Brown v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 13 December 2001 |
| Citation | 289 A.D.2d 95,735 N.Y.S.2d 21 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | SHAWN BROWN, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents. |
In view of the evidence that the victim told the detective at the hospital on the morning of the shooting that he would be able to identify the gunman if he were to see him again; that the victim unequivocally picked defendant's photo at the precinct a few weeks later; and that the victim unequivocally identified plaintiff in a lineup, it is clear, as a matter of law, that there was probable cause to arrest plaintiff, which circumstance is a complete defense to plaintiff's purported Federal claim for false arrest (Weyant v Okst, 101 F3d 845, 852).
Plaintiff's State and purported Federal malicious prosecution claims were properly dismissed "for failure to raise an issue of fact that the indictment was procured by fraud, perjury, suppression of evidence or other police conduct undertaken in bad faith * * * or prosecuted after evidence came to light demonstrating the absence of probable cause" (Graham v City of New York, 279 AD2d 435, 436). As soon as the victim informed the District Attorney's office that he had made a wrong identification, the case was discontinued. Moreover, as the IAS court concluded, plaintiff made no showing that the authorities had been motivated by actual malice.
Plaintiff's contention that defendants' violation of CPL 160.55 supports a 42 USC § 1983 claim is without merit. Plaintiff has not alleged that the purported wrongful behavior was the result of a custom or policy utilized by defendants, as is required in a section 1983 action (Monell v Department of Social Servs. of City of N. Y., 436 US 658, 694-695). Moreover, just as a violation of a related sealing statute, namely CPL 160.50, does not implicate constitutional considerations (see, Moore v Dormin, 252 AD2d 421, 425 [Tom, J., concurring], lv denied 92 NY2d 816), neither did defendants' failure to remove from inspection plaintiff's photo and arrest sheet, which had been sealed under CPL 160.55, create a section 1983 interest in reputation or privacy (see, id.).
We have reviewed plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reiner v. City of N.Y.
...ofSchenectady, supra; Molina v. New York, 28 A.D.3d 372; Marrero v. City of New York, 33 A.D.3d 556 [1st Dept.2006]; Brown v. City of New York, 289 A.D.2d 95 [1st Dept. 2001]). Defendants next argue that plaintiff's 42 USC § 1983 claim warrants dismissal because he has failed to meet the pl......
-
Hernandez v. City of New York
...of probable cause to arrest is a complete defense to such claims ( see Marrero at 557, 824 N.Y.S.2d 228;Brown v. City of New York, 289 A.D.2d 95, 735 N.Y.S.2d 21 [1st Dept.2001] ). The motion court properly denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. Our search of the record ( see......
-
Phin v. City of N.Y., 5475
...197 [2012] ), and federal claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution (see Brown v. City of New York, 289 A.D.2d 95, 735 N.Y.S.2d 21 [1st Dept. 2001] ; Manganiello v. City of New York, 612 F.3d 149, 161–162 [2d Cir. 2010] ).The existence of probable cause likewise......
-
Garcia v. City of N.Y.
...prosecution under state law (Lawson at 609, 922 N.Y.S.2d 54) and his claim under 42 USC § 1983 ( see Brown v. City of New York, 289 A.D.2d 95, 735 N.Y.S.2d 21 [1st Dept.2001];Weyant v. Okst, 101 F.3d 845, 852 [2d Cir.1996] ). Plaintiff failed to raise any triable issue of fact that the writ......