26 F. Supp. 3d 230
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Corsini, an attorney and New York resident, sued Bloomberg, the City, and others under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 alleging a city-wide conspiracy to falsely arrest and prosecute him.
- Amended Complaint asserts First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations, plus a variety of tort claims stemming from arrests and alleged coercive acts around a Chelsea film/studio operation.
- Alleged conspirators include Morgan, Cary, multiple NYPD officials, a publishing company, and private individuals, with claims that officials tolerated unlawful filming and retaliated against Corsini for opposing it.
- Corsini claims the Belkin Defendants (Morgan’s attorneys) drafted a December 2, 2010 letter that allegedly lies at the foundation of the conspiracy (to arrest him on harassment/Stalking charges).
- Plaintiff alleges several arrests (April 29, 2011; June 29, 2011; November 2, 2011) were based on false reports and are part of the same scheme; he also alleges a 2013 conviction related to the August 31, 2011 arrest.
- The state court case against some defendants was dismissed on merits in 2013; the instant action seeks relief in federal court and raises res judicata concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Corsini states a false arrest claim | Corsini contends arrests were without probable cause due to conspiratorial reports. | Defendants argue police had probable cause based on victims’ complaints and totality of circumstances. | True: arrests supported by probable cause; false arrest claim dismissed. |
| Whether Corsini states an excessive force claim | Claims handcuffs were unreasonably tight causing injury and pain. | No credible injury or factual basis of excessive force; conclusory injury allegation fails. | True: excessive force claim dismissed for lack of plausible injury detail. |
| Whether Corsini states a malicious prosecution/4th Amendment claim against the DA and City Defendants | Prosecutors conspired and acted with intent to prosecute for retaliatory purposes. | DA defendants have absolute prosecutorial immunity; lack of lack of probable cause evidence and no malice shown. | True: claims against DA defendants are barred by absolute immunity; others fail for lack of probable cause. |
| Whether the claims against the Chelsea/Publishers Defendants are barred by res judicata | State court dismissal was not on the merits; new federal theories survive. | State court dismissal on merits bars relitigation under transactional res judicata. | True: res judicata bars claims against Chelsea and Belkin defendants. |
| Whether sanctions against Corsini are appropriate under Rule 11 | Not explicitly argued; nonetheless claims are asserted with merit. | Claims duplicative and frivolous; res judicata issues support sanctions. | True: sanctions granted in part; Belkin costs awarded; overall dismissal with prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Jocks v. Tavernier, 316 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2003) (false arrest claims require probable cause and lack of frivolous pleadings)
- Curley v. Vill. of Suffern, 268 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2001) (probable cause bars retaliatory arrest claims)
- Panetta v. Crowley, 460 F.3d 388 (2d Cir. 2006) (probable cause can be based on information from victims)
- Martinez v. Simonetti, 202 F.3d 625 (2d Cir. 2000) (police may rely on victims' complaints for probable cause)
- Singer v. Fulton Cnty. Sheriff, 63 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 1995) (credibility of victims supported by totality of circumstances)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1993) (absolute immunity for prosecutors)
- Lennon v. Miller, 66 F.3d 416 (2d Cir. 1995) (excessive force analysis in handcuffing cases)
- X-Men Sec., Inc. v. Pataki, 196 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 1999) (liberal pleading standards; conspiracy claims require specifics)
- Dawkins v. Gonyea, 646 F. Supp. 2d 594 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (pleading sufficiency for conspiracy claims requires more than conclusory allegations)