crawley of his constitutional rights. Defendant Chief Fowler had a duty to prevent
and had the power, ability and authority to prevent the deprivation of Mr. Crawleys
6
7
8
9
constitutional rights and willfully failed to discharge his duty to prevent the deprivation of Mr.
Crawleys constitutional rights.
6.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Mr. Crawley alleges that Defendant Police Officer Smith violated his Fourth Amendment
rights by subjecting him to an unreasonable search and seizure of his person and the loss of
his physical liberty. The elements of a Fourth Amendment false arrest claim under 42 U.S.C.
1983 are the same as those for a false arrest claim under New York law. Kraft v. City of New
York, 696 F. Supp. 2d 403, (S.D.N.Y. 2010). To state a claim for false arrest under New York
law, a plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant intended to confine the plaintiff; (2) the plaintiff
was conscious of the confinement; (3) the plaintiff did not consent to the confinement; and (4)
the confinement was not otherwise privileged. Savino v. City of New York, 331 F.3d 63, 75 (2d
Cir.2003) Where an officer has probable cause to arrest a plaintiff, the confinement is privileged.
Id. at 76. The burden of showing that there was probable cause for the arrest is on the officer. Id.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The evidence proves by the requisite preponderance standard that Police Officer Smith
made a false arrest of Mr. Crawley by confining him in the street, and at the jail and at all times
until his release. Mr. Crawley was at all times conscious of his unprivileged and humiliating
confinement to which he did not consent. Defendants, and each of them, are liable for Mr.
Crawleys damages.
7.
Chief Fowler guilty, they are entitled to qualified immunity. The qualified immunity inquiry
28
generally involves two issues: (1) "whether the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, establish a constitutional violation"; and (2) "whether it would be clear to a reasonable
officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation confronted." Sira v. Morton, 380 F.3d 57,
68-69 (2d Cir. 2004) accord, Higazy v. Templeton, 505 F.3d 161, 169, n.8 (2d Cir. 2007)
In determining the second issue (i.e., whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer
that his conduct was unlawful in the situation confronted), courts in the Second Circuit consider
three factors: (1) whether the right in question was defined with 'reasonable specificity'; (2)
whether the decisional law of the Supreme Court and the applicable circuit court support the
existence of the right in question; and (3) whether under preexisting law a reasonable defendant
10
official would have understood that his or her acts were unlawful. Jermosen v. Smith, 945 F.2d
11
547, 550 (2d Cir. 1991) cert. denied, 503 U.S. 962 (1992).
12
In the excessive force context the question for the purposes of qualified immunity is
13
whether a reasonable officer could have believed that the use of force was objectively reasonable
14
in light of the circumstances. Lennon v. Miller, 66 F.3d 416, 425 (2d Cir. 1995). In excessive
15
force cases, then, the analysis converge[s] on one question: Whether in the particular
16
circumstances faced by the officer, a reasonable officer would believe that the force employed
17
would be lawful. Cowan v. Breen, 352 F.3d 756, 764 n.7 (2d Cir. 2003)
18
Police Officer Smith and Chief Fowler were not presented with any facts, events or
19
circumstances to lead either of them to reasonably believe that viciously beating a citizen, who
20
was lawfully exercising his constitutional rights and at all times abiding by all laws, was a lawful
21
use of force. As Police Officers sworn to uphold the laws of the United States of America,
22
Officer Smith and Chief Fowler are presumed to know the limits of lawful force under the Fourth
23
Amendment of the Constitution. These officers willfully, knowingly and with a conscious
24
disregard of Mr. Crawleys health, safety, and rights violated Mr. Crawleys Fourth Amendment
25
Rights against unreasonable seizures. They committed a false arrest upon Mr. Crawley, and
26
willfully filed false depositions to cover up Officer Smiths illegal excessive force.
27
8. Monel Claim: City of Syracuses Liability for Excessive Force and False Arrest
28
Plaintiff claims that the City of Syracuse is liable for any constitutional torts committed
by the individual Defendants because it maintained a custom, policy and pattern and practice of
failing to exercise reasonable care in training, supervising and hiring its officers. Claimant
further alleges that this custom, policy pattern and practice of inaction caused a deprivation of
Under Monel, local governments and their agencies can be sued as "persons" under
1983 and may be liable where a government policy or custom gives rise to a constitutional
deprivation. A "custom" does not require official sanction; instead, a custom "may fairly subject
a municipality to liability on the theory that the relevant practice is so widespread as to have the
force of law." Board of County Comm'rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404, 117 S. Ct. 1382, 137 L.
10
Ed. 2d 626 (1997) [88] (citations omitted). To make a claim for municipal liability, it is not
11
sufficient to allege merely conduct attributable to the municipality. Id. "A plaintiff must show
12
that the municipal action was taken with the requisite degree of culpability and must demonstrate
13
a direct causal link between the municipal action and the deprivation of federal rights." Id. Thus,
14
the elements of a Monel claim include: 1) an official policy or custom that, 2) causes the plaintiff
15
to be subjected to, 3) a deprivation of a constitutional right. Batista v. Rodriguez, 702 F.2d 393,
16
397 (2d Cir. 1987). A City may not be held liable for the actions of its employees or agents under
17
18
An official policy or custom can be shown in several ways: (1) a formal policy
19
officially endorsed by the municipality; (2) actions taken by government officials responsible for
20
establishing municipal policies related to the particular deprivation in question; (3) a practice so
21
consistent and widespread that it constitutes a custom or usage sufficient to impute constructive
22
knowledge of the practice to policymaking officials; and (4) a failure by policymakers to train or
23
supervise subordinates to such an extent that it amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of
24
those who come in contact with the municipal employees. Dorsett-Felicelli v. Cnty of Clinton,
25
371 F. Supp. 2d 183, 194 (N.D.N.Y. 2005) (citing Monell, 436 U.S at 690, Pembaur v. City of
26
Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 483-84 (1986), and City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388
27
(1989)).
28
The record of this case, based on investigation, research, other complaints to the Syracuse
Police Citizen Board, Police Records, News Paper Reports of Claims of excessive force and false
arrests of citizens by the City of Syracuse shows a pattern, practice, custom and policy by Chief
of Police Frank Fowler of failing to respect, uphold and enforce the constitutional rights of the
citizens of the City of Syracuse. Defendant Chief of Police Frank Fowlers failure to discipline,
train and supervise the police officers under his command has resulted in the assault and battery,
false arrest and civil rights violations of Mr. Crawley and many, many other law-abiding citizens
of Syracuse.
10
and a policy of lack of training police officers in how to protect the constitutional rights of
11
citizens was a direct and proximate cause of the violation of Mr. Crawleys Constitutional Rights
12
as stated herein. Chief Fowlers policy, custom and practice of inaction, lack of discipline and
13
lack of training of his officers led one Police Officer to declare during the vicious beating of an
14
unarmed, 20 year old college student without any prior criminal record, that: We police can do
15
what the Fuck we want to do!. This officer, along with his fellow officers, then beat, struck, and
16
punched this young man in the back, stomach, and head, then dragged this unfortunate college
17
student by his legs on the pavement, scraping and bruising his face bloody. This young man is
18
Elijah Johnson who alleges that the Syracuse police beat him and used racial slurs when they
19
arrested him after a party on University Hill. Chief Fowler and Sgt. Novitskys ratification of the
20
police officers misconduct is also a pattern, practice and custom and unwritten policy in the
21
22
9. Evidence of a Policy and Custom and Practice of the Use of Police Excessive Force
23
On or about June 23, 2010, Syracuse Mayor Stephanie Miner refused to sign and approve
24
a coveted award for a veteran Syracuse officer. Miner did not sign the commendation for
25
Detective Al Llukaci to receive the Wallie Howard Jr. Award for his undercover work on drug
26
investigations. Mayor Miner cited a federal court jury verdict in December in which a jury found
27
that Llukaci used excessive force against suspect John R. Kelly in a 2001 drug and assault case.
28
In August 2014, Ms. Louise Thompson, 76, said that Syracuse police officers handcuffed
her and charged her with resisting arrest earlier that month when she tried to talk to them during
a dispute between her daughter, who is disabled, and a neighbor. "Seventy-six years old I am,
never had a problem like that,'' Thompson said. "But they manhandled me.''
Rev. L. Micah O. Dexter II, pastor of Greater New Salem Missionary Baptist Church on
South Avenue, said he and his wife were roughed up by police in January, 2014, after calling to
report two suspicious people on their property. The police ignored Rev. Dexters complaint about
the trespassers, instead began handcuffing the Rev. and Mrs. Dexter and placing them under
arrest. Rev. Dexter stated: "The officer . . . immediately grabs me and throws me against the
10
intruders' car, handcuffs me and says, 'This is compliments of (Police Chief) Frank Fowler and
11
12
Syracuse police tased Mr. Brad Hulett, a disabled man, multiple times for standing on a
13
bus, when he was unable to sit due to his disability. A Syracuse Police Officer pulled up the
14
disabled mans shirt and used the taser on the mans naked skin. Police also broke Mr. Huletts
15
16
These are only a few cases of excessive force from a long list of other similar cases,
17
providing evidence that the policy maker, Chief of Police Officer Frank Fowler, maintains an
18
official policy, pattern, practice or custom of the City of Syracuse which led to the deprivation of
19
Mr. Crawleys constitutional rights. Therefore, Defendants Chief Fowler and the City of
20
Syracuse are liable to Mr. Crawley for directly and proximately causing violations of his United
21
22
23
24
25
26
11.
Assault
27
Mr. Crawley alleges that Defendants Police Officer SMITH assaulted him. [T]he test
28
for whether a plaintiff can maintain . . . a cause of action against law enforcement officials [for
assault and battery] is whether the force used was reasonable, the exact same test as the one
used to analyze a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim. Hogan v. Franco, 896 F. Supp.
1313, 1315 n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 1995). Here, as discussed above, there is a triable issue of fact as to
whether Defendant SMITH used reasonable force. Thus, the undisputed facts raise a triable issue
of fact that Defendant SMITH assaulted Claimant. For these reasons, as to Claimants
constitutional excessive force claim, a court will not and cannot find as a matter of law that
Under New York law, "To prevail on a cause of action for intentional infliction of
10
emotional distress, a plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct; (2)
11
intent to cause, or disregard for the substantial probability of causing, severe emotional distress;
12
(3) a causal [99] connection between the conduct and the injury; and (4) severe emotional
13
distress." Marmelstein v. Kehillat New Hempstead, 45 A.D.3d 33, 841 N.Y.S.2d 493, 499 (2007).
14
15
"A plaintiff alleging the constitutional tort of malicious prosecution in an action pursuant
16
to 1983 must establish A termination of the prosecution in his favor in accordance with
17
applicable state law." Link to the text of the note Hygh v. Jacobs, 961 F.2d 359, 367-68 (2d Cir.
18
1992) (emphasis added); see also, Pinaud v. County of Suffolk, 52 F.3d 1139 (2d Cir. 1995) not
19
"New York law does not require a malicious prosecution plaintiff to prove his innocence, or even
20
that the termination of the criminal proceeding was indicative of innocence." Rothstein v.
21
Carriere, 373 F.3d 275, 286 (2d Cir. 2004). Rather, the law in New York could not be clearer:
22
"[A]ny termination of a criminal prosecution, such that the criminal charges may not be brought
23
24
termination are not inconsistent with the innocence of the accused." Cantolino v. Danner, 96
25
N.Y.2d 391, 395, 754 N.E.2d 164, 729 N.Y.S.2d 405 (2001).
26
Under these circumstances, it would appear that the termination of criminal proceedings
27
against Plaintiffs was "not inconsistent" with [79] innocence. See Janovic v. City of New York,
28
No. 04 Civ. 8437, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59165, 2006 WL 2411541, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17,
2006) A subsequent dismissal with prejudice in the interests of justice is fully 'consistent with
likewise analyzed in accordance with state law. Boyd v. City of New York, 336 F.3d 72, 75 (2d
Cir. 2003) ("[T]he analysis of the state and the federal claims is identical.") "Under New York
law, even when probable cause is present at the time of arrest, evidence could later surface which
would eliminate that probable cause." Lowth v. Town of Cheektowaga, 82 F.3d 563, 572 (2d Cir.
1996). Moreover, in New York, a conviction ultimately upset is accorded only the force of prima
facie evidence of probable cause; this evidence can be surmounted in a suit [80] for malicious
prosecution if the plaintiff can show that the judgment was obtained by fraudulent or otherwise
10
undue means. Williams v. City of New York, 508 F.2d 356, 359-60 (1974).
11
Mr. Crawley alleges that Defendants, and each of them, suppressed exculpatory evidence,
12
13
prosecution pressed against Mr. Crawley is procured by fraudulent and coercive conduct by
14
Officer SMITH by filing false depositions, and ignoring eye witness statements at the scene.
15
These claims are sufficient to put each Defendant on notice of what they allegedly did or did not
16
do. Mr. Crawley alleges that Defendant Police Officer SMITH, acted with malice under New
17
York law because he "commenced the criminal proceeding due to a wrong or improper motive,
18
something other than a desire to see the ends of justice served." Lowth, 82 F.3d at 573. Thus Mr.
19
Crawley is entitled to relief and to all of his damages against all Defendants.
20
21
Mr. Crawley claims that the City of Syracuse is liable under the theory of Respondeat
22
Superior for Defendants SMITHs assault on Claimant. Cities may be held vicariously liable for
23
state law torts committed by police officers under a theory of respondeat superior. See Williams
24
v. City of White Plains, 718 F. Supp. 2d 374, 381 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Therefore, the respondeat
25
superior claim against the City of Syracuse regarding Defendant SMITH is a valid claim,
26
27
28
1
2
Mr. Crawley seeks punitive damages for the protection of the community against
Defendant Officer SMITH.
4
5
1.
For special and economic damages, including lost wages, for all Claims
2.
3.
4.
5.
10
6.
For such other and further relief, including injunctive relief, as the Court may
11
deem proper.
12
13
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
LAW OFFICES OF BONNER & BONNER
14
15
16
17
18
/s/Charles A. Bonner
Charles A. Bonner
Attorney for
Mr. Maurice Crawley
Pro Hac Vice
RYDER LAW FIRM
19
20
21
/s/Jesse P. Ryder
Jesse P. Ryder, Esq
Attorney for
Mr. and Mrs. Grant
22
23
24
25
26
27
28