Slip Opinion
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Van Dunk, Hillburn resident and Lunaape Ramapaugh Nation member, has longstanding conflicts with Ramapo P.D. and numerous civilian complaints against officers including Brower, Emma, and Lancia.
- The November 13, 2009 encounter involved Sgt. Lancia during a traffic stop; Van Dunk alleges Lancia gestured with his middle finger and created a fear for his safety.
- On November 14, 2009 Van Dunk filed a Ramapo P.D. civilian complaint against Lancia; the form warned that false statements could be prosecuted under Penal Law 210.45.
- Lt. Emma investigated, concluded Van Dunk false-accused Lancia, and charged him under 210.45; Van Dunk was later convicted, but the verdict was vacated due to improper form authorization.
- Amended Complaint asserts First Amendment retaliation (Count I), conspiracy under §1985 (Count II), and a failure-to-supervise claim against Brower (Count III).
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; the court dismissed all counts, with procedural rulings noting plaintiff’s late, deficient Rule 56.1 submissions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment retaliation viability | Plaintiff asserts Emma retaliated for protected speech criticizing Ramapo P.D. | No causal link shown between protected speech and charging decision; timing insufficient and motive unproven. | Count I granted summary judgment for Emma; no admissible proof of retaliation. |
| Conspiracy under § 1985 against Lancia and Emma | Lancia and Emma conspired to prosecute to chill speech and activism. | Intracorporate conspiracy doctrine bars §1985 claim; no tacit agreement shown. | Count II dismissed; no conspiracy shown. |
| Supervisory liability under § 1983 against Brower | Brower failed to supervise and investigate Ramapo P.D. harassment claims. | No personal participation or policy proof; no cognizable supervisory liability. | Count III dismissed; Brower entitled to summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., 195 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2001) (district courts may disregard improper Rule 56.1 responses)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (burden shifting for summary judgment; movant must show absence of material facts)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (material facts; genuine disputes require trial)
- Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., 22 F.3d 1219 (2d Cir. 1994) (retaliation claims require evidence of improper motive)
- Curley v. Village of S. Nyack, 268 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2001) (requirement of proof of improper motive; not mere conclusory assertions)
- Mozzochi v. Borden, 959 F.2d 1174 (2d Cir. 1992) (probable cause; qualified immunity concepts)