Blake v. City of New York
148 A.D.3d 1101
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Blake and Johnson were arrested and indicted for an October 6, 2008 Queens shooting; identifications came from two photographic arrays prepared by Det. John Roberts based on information from a separate suspect.
- The informant later recanted denying he implicated the plaintiffs; the complainant initially said he could not identify perpetrators but later identified the plaintiffs in photo arrays.
- Plaintiffs spent ~16 months incarcerated; charges were dismissed when the complainant refused to testify.
- Each plaintiff sued the City, five police officers, Queens County DA Richard A. Brown, and ADA Brian F. Allen asserting causes including false arrest, malicious prosecution, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims; actions were consolidated.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7) or for summary judgment; plaintiffs cross-moved to compel discovery. Trial court denied many dismissal/summary judgment branches, granted some dismissals for failure to name defendants in a notice of claim, and granted part of plaintiffs’ discovery motion.
- Appellate Division modified: affirmed denial of dismissal of Monell-based § 1983 claims; held DA defendants entitled to absolute immunity for post-arrest prosecution decisions and granted summary judgment dismissing malicious prosecution and related § 1983 claims against them; held individual officers could be sued despite not being named in the notice of claim; many summary judgment motions were premature because discovery was incomplete.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Municipal liability under § 1983 (Monell) | City had custom/policy causing constitutional violations | City said claims insufficient to plead Monell liability | Complaint sufficiently alleged municipal custom; Monell claims survive CPLR 3211(a)(7) dismissal |
| Prosecutorial immunity for DA and ADA | Plaintiffs alleged malicious prosecution and § 1983 claims against DAs | DAs argued absolute immunity for prosecution-related acts | DA defendants entitled to absolute immunity for post-arrest prosecution conduct; those claims dismissed on summary judgment |
| Notice of claim requirement for suing individual municipal employees | Plaintiffs: naming individuals not required to bring subsequent common-law or § 1983 claims | Defendants: failure to name Hanrahan, O'Hara, Miltenberg in notice of claim bars claims against them | Court held naming individual employees is not required by Gen. Mun. Law § 50-e(2); dismissal for failure to name was improper |
| Summary judgment on false arrest/malicious prosecution | Plaintiffs: identifications unreliable; discovery incomplete so they cannot rebut probable cause presumption | Defendants: complainant ID and grand jury indictment establish prima facie probable cause and entitlement to judgment | Defendants made prima facie showing, but summary judgment was premature because plaintiffs lacked adequate discovery to rebut probable cause or show police misconduct; denial as premature proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83 (procedural standard for CPLR 3211(a)(7) pleadings)
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under § 1983 requires policy or custom)
- Spinner v. County of Nassau, 103 A.D.3d 875 (prosecutor absolute vs. qualified immunity distinction)
- Colon v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 78 (grand jury indictment creates presumption of probable cause)
- De Lourdes Torres v. Jones, 26 N.Y.3d 742 (standard to overcome indictment presumption; police misconduct exception)
- Goodwin v. Pretorius, 105 A.D.3d 207 (holding naming individual municipal employees in notice of claim not required)
- Combs v. City of New York, 130 A.D.3d 862 (false arrest claims premised on eyewitness ID)