Clarke v. Antonini
| Decision Date | 22 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21 Civ. 1877 (NSR) |
| Parties | HENDERSON CLARKE, Plaintiff, v. DET. CAMILO R. ANTONINI, Badge No. D111, DET. SGT. SEAN J. FEGAN, Badge No. DS001, THE CITY OF MOUNT VERNON, P.O. PATRICK KING, Badge No. 2113, P.O. HOWARD, Badge No. 2163, COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER, UNIDENTIFIED WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE NARCOTICS EMPLOYEES AND OFFICERS, and UNIDENTIFIED MOUNT VERNON POLICE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES AND OFFICERS, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Plaintiff Henderson Clarke brings this civil rights action asserting a variety of claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York State law, alleging that he was falsely arrested and maliciously prosecuted for selling crack cocaine to an undercover police officer in Mount Vernon, New York- an offense he could not have committed because he was in North Carolina at the time of the alleged offense. He sues Defendants Det. Camilo R. Antonini, Det. Sgt. Sean J. Fegan The City of Mount Vernon, P.O. Patrick King, P.O. Howard, and unidentified employees and officers from the Mount Vernon Police Department (collectively, the “City Defendants”), as well Defendants the County of Westchester and unidentified employees and officers from the Westchester County Department of Public Service Narcotics (collectively, the “County Defendants”) (all together, “Defendants”).
Presently pending before the Court is the City Defendants' partial motion to dismiss (ECF No. 45) and the County Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 49), both brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the following reasons the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the City Defendants' and County Defendants' motions.
The following facts are derived from the First Amended Complaint (“FAC,” ECF No. 35) and are taken as true and constructed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff at this stage.
On July 26, 2017, while Plaintiff was visiting family in North Carolina, officers Antonini, Fegan, King, Howard, and other unidentified officers from the Mount Vernon Police Department (“MVPD”) and from the Westchester County Department of Public Safety (“WCDPS”) (collectively, the “Defendant Officers”), were conducting an undercover narcotics sting operation in Mount Vernon, New York. (FAC ¶¶ 22-25.) As part of this operation, the Defendant Officers conspired together to falsely claim and produce sworn paperwork that Plaintiff sold narcotics to an undercover officer from the WCDPS in the City of Mount Vernon. Specifically, the Defendant Officers fabricated false official documents-including sworn police reports, evidence vouchers, and photocopies of cash that Plaintiff allegedly used as “buy money”-and false evidence- including five clear plastic knotted twists of crack cocaine and $100 in “buy money”-all of which the Defendant Officers used for filing of a false felony complaint dated April 24, 2018. (Id. ¶ 31.)
On May 7, 2018, the Westchester County District Attorney's Office (the “County DA's Office”) issued a press release announcing twenty-two arrests in a multi-jurisdiction drug sweep, identifying the arrestees by name and identifying an additional six individuals-including Plaintiff-who had not yet been arrested but for whom warrants had been issued. (Id. ¶ 32.) Former Mount Vernon Mayor Richard Thomas also held a press conference announcing the arrests, during which he explained that they were part of “Operation Crackdown,” a yearlong investigation by various law enforcement agencies, including the MVPD and the Westchester County Police Department (“WCPD”). (Id. ¶¶ 33-34.) Mayor Thomas also repeatedly connected the low level drug transactions involved, including the false one with which Plaintiff was charged, to acts of terrorism against the United States, referencing the then-recent terrorist attack on New York City's West Side Highway that killed eight people and injured eleven. (Id. ¶ 35.) Employees of the City publicized Plaintiff's name and likeness in connection with Operation Crackdown, and his photograph was also included together with other photographs presented on the County DA's Office website. (Id. ¶ 38.)
Nearly a year later, on July 23, 2019, based on the false documents and evidence they fabricated, the Defendant Officers arrested Plaintiff in White Plains, New York despite him repeatedly asserting his innocence to them. (Id. ¶¶ 40-46.) The Defendant Officers transported Plaintiff in an unmarked police car to Mount Vernon. (Id. ¶ 42.) The Defendant Officers forwarded the false documents and evidence they fabricated to the County DA's Office and also withheld exculpatory evidence. (Id. ¶¶ 47, 50.) As a result of these actions, the County DA's Office charged Plaintiff with violating N.Y. Penal Law § 220.39(1), Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree, a Class B Felony. (Id. ¶ 54.)
On July 26, 2019, Plaintiff entered a plea of not guilty through counsel and informed the court that he was out of state on the date of the alleged offense, presenting it with supporting evidence from his social media accounts. (Id. ¶ 56.) Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Valhalla Correctional Facility until July 27, 2019, after the court ultimately set bail in the amount of $5,000, spending in total five days incarcerated. (Id. ¶ 57.)
On September 16, 2019, the Defendant Officers took affirmative steps to cause a Superseding Misdemeanor Information against Plaintiff based on false and fabricated official documents and evidence. (Id. ¶ 59.) The Superseding Misdemeanor Information charged Plaintiff with violating N.Y. Penal Law § 220.03, Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree, a Class A Misdemeanor. (Id. ¶ 60.)
On January 9, 2020, the prosecution ultimately dismissed all criminal charges against Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 63.) Plaintiff claims that he was never provided with either any incriminating or exculpatory evidence. (Id.) Plaintiff was compelled to appear in court in at least six occasions during a period of five months before the charges were finally dismissed. (Id. ¶¶ 58, 64.) Other arrests made in connection with “Operation Crackdown” were similarly resolved by dismissal or very favorable plea deals. (Id. ¶ 66.)
(Id. ¶ 65.)
Plaintiff further claims that his false arrest and malicious prosecution is not an isolated incident, as the City and County “have long been on notice about the illegal misconduct of MVPD officers and employees,” including Antonini, Fegan, King, and Howard. (Id. ¶ 67.) This illegal misconduct includes “fabricating crimes, falsifying reports, illegally detaining individuals who have committed no crime, hiding exculpatory evidence from prosecutors, and standing by while innocent people are prosecuted for crimes they did not commit.” (Id. ¶ 68.) Prior to his arrest, Plaintiff claims that the City and the County have been aware of numerous complaints from civilians and police officers alike, civil rights lawsuits, notices of claims, and other information, that MVPD and WCDPS officers (including the Defendant Officers) routinely engaged in the same kind of misconduct that resulted in Plaintiff's arrest and prosecution. (Id. ¶ 70.) Consequently, Plaintiff claims that the City and County have been aware that their respective officers were inadequately trained and supervised and engaging in ongoing unconstitutional practices against innocent people, including Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 72.) Plaintiff proffers five civil lawsuits which he claims include allegations of similar misconduct. (Id. ¶ 74.)
On March 3, 2021, Plaintiff commenced the instant action after filing a complaint. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) On May 7, 2021, the County Defendants sought leave to file their motion to dismiss, which the Court subsequently granted and issued a briefing schedule. (ECF Nos. 26 & 27.) Three days later, the City Defendants sought leave to file their partial motion to dismiss, which the Court subsequently granted and issued a briefing schedule. (ECF Nos. 28 & 29.)
On June 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed his FAC following a joint stipulation between him and Defendants. (FAC, ECF No. 35.) After a series of extensions on the briefing schedules based on Plaintiff's amendment of his claims, on November 2 2021, the parties filed their respective briefing on the instant motions: the City Defendants filed their notice of motion (ECF No. 45), an accompanying declaration with exhibits (Acquisto Decl., ECF No. 46), memorandum in support ( ECF No. 47), and reply ( ECF No. 48); the County Defendants filed their notice of motion (ECF No. 49), an accompanying declaration with exhibits (Zeitler Decl., ECF No. 51), memorandum in support ( ECF No. 50), and reply (...
To continue reading
Request your trial