283 F. Supp. 3d 38
E.D.N.Y.2017Background
- Plaintiff Robert A. Mazzone, Jr., a real-estate professional in Southampton, alleges years of selective, malicious prosecutions and arrests by Town code-enforcement and fire officials tied to properties he rented to Hispanic tenants. He asserts § 1983 claims and a New York Judiciary Law § 487 claim.
- Three main clusters of charged matters: 2012 (61 appearance tickets; ultimately dismissed), 2013 (2 appearance tickets; dismissed), and 2015 (21–22 appearance tickets and pending misdemeanor dockets). Plaintiff alleges lack of probable cause and targeting based on tenants’ national origin and his assistance to them.
- Plaintiff also alleges "media ride-alongs" in which officers invited news crews into tenant homes, and claims Town attorneys engaged in deceit in prosecuting the matters.
- Procedurally, defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); the Magistrate Judge recommends granting the motion in large part but denying dismissal of federal false-arrest claims arising from the 2015 charges against Officers Larios and Glogg.
- The court dismissed many claims as duplicative, time-barred, insufficiently pleaded (no comparators, no facts showing seizure, no Brady/conviction predicate), or because defendants were entitled to qualified immunity; Monell municipal claims were dismissed for lack of municipal-policy allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fifth Amendment due process applies | Mazzone plead due-process violations | Fifth Amendment applies only to federal actors | Dismissed (Fifth Amendment inapplicable) |
| Fourteenth Amendment due process (procedural/substantive) | Claims based on repeated prosecutions, lack of notice, failure to investigate | Claims duplicate Fourth Amendment or no protected property interest in mandatory notice | Dismissed as duplicative or because no protected entitlement to notice/cure |
| Fourteenth Amendment equal protection (selective enforcement/class-of-one) | Plaintiff was singled out compared to other real-estate professionals; targeted for assisting Hispanic tenants | Plaintiff failed to identify similarly situated comparators and pleaded only conclusory allegations | Dismissed for failure to plead plausible comparator allegations |
| Malicious prosecution under § 1983 (2012, 2013, 2015 matters) | Defendants initiated/continued baseless prosecutions; proceedings terminated in plaintiff's favor for 2012/2013 | 2015 matters still pending; no Fourth Amendment seizure for appearance tickets; qualified immunity | Malicious-prosecution claims for 2015 dismissed (no favorable termination); claims based on 2012/2013 dismissed for failure to plead a Fourth Amendment seizure or qualified immunity applies |
| False arrest under § 1983 (2012, 2013, 2015) | Arrests and appearance tickets deprived plaintiff of liberty without probable cause | 2012 claims time-barred; appearance tickets alone not seizure; 2015 arrest allegations insufficiently alleged probable-cause deficiency | 2012 and 2013 false-arrest claims dismissed; 2015 false-arrest claims against Larios and Glogg survive dismissal |
| Abuse of process under § 1983 | Defendants prosecuted maliciously to harm plaintiff | Plaintiff fails to plead a collateral objective beyond prosecution (mere retaliatory motive insufficient) | Dismissed for failure to allege an ulterior/collateral objective |
| New York Judiciary Law § 487 claim against Town | Town attorneys colluded/committed deceit in prosecutions | Municipal attorneys are absolutely immune; plaintiff fails to identify specific attorneys or deceit facts | Dismissed for failure to allege specific deceit and because municipal liability under § 487 is unavailable or unsupported |
| Monell municipal liability | Town had customs/policies causing violations and failed to train/supervise | Complaint lacks factual allegations of a municipal policy, custom, or deliberate indifference | Dismissed for failure to plead a municipal policy or deliberate indifference |
| "Media ride-along" Fourth Amendment claim | Officers allowed media into tenant homes to intimidate and "poison the jury pool" | Allegations are conclusory, lack detail, and plaintiff lacks standing to assert tenants’ Fourth Amendment rights | Dismissed for lack of factual detail and standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (court establishes plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy or custom)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
- Burg v. Gosselin, 591 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. treatment of appearance ticket as non-seizure)
- Swartz v. Insogna, 704 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. post-arraignment appearances can constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure)
- Murphy v. Lynn, 118 F.3d 938 (post-arraignment court-appearance obligation can implicate Fourth Amendment)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (§ 1983 claims that imply invalidity of conviction require favorable termination)
- Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (bringing media into a home during law-enforcement activity can violate the Fourth Amendment)
- Manganiello v. City of New York, 612 F.3d 149 (malicious prosecution under § 1983 requires state-law malicious-prosecution elements plus a Fourth Amendment seizure)