Mendez v. City of New York
137 A.D.3d 468
N.Y. App. Div.2016Background
- On May 25, 2009, Mendez was on a Bronx sidewalk near Jamal Joseph when plainclothes officers in an unmarked car approached and ordered them to stop; both men were thrown against a wall and handcuffed.
- Officer Moreno testified he saw Joseph duck and heard something metallic hit the ground; he later observed a gun under a van and saw Mendez drop an object onto a pile of garbage bags, which Moreno said was a gun.
- Officer Shea did not personally observe Mendez drop anything and the official police paperwork did not record Moreno’s observation that Mendez discarded a weapon.
- Mendez was arrested, jailed for 247 days, tried, and acquitted by a jury eight months later; DNA testing did not link him to the recovered weapon.
- Mendez sued for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, assault and battery, excessive force, and § 1983 violations; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court denied summary judgment; the Appellate Division affirmed in part, granting summary judgment only on the excessive-force claim (tight handcuffing held reasonable) and otherwise finding triable issues on probable cause, malicious prosecution, false arrest/imprisonment, assault/battery, and § 1983 claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for arrest | Mendez denies discarding a gun; paperwork omissions and conflicting officer accounts undermine probable cause | Moreno saw Mendez drop an object that was a gun; Shea saw gun on trash and relied on fellow-officer info | Triable issue exists; denial of summary judgment on false arrest/imprisonment (probable cause disputed) |
| Malicious prosecution | Indictment overturned at trial; omissions and inconsistent police reports show bad faith and lack of probable cause | Grand jury indictment and officers’ testimony established probable cause; paperwork and testimony consistent enough to sustain presumption | Triable issue exists; denial of summary judgment on malicious prosecution (presumption of probable cause rebutted by factual disputes) |
| Assault / battery and § 1983 | Arresting officers used unlawful force in seizing Mendez; conduct and omissions show lack of lawful arrest | Arrest was based on probable cause; fellow-officer rule validates Shea’s reliance on Moreno; touching during lawful arrest not assault | Triable issues on assault/battery and § 1983 claims remain (probable cause disputed); summary dismissal denied |
| Excessive force (handcuffing) | Handcuffing was tight and harmful | Handcuffing was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment | Granted for defendants — excessive-force claim dismissed (handcuffing not unreasonable) |
Key Cases Cited
- Parkin v. Cornell Univ., 78 N.Y.2d 523 (1991) (conflicting evidence about probable cause is for the jury)
- People v. Pearson, 75 N.Y.2d 1001 (1990) (presence in public place alone does not prove dominion or control for constructive possession)
- People v. Manini, 79 N.Y.2d 561 (1992) (constructive possession requires dominion or control over area or person)
- Broughton v. State of New York, 37 N.Y.2d 451 (1975) (elements of malicious prosecution)
- Colon v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 78 (1983) (presumption of probable cause from indictment may be rebutted only by evidence of police bad faith, perjury, or suppressed evidence)
- Ketcham, 93 N.Y.2d 416 (1999) (fellow-officer rule: officer may rely on another officer’s information to establish probable cause)
- Rivera v. City of New York, 40 A.D.3d 334 (2007) (excessive-force claims analyzed under Fourth Amendment objective reasonableness)
- Ostrander v. State of New York, 289 A.D.2d 463 (2001) (tight handcuffing can be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment)