Alexis v. Town of Cheektowaga

• Decision Date: 10 November 2021
• Docket Number: 17-CV-985S
• Parties: CHARLES D. ALEXIS, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF CHEEKTOWAGA, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

CHARLES D. ALEXIS, Plaintiff,
v.
TOWN OF CHEEKTOWAGA, et al., Defendants.

No. 17-CV-985S

United States District Court, W.D. New York

November 10, 2021

DECISION AND ORDER

WILLIAM M. SKRETNY, United States District Judge

I. Introduction

This is a removed civil rights action, see 28 U.S.C. 1443 (Docket No.1, Notice of Removal), arising from Plaintiff's arrest by Cheektowaga Police officers. Plaintiff claims Defendants violated his constitutional rights. He also alleges common law false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and negligent hiring, training, and supervision. (Docket No. 20, 2d Am. Compl.)

Before this Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 29). For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is granted, dismissing the First Cause of Action. After the stipulated dismissal of one state law cause of action, Plaintiff's remaining state law causes of action are remanded to New York State Supreme Court.

II. Background

A. Facts

For this summary judgment Motion, the facts from Defendants' Statement of Facts (Docket No. 29, Defs. Statement) are generally not disputed, see W.D.N.Y. Loc. Civ. R. 56(a)(2), save whether a surveillance video identified Plaintiff (compare Docket No. 31, Pl. Statement of Facts ¶ 3 with Docket No. 29, Defs. Statement ¶ 3). This Court will recite

1

facts as alleged in the Second Amended Complaint (Docket No. 20) and stated in Defendants' Statement of Facts (Docket No. 29), noting when Plaintiff disputes a given fact.

1. Slashing of the Motorcycle Tire

On Sunday, August 17, 2014, Megan Klein (an acquaintance of Plaintiff, Docket No. 20, 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 22) called Cheektowaga Police Department complaining that she had recorded Plaintiff slashing her friend's motorcycle tire (Docket No. 29, Defs. Statement ¶ 1). Klein had installed a security camera in her apartment facing the apartment's parking lot (id. ¶ 2). Defendants contend that the District Attorney determined that Plaintiff was depicted on Klein's security footage slashing the tire (id. ¶ 3, citing Docket No. 29, Defs. Atty. Aff. Ex. N (notes of District Attorney, Mar. 11, 2016)). Plaintiff, however, disputes this, arguing that the video did not conclusively identify him or his vehicle (Docket No. 31, Pl. Statement ¶ 3; cf. Docket No. 29, Defs. Ex. R (Klein's surveillance video of incident)).

According to the police report recorded by Defendant Officer Emil DeVincentis, the officer was dispatched to Klein's apartment where he met Tyler Gajewski (the owner of the motorcycle) and saw the vandalized tire (Docket No. 29, Defs. Atty. Aff. Ex. G). Gajewski said he was visiting his former girlfriend (Klein) at her apartment and Gajewski claimed that Plaintiff was stalking Klein (id.). Gajewski reported that Plaintiff earlier had vandalized Klein's car which was reported to the Cheektowaga Police Department; Klein then set up a surveillance camera to monitor the parking lot (id.; see also Docket No. 29, Defs. Atty. Aff. Ex. S, 911 audio recording).

2

Gajewski executed a deposition of fact to the Cheektowaga Police Department repeating that the video showed Plaintiff slashing his motorcycle tire (Docket No. 29, Defs. Atty. Aff. Exs. G, I (Deposition of Fact)). He identified Plaintiff's vehicle as a 2006 gray Jeep and gave a license plate number (id., Ex. I). Officer DeVincentis, however, identified that vehicle as being Klein's (id., Ex. G). Gajewski estimated the replacement value of the damaged tire was $300 (Docket No. 29, Defs. Statement ¶ 5; Docket No. 29, Defs. Atty. Aff. Ex. I).

Officer DeVincentis then looked up Plaintiff's license plate number and discovered his address on Miller Street, in Depew, New York (Docket No. 29, Defs. Atty. Aff. Ex. G).

Officer DeVincentis reported that the surveillance video showed Plaintiff exit his car, slash the tire, return to his car, and leave (Docket No. 29, Defs. Atty. Aff. Ex. G). This Court also viewed the 45-second surveillance video. It showed a dark sedan approach a red motorcycle in a parking lot. The car's driver exited that vehicle and approached the front motorcycle tire, touched the tire, returned to the car, and drove away. The driver was in dark clothing and his face was not visible. The video showed only the side of the car, but not its license plates. (Docket No. 29, Defs. Atty. Aff. Ex. R.)

This Court also heard Klein's 911 call to the Cheektowaga Police Department (Docket No. 29, Defs. Atty. Aff. Ex. S). There, Klein identified Plaintiff as the person who slashed Gajewski's tire, and that Plaintiff was the same person who earlier had vandalized her vehicle (id.).

3

2. Plaintiff's Arrest

Officer DeVincentis and another officer (sued here as John Doe Defendant^[1]) arrived at Plaintiff's Miller Street, Depew, residence (Docket No. 29, Defs. Statement ¶ 6; Docket No. 29, 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 14). Plaintiff claimed that he was unaware why these officers were there (Docket No. 29, 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 16). He alleges that DeVincentis' first words to Plaintiff was “I saw the video” (id. ¶ 17) but did not say what video he was referring to (id. ¶ 18). The officers requested his permission to enter, and Plaintiff granted it (id. ¶ 19). The officers then confronted Plaintiff and arrested him, escorting Plaintiff from his house (id. ¶¶ 20-21). Plaintiff claims that he was never informed why the officers were there or why he was being arrested (id. ¶ 23). Defendants contend that Plaintiff was charged with criminal mischief in the third degree (Docket No. 29, Defs. Statement ¶ 7; see Docket No. 29, Defs. Atty. Aff. Ex. G, at 2 (police report stating officers arrived at 10 Miller Street and immediately arrested Plaintiff)), a felony.

Plaintiff was arraigned on Monday, August 18, 2014, and released on his own recognizance (Docket No. 20, 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 8), after being held for 20 hours (Docket No. 20, 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 24; Docket No. 31, Pl. Statement Additional Material Facts ¶ 18).

After weeks of proceedings and adjournments of the criminal trial (Docket No. 29, Defs. Statement ¶¶ 10, 11; but cf. Docket No. 31, Pl. Statement ¶ 10), Plaintiff was offered and accepted an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (“ACD”) (id. ¶¶ 12, 13).

B. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed this action in New York State Supreme Court against the Town of Cheektowaga (also referenced as “Town”), Officers DeVincentis and John Doe, and the

4

Cheektowaga Police Department (Docket No. 1, Notice of Removal, Ex. A, Compl.). Defendants removed this case to this Court (Docket No. 1) and then answered the original Complaint (Docket No. 3).

Plaintiff amended the Complaint twice (Docket Nos. 15, 20; see Docket Nos. 13 (Plaintiff's first Motion), 14 (text Order granting first Motion), 16 (Plaintiff's second Motion), 19 (text Order granting second Motion)). The Second Amended Complaint now alleges five causes of action (Docket No. 20). The First Cause of Action alleges Defendants unreasonably seized and deprived Plaintiff of his liberty without due process, in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments (id. ¶¶ 30-36). The Second Cause of Action alleges Defendants falsely arrested Plaintiff in violation of New York common law (id. ¶¶ 38-40). The Third Cause of Action also alleges Defendants committed common law false imprisonment of Plaintiff (id. ¶¶ 42-49). The Fourth Cause of Action asserts common law malicious prosecution by all Defendants (id. ¶¶ 51-55). Finally, the Fifth Cause of Action alleges the Town of Cheektowaga and its Police Department negligently hired, trained, and supervised Officers DeVincentis and John Doe (id. ¶¶ 57-62). Defendants answered the Second Amended Complaint (Docket No. 21).

The Case Management Order set the discovery deadline of November 12, 2018, with dispositive motions due by May 15, 2019 (Docket No. 11). On November 12, 2018, Plaintiff moved unsuccessfully to extend the time to complete discovery (Docket Nos. 25 (Motion), 26 (Order of Magistrate Judge Jeremiah McCarthy, Nov. 16, 2018)).

5

On May 21, 2019, Defendants moved for summary judgment (Docket No. 29)^[2]. Responses to that Motion were due June 18, 2019, and reply by July 2, 2019 (Docket No. 30). After completion of briefing, this Court reserved decision without oral argument.

III. Discussion

A. Applicable Standards

1. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, ” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A fact is “material” if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law, ” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). An issue of material fact is “genuine” if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party, ” id.

The movant seeking summary judgment has the burden (through pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, affidavits, and other materials, Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)) to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, Ford v. Reynolds, 316 F.3d 351, 354 (2d Cir. 2003).

In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the evidence and the inferences drawn from the evidence must be “viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, ” Addicks v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970). “Only when reasonable minds could not differ as to the import of evidence is

6

summary judgment proper, ” Bryant v. Maffucci, 923 F.2d 979, 982 (2d Cir. 1991). The function of the Court is not “to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue of fact for trial, ” Anderson, supra, 477 U.S. at 249. “Assessment of credibility and choices between conflicting versions of the events are matters for the jury, not for the court on summary judgment, ” Rule...