Murray v. City of New York
154 A.D.3d 591
N.Y. App. Div.2017Background
- Plaintiff Donnell Murray was arrested by NYPD officers after an incident involving his car and a loaded gun allegedly found in the vehicle.
- Parties dispute key facts: whether Murray produced his driver’s license/registration at the scene and whether officers had probable cause to stop, impound, and search the car.
- Murray alleges an officer planted the gun and that precinct officers had a history of retaliatory harassment against him.
- Defendants relied on DMV records showing Murray’s license was suspended; officers did not know the suspension at the time of arrest.
- Murray asserted federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, excessive force, illegal search) and state malicious prosecution claims; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Appellate Division reversed and denied the motion, finding triable issues of fact on multiple claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to arrest and to impound/search vehicle | Murray contends facts (e.g., producing license, no valid reason to impound/search) show officers lacked probable cause | Officers claim sufficient grounds to arrest, impound and search; rely on DMV records showing suspended license | Reversed: disputed facts create triable issue whether officers had probable cause; DMV records inadmissible to show officers’ knowledge at time of arrest |
| Use of gun (fruit of search) to establish probable cause for prosecution | Murray says gun may have been planted and obtained via illegal search, so cannot conclusively establish probable cause | Defendants argue gun establishes probable cause for weapon possession charge | Court rejects defendants: existence of disputed facts (illegal search, planting, retaliation) precludes using the gun conclusively to defeat malicious prosecution claim |
| Malicious prosecution (probable cause & actual malice) | Murray argues lack of probable cause and evidence of officers’ animus/retaliation support malice | Defendants contend probable cause existed and no evidence of malice | Triable issues of fact exist on both probable cause for prosecution and actual malice; summary judgment improper |
| Excessive force / Qualified immunity | Murray claims placement into police car caused shoulder injury and ER visit; challenges officers’ force | Officers assert they used reasonable force and are entitled to qualified immunity | Triable fact issue on whether force was unreasonable; factual disputes (probable cause, alleged misconduct) preclude qualified immunity at summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendez v. City of New York, 137 A.D.3d 468 (1st Dept. 2016) (probable cause standard for arrest at summary judgment)
- Smith v. County of Nassau, 34 N.Y.2d 18 (1974) (police knowledge at time of arrest governs probable cause; post-arrest records generally irrelevant)
- Cheeks v. City of New York, 123 A.D.3d 532 (1st Dept. 2014) (police knowledge and record evidence in probable cause analysis)
- Broughton v. State of New York, 37 N.Y.2d 451 (1975) (elements of malicious prosecution include want of probable cause and actual malice)
- Ostrover v. City of New York, 192 A.D.2d 115 (1st Dept. 1993) (limits on using evidence obtained via illegal search to establish probable cause)
- Townes v. City of New York, 176 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 1999) (probable cause and exclusionary-rule-related issues in § 1983 context)
- Jones v. Parmley, 465 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2006) (excessive force standards and injury evidence)
- Munafo v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 285 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2002) (qualified immunity and knowing violation of clearly established law)