Harvey v. Morabito

Second Circuit

Harvey v. Morabito

115 F. App'x 521

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 23, 2004

DocketNo. 04-1008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 115 F. App'x 521 (Harvey v. Morabito) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harvey v. Morabito, 115 F. App'x 521 (2d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

In February 2000, Kenneth D. Harvey and Anthony M. Garraway (“Plaintiffs”) filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York against Binghamton Police Officer Paul Morabito (“Morabito”). The complaint alleged that Morabito illegally confiscated the Plaintiffs’ jointly owned dog and, in doing so, violated Plaintiffs’ due process rights.

The district court (Munson, /.) granted Morabito’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs then appealed.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, see, e.g., Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, 593 (2d Cir.1999). Having done so, we affirm the judgment below. The district court was correct in analyzing Plaintiffs’ claim as a Fourth Amendment challenge, and we find that Morabito’s actions were, under the circumstances, objectively reasonable. See Mickle v. Morin, 297 F.3d 114, 120 (2d Cir.2002); Koch v. Town of Brattleboro, 287 F.3d 162, 166 (2d Cir.2002).

We have considered all of Plaintiffs’ claims and find them to be without merit. The district court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

In February 2000, Kenneth D. Harvey and Anthony M. Garraway (“Plaintiffs”) filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York against Binghamton Police Officer Paul Morabito (“Morabito”). The complaint alleged that Morabito illegally confiscated the Plaintiffs’ jointly owned dog and, in doing so, violated Plaintiffs’ due process rights.

The district court (Munson, /.) granted Morabito’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs then appealed.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, see, e.g., Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, 593 (2d Cir.1999). Having done so, we affirm the judgment below. The district court was correct in analyzing Plaintiffs’ claim as a Fourth Amendment challenge, and we find that Morabito’s actions were, under the circumstances, objectively reasonable. See Mickle v. Morin, 297 F.3d 114, 120 (2d Cir.2002); Koch v. Town of Brattleboro, 287 F.3d 162, 166 (2d Cir.2002).

We have considered all of Plaintiffs’ claims and find them to be without merit. The district court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 F. App'x 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harvey-v-morabito-ca2-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack