Nimkoff v. Dollhausen
751 F. Supp. 2d 455
E.D.N.Y2010Background
- Nimkoff arrested July 18, 2007 by Nassau County Officers Dollhausen and Orefice for obstructing governmental administration after disputing questioning of a domestic incident at 12 Laura Lane.
- Robin Koschecka invited officers into the home to evict her daughter Brooke; Nimkoff, a lawyer, advised Robin not to speak further with officers.
- Nimkoff alleges officers were aggressive and handcuffed him, then transported him to the station where he was held; he claims inadequate care, water, and room conditions.
- Discrepancies exist between Nimkoff’s and officers’ accounts; supervisor Molinelli arrived after arrest; Nimkoff was booked and later released with a desk appearance ticket; the underlying charge was dismissed.
- Plaintiff asserts federal §1983 claims (false arrest, excessive force, mistreatment, privacy invasion, conspiracy, Sixth Amendment) and a Monell claim against Nassau County; state-law claims against Dollhausen, Orefice, and Nassau County are also alleged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| False arrest viability against each officer | Nimkoff argues arrest was without probable cause. | Orefice/Dollhausen contend obstruction occurred; supervisor lack of involvement. | Triable issues against Orefice and Dollhausen; no triable issues against Molinelli, Nash, or Gallagher. |
| Excessive force and custodial mistreatment | Nimkoff alleges excessive force and mistreatment by Dollhausen and Orefice. | Officers acted within reasonable standards; mistreatment insufficient against others. | Triable issues against Dollhausen and Orefice; no triable issues against Nash, Molinelli, or Gallagher. |
| Invasion of privacy in home entry | Consent to enter withdrawn; remaining in home allegedly unlawful. | Consent withdrawn but possible exigency to remain for report; no clear basis. | Triable issues against Orefice and Dollhausen; others dismissed. |
| Monell municipal liability | Nassau County had policies causing rights violations. | Monell requires policy or custom; insufficient evidence except privacy/pre-trial issues. | Monell liability denied except for Fourth Amendment privacy and pre-trial mistreatment claims; other Monell aspects dismissed. |
| Sixth Amendment right to counsel | Right to counsel during custody was violated. | Sixth Amendment applies upon adversarial proceedings; none occurred in custody. | Plaintiff’s Sixth Amendment claim dismissed against all defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard: genuine disputes require trial)
- Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., 22 F.3d 1219 (2d Cir. 1994) (summary judgment burden on the nonmoving party)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (weight of evidence; standard for summary judgment)
- Jones v. Parmley, 465 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2006) (excessive force analysis: totality of the circumstances)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) (pretrial mistreatment: need objective and subjective standard)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (privacy at home; warrant-exigency principles)
- Deshawn E. by Charlotte E. v. Safir, 156 F.3d 340 (2d Cir. 1998) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel timing in state proceedings)
- City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 (1985) (municipal policy liability; proof of policy required)
- Esmont v. City of New York, 371 F. Supp. 2d 202 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (three hours in hot car may be violation; context matters)
- Bradley v. City of New York, 2007 WL 232945 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (intracorporate conspiracy doctrine considerations)