Lee v. City of Mount Vernon

New York Court of Appeals

Lee v. City of Mount Vernon

407 N.E.2d 404, 49 N.Y.2d 1041, 429 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2379

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 8, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by39 cases

This text of 407 N.E.2d 404 (Lee v. City of Mount Vernon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lee v. City of Mount Vernon, 407 N.E.2d 404, 49 N.Y.2d 1041, 429 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2379 (N.Y. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The victim’s identification of plaintiff as the robber and the Grand Jury’s indictment established probable cause for his prosecution. In the face of those two elements plaintiff must establish that the identification was the result of a conspiracy between the officials and the victim and that the indictment was the result of fraud, perjury or the suppression of evidence (see Anns., 28 ALR3d 748, 66 ALR3d 10).

The evidence presented did not make out prima facie such a [1043]*1043case. Not to be lost sight of is the fact that the decision to present the matter to the Grand Jury was that of the District Attorney, for whose acts the city is not responsible, and that Barbagallo, the city detective, did not testify before the Grand Jury, nor has it been shown that he withheld information in his possession from the Grand Jury.

In final analysis plaintiffs claim is that Barbagallo should have investigated further why plaintiff was in the area and to ascertain whether there were fingerprints on the gun that was retrieved near the scene. In the face of the fact that plaintiff matched the complaining witness’ description of the robber in height, weight, age and clothing, of the positive identification by the complaining witness when plaintiff was returned to the scene soon after the crime, of her identification of some of the money found in plaintiff’s possession as having been marked by her, and of the indictment of plaintiff by the Grand Jury, plaintiff was required to show that Barbagallo’s procedure deviated so egregiously from proper police activity as to indicate intentional or reckless action on his part. While the evidence suggests that not all procedures that could have been followed were followed in fact, it does not establish that the omissions were improper, much less egregious, given the positive identifications and exact description referred to above (compare Restatement 2d, Torts, § 664, subd [2], and Comment b; § 663, subd [1], par [c], and Comment h, with § 662, and Comment j).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The victim’s identification of plaintiff as the robber and the Grand Jury’s indictment established probable cause for his prosecution. In the face of those two elements plaintiff must establish that the identification was the result of a conspiracy between the officials and the victim and that the indictment was the result of fraud, perjury or the suppression of evidence (see Anns., 28 ALR3d 748, 66 ALR3d 10).

The evidence presented did not make out prima facie such a [1043]*1043case. Not to be lost sight of is the fact that the decision to present the matter to the Grand Jury was that of the District Attorney, for whose acts the city is not responsible, and that Barbagallo, the city detective, did not testify before the Grand Jury, nor has it been shown that he withheld information in his possession from the Grand Jury.

In final analysis plaintiffs claim is that Barbagallo should have investigated further why plaintiff was in the area and to ascertain whether there were fingerprints on the gun that was retrieved near the scene. In the face of the fact that plaintiff matched the complaining witness’ description of the robber in height, weight, age and clothing, of the positive identification by the complaining witness when plaintiff was returned to the scene soon after the crime, of her identification of some of the money found in plaintiff’s possession as having been marked by her, and of the indictment of plaintiff by the Grand Jury, plaintiff was required to show that Barbagallo’s procedure deviated so egregiously from proper police activity as to indicate intentional or reckless action on his part. While the evidence suggests that not all procedures that could have been followed were followed in fact, it does not establish that the omissions were improper, much less egregious, given the positive identifications and exact description referred to above (compare Restatement 2d, Torts, § 664, subd [2], and Comment b; § 663, subd [1], par [c], and Comment h, with § 662, and Comment j).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

407 N.E.2d 404, 49 N.Y.2d 1041, 429 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-city-of-mount-vernon-ny-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack