Phillips v. City of New York, 1:21-cv-08149

Plaintiffs—Paul Phillips, Randy Rosario, Kylaysia Thompson, and Khaori Wright—allege New York City and its agencies have a policy of directing individuals with outstanding warrants straight to Rikers Island or city jails, bypassing court appearances and judicial oversight.
Plaintiffs claim this policy results in indefinite detention without judicial review, in violation of statutory and constitutional rights, including C.P.L. § 530.70 and the right to prompt appearance before a judge.
Plaintiffs moved to strike defendants’ exhibits and motions associated with defendants’ motion to dismiss, arguing these included improper use of extrinsic documents.
The defendants countered that these documents (arrest reports, OLPA reports, movement histories, etc.) are either integral to, or incorporated by reference in, the complaint, or are proper subjects for judicial notice.
The court previously stayed briefing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss pending a ruling on plaintiffs’ motion to strike.
This decision addresses the plaintiffs’ renewed motion to strike selected exhibits and the entirety of the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Should the Court strike the entire motion to dismiss?	The motion relies on extrinsic materials outside the complaint.	Court may consider or disregard extrinsic docs; full exclusion unwarranted.	Denied—striking whole motion not warranted.
Should public records submitted as exhibits be stricken?	Use of these documents is for the truth of their contents, which is impermissible.	Docs are public records, integral, or incorporated by reference; proper for notice.	Denied—public docs properly considered.
Should agency policy documents (Patrol Guide/Operations Order) be stricken?	Not all are cited in complaint or proven to be current policy.	At least one is cited or integral; both relevant to complaint’s allegations.	Denied—both documents may be considered.
Should exhibit-specific challenges (e.g., movement logs, follow-up reports) succeed?	Specific records are unreliable or not clearly referenced/integral.	Plaintiffs did not specifically dispute these exhibits' accuracy/integrity.	Denied—exhibits may be considered on 12(b)(6).

Pani v. Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, 152 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 1998) (documents incorporated by reference are part of the pleading and may be considered on a motion to dismiss)
Kramer v. Time Warner Inc., 937 F.2d 767 (2d Cir. 1991) (court may take judicial notice of public records on motion to dismiss)
Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2002) (documents that are integral to the complaint may be considered even if not incorporated by reference)
Roth v. Jennings, 489 F.3d 499 (2d Cir. 2007) (public records may be used to determine what statements they contain, not for the truth of their contents)
Brass v. Am. Film Techs., 987 F.2d 142 (2d Cir. 1993) (documents cited in the complaint may be considered on a motion to dismiss)