Jessamy v. Jakasal
21-214-cv
2d Cir.May 26, 2022Background
- Pro se plaintiff Carlos Jessamy sued the Town of Greenburgh, Officer Davey Jakasal, TJX Companies, Inc., and TJX loss-prevention officer Jason Froatz over arrests and prosecutions for alleged shoplifting incidents in February and March 2015.
- Jessamy was convicted on charges arising from the March 2015 incidents (with one charge later indicted/ acquitted nuance) while the February 2015 charges were dismissed.
- Claims pleaded: false arrest and malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York law, based on the February and March incidents.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; the district court concluded (1) false arrest claims were barred by conviction, (2) malicious prosecution claims failed because of convictions, grand‑jury indictments, or the existence of probable cause, and (3) TJX/Froatz merely supplied information and did not actively induce prosecution.
- The Second Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to all defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| False arrest v. Officer Jakasal | Arrests lacked probable cause; cannot be barred by other charges being dismissed | Conviction on March charges precludes false arrest recovery; probable cause existed | Affirmed — conviction bars false arrest recovery and probable cause supported the arrests |
| Malicious prosecution (March incidents) v. Jakasal | Prosecution was wrongful; one March charge not resulting in conviction supports a claim; alleged grand jury/charging defects | Convictions on most March charges bar malicious prosecution; indictment presumes probable cause and no evidence rebuts that presumption | Affirmed — cannot pursue malicious prosecution for charges resulting in conviction; indictment creates probable‑cause presumption not rebutted |
| Malicious prosecution (February incidents) v. Jakasal | February charges were dismissed so claim can proceed; police relied on flawed/ doctored evidence | Officer had ample probable cause (employee statements, surveillance descriptions, Facebook photos, officer recognition) | Affirmed — summary judgment for Jakasal: probable cause existed; plaintiff presented only speculation, not admissible contrary evidence |
| Malicious prosecution v. TJX and Froatz (private parties) | TJX/Froatz worked with police to induce arrest and prosecution; employees said words like “get him” | TJX/Froatz only reported suspected thefts and cooperated; they did not actively induce or control the arrest/prosecution | Affirmed — plaintiff failed to show private‑party inducement; mere reporting/cooperation is not enough |
Key Cases Cited
- Cameron v. Fogarty, 806 F.2d 380 (2d Cir. 1986) (conviction for the arrested offense bars false arrest recovery)
- Jaegly v. Couch, 439 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2006) (false arrest inquiry focuses on whether probable cause existed to arrest, not each charge)
- Thompson v. Clark, 142 S. Ct. 1332 (2022) (malicious prosecution requires that prosecution ended without conviction)
- Manganiello v. City of New York, 612 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2010) (existence of probable cause is a complete defense to malicious prosecution; grand jury indictment creates a presumption of probable cause)
- Fujitsu Ltd. v. Fed. Express Corp., 247 F.3d 423 (2d Cir. 2001) (conclusory allegations and unsubstantiated speculation cannot defeat summary judgment)
- Moorhouse v. Standard, N.Y., 997 N.Y.S.2d 127 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 2014) (private‑party malicious prosecution requires more than reporting and cooperation; must have affirmatively induced the officer to act)