Carwell v. City Of New York

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJanuary 21, 2022
Docket1:21-cv-00480
StatusUnknown

This text of Carwell v. City Of New York (Carwell v. City Of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Carwell v. City Of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Opinion

<>, |MEMO ENDORSE BEB ype rine SM fla ale ee USDC SDNY veo DOCUMENT WS 1625: Cy ore” ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: THE CiTy oF NEW YORK DATE FILED:_ 1/21/2022 GEORGIA M. PESTANA LAW DEPARTMENT MORGAN C. □□□□□□□□□ Corporation Counsel 100 CHURCH STREET Senior Counse NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10007 E-mail: mmckinne@law.nyc.gor Phone: (212) 356-201: January 20, 2022 BY ECF Judge Valerie E. Caproni United States District Judge Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: Glen Carwell _v. City of New York, et al., 21-CV-00480 (VEC) Your Honor: I am the Senior Counsel in the Office of Georgia M. Pestana, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, representing defendants the City of New York and Detective Carlos Lozada in the above-referenced matter (hereinafter “defendants.”) For the reasons set forth herein, defendants respectfully request that the Court endorse defendants’ proposed briefing schedule for defendants’ anticipated motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and issue a stay of the limited discovery remaining in this matter, pending the resolution of the motion. A. Procedural Posture of the Case Plaintiff failed to appear for his noticed deposition in this matter on January 18, 2022! and fact discovery is currently scheduled to close today, January 20, 2022. (See Case Management Plan, at ¥5(a), Civil Dkt. No. 22, filed October 18, 2021, attached as Exhibit “A”). On January 18, 2022, despite several follow up emails, neither plaintiff nor his counsel appeared virtually for plaintiffs noticed deposition. Defendants eventually spoke with one of plaintiff's counsels, Sameer Nath, Esq., who informed defendants, for the first time, that plaintiff was unable to appear at his deposition because Mr. Samuel DePaola, plaintiff's other attorney,

' Defendants served plaintiff with a deposition notice on January 11, 2022 for his deposition to be conducted virtually on January 18, 2022. Defendants requested by email that counsel advise defendants immediately if the date and time of the deposition needed to be changed, which plaintiff did not do.

was on trial and unavailable to attend plaintiff’s deposition. Mr. Nath did not explain why he was not available to attend the deposition, or why neither attorney had contacted defendants to reschedule the deposition. Mr. Nath also informed defendants, for the first time, that plaintiff was incarcerated in New Jersey, and therefore was also unavailable for his noticed deposition. Plaintiff has not noticed any depositions in this matter, nor has he requested an extension of time to complete fact discovery. Because fact discovery is set to close today, rather than requesting an extension of discovery for the limited purpose of deposing plaintiff, given the various issues with rescheduling plaintiff’s deposition, at this time, defendants propose that they file a fully dispositive motion for summary judgment based on the existing record in this matter. For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff has not, and cannot, adduce any evidence precluding a fully dispositive motion for summary judgment in favor of defendants. Defendants further request that the Court stay the remaining discovery in this matter, which should be limited to the deposition of plaintiff and expert discovery, if any. B. Factual Background and Plaintiff’s Claims Plaintiff was arrested on July 26, 2018, after a complaining victim, R.R.,2 identified plaintiff out of a double-blind photo array as one of the two men who robbed him at gun-point on November 30, 2016. (See Photo Array, attached as Exhibit “B”). Plaintiff has previously given sworn testimony that he does not know who the aforementioned complaining victim is or any information about him, the robbery, his co-defendant in the robbery, or how it came to be that plaintiff was identified as the perpetrator. (See Plaintiff’s 50-h Transcript, at 23:15-22; 25:23-25– 26:1-2; and 27:6-9, attached as Exhibit “C.”) According to plaintiff, on July 26, 2018 police knocked on his apartment door, his wife opened the door, plaintiff then walked to the door, the police asked if he was Glen Carwell, plaintiff responded in the affirmative, and plaintiff was then immediately handcuffed. (See Exhibit “C” at 15:14-25 and 17:16-25 – 18:1-3). Plaintiff also testified that he did not sustain any physical injures beyond his handcuffs allegedly being too tight, which only resulted in his wrists bothering him for a few hours, and for which he never sought medical attention. (See Exhibit “C” at 22:12-25 – 23:1-4). Plaintiff brings claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and New York State Law for: 1) Unlawful Search and Seizure; 2) False Arrest and False Imprisonment; 3) Excessive Force; 4) Malicious Prosecution; 5) Malicious Abuse of Process; 6) Denial of Right to a Fair Trial; 7) Deprivation of Rights and Denial of Equal Protection of the Laws; 8) Failure to Intervene; 9) Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights and Failure to Prevent Conspiracy; and 10) Municipal Liability. All of these claims fail for the reasons set forth below. 2 For privacy and safety reasons, defendants refer to the complaining victim by his initials. I. Plaintiff’s False Arrest And Malicious Prosecution Claims Fail Because There Was Probable Cause To Arrest And Prosecute Plaintiff Because He Was Identified By The Victim Out Of A Photo Array. There was probable cause to arrest and prosecute plaintiff based on complaining victim R.R.’s identification of plaintiff from the double-blind photo array. “A claim for false arrest or false imprisonment fails when the arresting officer had probable cause to make the arrest.” Sforza v. City of New York, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27358, at *40 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2009). Under New York law, the existence of probable cause is also a complete defense to a claim of malicious prosecution. Savino v. City of New York, 331 F.3d 63, 72 (2d Cir. 2003). “It is well- established that a law enforcement official has probable cause to arrest if he received his information from some person, normally the putative victim or eyewitness, unless the circumstances raise doubt as to the person’s veracity.” Panetta v. Crowley, 460 F.3d 388, 395 (2d Cir. 2006)(citations and internal quotations omitted). The veracity of those individuals “who are the victims of the very crime they report to the police is assumed.” Miloslavsky v. AES Engineering Soc., Inc., 808 F. Supp. 351, 355 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) aff’d 993 F.2d 1534 (2d Cir. 1993.) “A positive photo identification by an eyewitness is normally sufficient to establish probable cause.” Celestin v. City of New York, 581 F. Supp. 2d 420, 431 (E.D.N.Y. 2008); McGrier v. City of New York, et al., 16-CV-5667, Civil Dkt. No. 116, at p. 13 -14, (VEC)(S.D.N.Y. March 2019)(“It is well established that ‘[a] positive photo identification by an eyewitness is normally sufficient to establish probable cause to arrest.’” (citing Celestin, 581 F. Supp. 2d 420, 431(E.D.N.Y 2008)(collecting cases)); see also Panetta, 460 F.3d at 395. At a minimum, under these circumstances, the officer would be entitled to qualified immunity. See McGrier, at p. 14, fn. 10; Cerrone v. Brown, 246 F. 3d 194, 202-03 (2d Cir. 2001). Here, just like in Cerrone and McGrier, the photo array establishes probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest and prosecution.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Santana
427 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Graham v. Connor
490 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Grant v. City of New York
500 F. Supp. 2d 211 (S.D. New York, 2007)
Miloslavsky v. AES Engineering Society, Inc.
808 F. Supp. 351 (S.D. New York, 1992)
Celestin v. City of New York
581 F. Supp. 2d 420 (E.D. New York, 2008)
Washpon v. Parr
561 F. Supp. 2d 394 (S.D. New York, 2008)
Esmont v. City of New York
371 F. Supp. 2d 202 (E.D. New York, 2005)
Wilder v. Village of Amityville
288 F. Supp. 2d 341 (E.D. New York, 2003)
Colon v. Coughlin
58 F.3d 865 (Second Circuit, 1995)
Cerrone v. Brown
246 F.3d 194 (Second Circuit, 2001)
Savino v. City of New York
331 F.3d 63 (Second Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Carwell v. City Of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carwell-v-city-of-new-york-nysd-2022.