Mangino v. Incorporated Village of Patchogue
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 22431
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- Mangino bought a Patchogue building with his wife between 2001–2003 and sought a two-year rental permit.
- He did not renew the rental permit when it expired around 2004 and continued renting units.
- In January 2005, Village official Nudo issued criminal summonses for failure to renew the permit.
- In July 2005, a tenant alleged fire hazards; Poulos and Nudo investigated; FPVO issued against Mangino in Sept–Oct 2005.
- On August 11, 2005, Nudo issued 18 summonses for various violations; additional August summonses followed for permit nonrenewal, later dismissed.
- Mangino pleaded claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 including First Amendment retaliation and abuse of process; trial on warrantless entry proceeded in 2014, yielding a defense verdict for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment retaliation viability based on probable cause | Mangino contends retaliation existed via actions (summonses and FPVO) used to chill speech. | Probable cause supported summonses; FPVO justified; no significantly more serious action shown. | Affirmed: no First Amendment retaliation liability. |
| Abuse of process under NY law with probable cause | Prosecutorial/administrative actions abusive despite probable cause. | Qualified immunity and lack of clearly established right when probable cause exists. | Affirmed: qualified immunity barred abuse-of-process claim. |
| Jury instructions sufficiency | Instructions allowed irrelevant dates, confusing the exisgncy issue of exigency. | Instructions properly limited to July 25, 2005, the relevant date. | Affirmed: jury instructions were not erroneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Curley v. Village of Suffern, 268 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2001) (chilling-effect requirement in First Amendment retaliation standing)
- Dorsett v. County of Nassau, 732 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 2013) (standing may arise from adverse speech effects or other concrete harm)
- Fabrikant v. French, 691 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2012) (probable cause defeats First Amendment retaliation claim)
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) (retaliation claims require absence of probable cause for underlying charge)
- PSI Metals, Inc. v. Firemen’s Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J., 839 F.2d 42 (2d Cir. 1988) (intent to do harm without justification element of abuse of process)
- Weiss v. Hunna, 312 F.2d 711 (2d Cir. 1963) (abuse of process requires misuse of justified process)
- Cook v. Sheldon, 41 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 1994) (state-law elements govern abuse-of-process claim)
- Beechwood Restorative Care Center v. Leeds, 436 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2006) (ambiguities in categorizing deficiencies; related to process actions)