185 F. Supp. 3d 299
E.D.N.Y2016Background
- In Feb 2012 a hit-and-run was reported; complainants gave a license plate but did not identify the driver or describe the car.
- Plate traced to Juan Gomez; Gomez voluntarily came to the precinct and was placed in an interrogation room.
- Detective Delarosa testified Gomez confessed; Gomez denies any confession. Delarosa and Officer Canavan approved an arrest and issued a desk appearance ticket.
- Delarosa swore a criminal complaint stating the complainant identified Gomez as the driver, but later conceded the complainant had not identified him.
- Gomez was prosecuted on a hit-and-run charge for about two years before dismissal on speedy-trial grounds.
- Gomez sued the City and officers (Delarosa, Canavan, Croce) under § 1983 and state law for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and denial of the right to a fair trial; parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and defendants’ motion lacked a memorandum of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defendants’ summary judgment motion procedural sufficiency | Defendants moved but supplied no legal memorandum; motion should be denied | Motion may be considered on merits despite rule violation | Court denied defendants’ motion (except as to Croce) because no supporting legal argument was provided |
| Croce's individual liability under § 1983 | Gomez seeks liability for role in investigation | Croce only responded to accident and wrote a report; no personal involvement in constitutional violations | Court granted summary judgment for Croce (no direct participation shown) |
| False arrest (probable cause) | Gomez: no confession, arrest unsupported by probable cause | Defendants: Delarosa testified Gomez confessed before arrest, which would supply probable cause | Fact dispute over whether confession occurred — credibility issue for jury; cross-motion for summary judgment denied |
| Fair-trial claim (fabrication of evidence) | Gomez: Delarosa falsely swore complainant identified him, causing prolonged prosecution and liberty deprivation | Defendants: (no effective opposing legal argument presented); Canavan and City deny fabrication or personal involvement | Court granted summary judgment for Gomez on Delarosa’s fabricated-evidence/fair-trial claim; denied as to Canavan and the City (no showing of their involvement) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jaegly v. Couch, 439 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2006) (false-arrest § 1983 claims and probable cause standard)
- Gonzalez v. City of Schenectady, 728 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2013) (probable cause as complete defense to false-arrest claim)
- Weyant v. Okst, 101 F.3d 845 (2d Cir. 1996) (false arrest under § 1983 parallels New York false-arrest law)
- Ricciuti v. New York City Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 1997) (fabricated evidence claim; officer-supplied false information can violate right to fair trial)
- Zahrey v. Coffey, 221 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2000) (officer’s fabrication of evidence can give rise to a § 1983 claim)
- Black v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1996) (§ 1983 requires direct participation or other predicate for supervisory liability)
- Vermont Teddy Bear Co. v. 1-800 Beargram Co., 373 F.3d 241 (2d Cir. 2004) (district court must still assess moving party’s showing even where nonmovant fails to oppose)