Williams v. City of New York
62 N.Y.S.3d 401
N.Y. App. Div.2017Background
- On April 23, 2008, Williams was arrested after a single eyewitness identified him as a shooter; the eyewitness gave a police statement and testified before a grand jury. Williams was indicted on weapons charges and detained ~20 months.
- Williams was released on his own recognizance on December 11, 2009; the People dismissed charges on July 28, 2010 because they could not locate the eyewitness after grand jury testimony.
- Williams sued the City and Detective Failla (Sept. 2011) for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and § 1983 civil-rights violations.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the eyewitness statement and grand jury testimony established probable cause to arrest and prosecute.
- In opposition, Williams submitted a 2011 affidavit from the eyewitness averring his identification and grand jury testimony were fabricated due to police and ADA coercion. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to defendants; the Appellate Division modified and reversed in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of probable cause to arrest/prosecute | Eyewitness affidavit says identification was fabricated/coerced, undermining probable cause | Grand jury testimony and eyewitness statement created presumption of probable cause | Triable issue exists; affidavit could show indictment produced by coercion/bad faith, so summary judgment denied as to malicious prosecution and §1983 claims |
| Whether eyewitness affidavit improperly raises a new theory or creates feigned issues | Affidavit supports existing allegation that ID was false and coerced | Supreme Court said affidavit raised new theory / feigned issues of fact | Appellate Division: affidavit did not raise a new liability theory nor present feigned issues; it legitimately contradicted prior evidence and created triable issues |
| Qualified immunity for Detective Failla | Failla knew or recklessly disregarded lack of probable cause; his evaluation was not objectively reasonable | Failla entitled to qualified immunity because probable cause existed | Triable issue as to objective reasonableness; summary judgment on qualified immunity denied |
| Statute of limitations / notice-of-claim defenses | Malicious prosecution and §1983 timely; false arrest/imprisonment barred | False arrest/imprisonment time-barred; notice-of-claim inadequacy asserted | False arrest and false imprisonment claims dismissed as time-barred (filed >1 year 90 days after release). Malicious prosecution claim and §1983 claim not time-barred; notice-of-claim defense not considered on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Paulos v. City of New York, 122 A.D.3d 815 (discusses probable cause as defense to false arrest/malicious prosecution and §1983 equivalents)
- Blake v. City of New York, 148 A.D.3d 1101 (police misconduct can defeat presumption of probable cause from indictment)
- De Lourdes Torres v. Jones, 120 A.D.3d 572 (standard for police deviation from acceptable activity to show bad faith)
- Colon v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 78 (indictment presumption and exceptions where fraud/perjury/bad faith produced indictment)
- Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (three-year statute of limitations for §1983 actions)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (accrual rule for §1983 claims involving wrongful conviction/arrest)