Bertuglia v. City of New York
133 F. Supp. 3d 608
S.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Laro Maintenance and its president Robert Bertuglia contracted with the Port Authority (2005–2007) to provide janitorial services; contract required purchase of new equipment and amortized equipment cost into hourly billing. 36 monthly invoices were paid. Two major machines (sweeper and scrubber) were never purchased, but Laro continued billing equipment charges (~$153,000).
- Port Authority investigators (Schaffler, Ferrone, D’Aleo) referred concerns to the New York County DA’s Office after witness interviews and a wiretap mention of Bertuglia; ADAs Elyse Ruzow and Michael Scotto opened grand jury investigations (overbilling and later a related healthcare/pension inquiry).
- Grand juries returned indictments (first: multiple counts; second: grand larceny only). Judge Zweibel dismissed both indictments (criticizing insufficiency of proof of intent and certain prosecutorial conduct, but not finding perjury or fraud).
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state tort law for malicious prosecution, false arrest, denial of fair trial, malicious abuse of process, Chalfy harassment, stigma-plus, conspiracy, and Monell liability against the City.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment (Port Authority investigators, ADAs, and City). Court applied grand jury presumptions, absolute and qualified immunity doctrines, and dismissed all claims; plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on malicious prosecution was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Malicious prosecution (§1983) | No probable cause; investigators (esp. Schaffler) lied/withheld evidence and caused prosecution | Grand jury indictment creates presumption of probable cause; no evidence officers fabricated or suppressed material evidence; prosecutors independently investigated | Dismissed: presumption of probable cause stood; plaintiffs failed to rebut with fraud/perjury/suppression or show causation/malice; qualified immunity for investigators |
| False arrest | Arrest was wrongful and caused by Port Authority investigators' referrals | Probable cause existed at time of indictment/arrest; prosecutors independently decided to prosecute; qualified immunity | Dismissed: probable cause/independent prosecutor decision and qualified immunity barred claim |
| Prosecutorial and witness immunity (abuse of process, Chalfy, right-to-fair-trial) | ADAs abused subpoenas, issued coercive interviews and press statements; Port Authority witnesses lied/prepared false testimony | ADAs’ grand-jury-related acts and witness grand-jury testimony are absolutely immune; ADAs’ press release/public statements are at most subject to qualified immunity | Dismissed: absolute immunity for grand-jury functions; press-release stigma-plus claim dismissed on merits and qualified immunity grounds |
| Monell (City) — failure to train/discipline prosecutors | City lacked training/discipline addressing prosecutors’ alleged misconduct; pattern of misconduct | Plaintiffs cannot show underlying constitutional violation; DA’s Office had training and disciplinary mechanisms; no deliberate indifference | Dismissed: Monell requires underlying constitutional violation and deliberate indifference; plaintiffs failed on both fronts |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine issue of material fact standard)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (absolute prosecutorial immunity)
- Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356 (absolute immunity for grand jury witnesses/preparatory activity)
- Colon v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 78 (grand jury indictment presumption of probable cause under New York law)
- Manganiello v. City of New York, 612 F.3d 149 (§1983 malicious prosecution elements)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (Monell failure-to-train deliberate indifference standard)