97 F. Supp. 3d 241
E.D.N.Y2015Background
- Norton owned a partial interest in a residential property in the Town of Islip; Town investigators (Eckert, Mistretta) inspected after a garage fire and issued appearance tickets and accusatory instruments for renting without a permit and prohibited storage (2010–2011).
- Norton alleges the second set of appearance tickets and prosecutions (Rental/Storage Appearance 2 and Accusatory 2) were retaliatory and legally defective, tied to his prior litigation and FOIL disputes with the Town; the second set was later dismissed by state court for jurisdictional defects.
- Norton sued (Norton III) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law asserting First Amendment retaliation, malicious prosecution/abuse of process, Fourth Amendment and procedural due process violations, Monell claims against the Town and County, and declaratory relief invalidating the Town’s Rental Code.
- Town attorneys (Sidaras, Walsh, O’Connor) and investigators moved to dismiss; Norton cross‑moved for summary judgment on invalidating the Rental Code.
- The district court reviewed the pleadings/exhibits under Twombly/Iqbal standards, took judicial notice of state court records, and evaluated absolute and qualified immunity, probable cause, and whether federal claims supported jurisdiction for declaratory relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment retaliation (§ 1983) based on re‑issued tickets | Norton: attorneys/investigators re‑issued tickets to retaliate for his lawsuits and FOIL litigation | Town: prosecutorial acts are absolutely immune; tickets supported by probable cause; some defendants lacked personal involvement | Court: dismissed Count 1. Sidaras and Walsh entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity; Mistretta and Eckert dismissed for failure to plead causation/personal involvement and because tickets were supported by probable cause |
| Malicious prosecution (state tort & § 1983) | Norton: prosecutions were malicious, lacking probable cause, and motivated by retaliation; favorable termination occurred (dismissal) | Town: absolute immunity for prosecutorial acts; lack of post‑arraignment seizure/deprivation of liberty; probable cause; insufficient personal involvement/allegations | Court: § 1983 malicious prosecution (Count 13) dismissed—Walsh and O’Connor absolutely immune, Sidaras partially immune; remaining allegations failed to show a Fourth Amendment post‑arraignment deprivation; related state and municipal claims dismissed or declined for supplemental jurisdiction |
| Fourth Amendment (Monell) — warrantless search/entry by investigator | Norton: Eckert’s February 3, 2010 interior search of the Claywood property violated his reasonable expectation of privacy and reflected Town customs/failure to train | Town: Norton may lack standing as landlord; single incident insufficient to plead municipal custom/policy | Court: standing plausibly alleged, but Monell claim dismissed for failure to plead a municipal policy/custom (single incident insufficient) |
| Declaratory relief re: Town Rental Code and pattern/practice claims | Norton: seeks federal declaratory rulings that Town practices violate rights and the Rental Code is invalid | Town/County: Declaratory Judgment Act is procedural and cannot supply independent federal jurisdiction once § 1983 claims fail | Held: Counts 9–11 dismissed without prejudice for lack of independent federal jurisdiction; summary judgment on Count 11 denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions not accepted as true on a motion to dismiss)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires a policy or custom causing constitutional violation)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (absolute prosecutorial immunity for core advocacy functions)
- Manganiello v. City of New York, 612 F.3d 149 (elements of § 1983 malicious prosecution and requirement of Fourth Amendment deprivation)
- Warney v. Monroe County, 587 F.3d 113 (functional test for prosecutorial immunity)
- Giraldo v. Kessler, 694 F.3d 161 (prosecutorial immunity determined by function performed)
- Fabrikant v. French, 691 F.3d 193 (probable cause is absolute defense to retaliation claims premised on prosecution)