504 F. App'x 43
2d Cir.2012Background
- Martinsky sued the City of Bridgeport and officers Paris, Santora, Viadero, and Honis for false arrest under the Fourth Amendment and for ADA and CFEPA discrimination claims.
- District Court granted summary judgment on all claims in favor of defendants.
- Officers arrested Martinsky after he moved items from a basement storage area to a locked area; owners disputed his access and claimed possession.
- Officers were informed by Paris and relied on statements from the Savoy’s owners to establish probable cause for larceny.
- Martinsky claimed lack of probable cause and sought to show ownership of items conflicting with the Savoy’s ownership claims; he asserted disability-related accommodation claims against Bridgeport.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit reviews de novo and affirms the district court’s summary judgment ruling on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for false arrest | Martinsky contends disputed facts show lack of probable cause. | Santora, Viadero, and Honis had probable cause based on the sequence of events and statements from Paris. | Probable cause existed; no genuine issue of material fact. |
| Paris's personal involvement | Paris knew two posters did not belong to the Savoy and should negate liability. | Paris did not directly detain Martinsky; others conducted the investigation and detention. | Paris lacked personal detention authority; no § 1983 liability. |
| ADA disability discrimination—notice and accommodation | Bridgeport failed to accommodate based on disability; notice existed. | Bridgeport never had notice of a disability; the offered posting constituted no denial of accommodation. | No disability discrimination under ADA/CFEPA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Russo v. City of Bridgeport, 479 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2007) (probable cause defense to false arrest; reliance on victim statements allowed)
- Panetta v. Crowley, 460 F.3d 388 (2d Cir. 2006) (officials may rely on information from victims for probable cause)
- Krause v. Bennett, 887 F.2d 362 (2d Cir. 1989) (police not required to eliminate all explanations to have probable cause)
- United States v. Manley, 632 F.2d 978 (2d Cir. 1980) (more probing investigation not required if totality supports probable cause)
- Green v. Donroe, 440 A.2d 973 (Conn. 1982) (false arrest requires unlawful restraint by defendant)
- Provost v. City of Newburgh, 262 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2001) (§ 1983 liability requires participation or encouragement by officer)
- Beason v. United Techs. Corp., 337 F.3d 271 (2d Cir. 2003) (ADA/CFEPA disability definitions and accommodation duties)
- McBride v. BIC Consumer Prods. Mfg. Co., 583 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2009) (prima facie case burden for disability discrimination under ADA)