Coggins v. Cnty. of Nassau

• Citation: 254 F.Supp.3d 500
• Decision Date: 26 May 2017
• Docket Number: No. 07-CV-3624 (JFB) (AKT).,07-CV-3624 (JFB) (AKT).
• Parties: Darryl T. COGGINS, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, Nassau County Police Department, Police Officer James Vara, in his individual and official capacity, Police Officer Craig Buonora, in his individual and official capacity, and John Does 1–10, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.
• Court: United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)

254 F.Supp.3d 500

Darryl T. COGGINS, Plaintiff,

v.COUNTY OF NASSAU, Nassau County Police Department, Police Officer James Vara, in his individual and official capacity, Police Officer Craig Buonora, in his individual and official capacity, and John Does 1–10, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.

No. 07-CV-3624 (JFB) (AKT).

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Signed May 26, 2017

Plaintiff is represented by Frederick K. Brewington and Cathryn A. Harris of the Law Offices of Frederick K. Brewington, 556 Peninsula Boulevard, Hempstead, NY 11550.

Defendants are represented by Andrew K. Preston of Bee Ready Fishbein Hatter & Donovan LLP, 170 Old Country Road, Mineola, NY 11501, and Diane C. Petillo from the Office of the Nassau County Attorney, One West Street, Mineola, NY 11501.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Joseph F. Bianco, District Judge:

Plaintiff Darryl T. Coggins ("Coggins" or "plaintiff") brought this action against defendants County of Nassau ("Nassau County" or "the County"); Nassau County Police Department ("NCPD"); Police Officers James Vara ("Vara") and Craig Buonora ("Buonora"), in their individual and official capacities; and John Does 1–10, in their individual and official capacities (collectively, "defendants"), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985, and New York State tort law.

A grand jury empaneled by the Nassau County District Attorney's Office ( "DA's Office") indicted Coggins on March 17, 2005, on charges of unlawful possession of a weapon and resisting arrest. After the DA's Office dismissed the criminal charges against Coggins, it indicted Buonora for perjury. Buonora pled guilty. In this action, Coggins contends that defendants actively prosecuted him despite knowing he was innocent. Specifically, he alleges that Buonora and Vara conspired to and did, inter alia , falsify police reports, affidavits, and memorandum books; fabricate evidence; and commit perjury during grand jury proceedings.

Presently before the Court are two motions. First, Coggins moves to file a Fourth Amended Complaint ("FAC") to add a 28 U.S.C. § 1983 (" Section 1983") excessive force claim (and related state law claims) in light of newly discovered evidence. Defendants oppose, arguing, inter alia , that plaintiff has inexcusably delayed in asserting the claims he now seeks to add to the complaint. Second, defendants move for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

As set forth below, the Court denies plaintiff's motion to amend and grants in part and denies in part defendants' motion for summary judgment. Specifically, the Court concludes that defendants are entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (" Section 1981") claim, federal and state abuse of process claims, 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (" Section 1985") claim, and state law negligence claims, but not on his remaining claims.

I. BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the parties' depositions, affidavits, and exhibits, and the parties' respective Rule 56.1 statements of fact.¹ (See Defs.' Rule 56.1 Statement ("Defs.' 56.1"), ECF No. 232–2; Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' Rule 56.1 Statement ("Pl.'s 56.1 Resp."), ECF No. 236–1, 1–8; Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Statement ("Pl.'s 56.1"), ECF No. 236–1, 9–31.) Unless otherwise noted, the facts are undisputed. Upon consideration of the motion for summary judgment, the Court shall construe the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmoving party, and will resolve all factual ambiguities in his favor. See Capobianco v. New York , 422 F.3d 47, 50 n.1 (2d Cir. 2001).

A. Facts

Coggins is an African–American male. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 18.) Early on October 9, 2004, plaintiff was driving with two other African American individuals, Jovan Miles and Aaron Simmons, when Vara effectuated a stop on plaintiff's car. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 1–2, 4; Pl.'s 56.1 Resp. ¶¶ 1–2, 4; Pl.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 9, 11, 18.) When plaintiff asked why he was being pulled over, Vara gave no reason but instructed plaintiff to step out of the vehicle. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 19–20.) Vara then administered a breathalyzer. (Id. ¶ 22; Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 5.) Plaintiff denies that any of the occupants of the vehicle had been drinking before the stop. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 11–15.) Vara does not recall—and did not record—the results of the field sobriety tests. (Id. ¶ 120.)

After administering the breathalyzer, Vara allegedly became aggressive, verbally threatening plaintiff and grabbing him. (Id. ¶¶ 23, 25; Pl.'s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff claims he asked Vara to stop grabbing him and Vara responded by stating "he would do more than that." (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 26.) At some point, Vara placed his hand on his firearm. (Id. ¶ 27.) Nervous, plaintiff fled on foot just as Buonora was pulling up in his patrol car. (Id. ¶¶ 28–31; Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 5–6.) As he was fleeing, plaintiff heard Buonora yell, "shoot him in the back." (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 31.) Buonara and Vara chased plaintiff, who ran through some nearby yards, but they could not catch him. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 7; Pl.'s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 7; Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 30.) Vara then searched the yards through which plaintiff had ran, but he found no evidence. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 40–41.)

Meanwhile, Floral Park Police Officer John Wilson ("Wilson") discovered an empty magazine² next to plaintiff's vehicle. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 9; Defs.' Resp. 56.1 ¶ 9.) Wilson asked passengers Miles and Simmons where the gun was, and they told him there was no gun. (Preston Decl., Ex. AB, at 19–20.) Wilson ordered them to show their hands, the passengers complied, and more officers subsequently arrived on the scene. (Id. at 20–21.) Later, Wilson found a loaded, 9 millimeter pistol next to a fence near the scene. (Id. at 30; Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 10; Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 10.) Officers then ordered Miles and Simmons to exit the vehicle, told them a gun had been found, handcuffed them, patted them down, and placed them in separate squad cars. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 35–37, 39.)

Later that day, plaintiff appeared at the police station with his attorney to surrender himself. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 12; Pl.'s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 12; Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 48.) While plaintiff was handcuffed to a bench at the precinct, Vara entered and made a comment about plaintiff's escape. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 50.) Plaintiff alleges that Vara then punched him in the face twice and other officers had to pull Vara away. (Id. ; see also FAC ¶ 34.)

Detective Alexander Barnych and Sergeant Mitchell Tepperman subsequently filed two felony complaints against plaintiff, charging him with two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 13; Pl.'s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 13.) After arraignment, Buonora falsely testified before the grand jury that he "heard a noise when [plaintiff] jumped the fence which sounded like metal hitting the ground.... And [he] looked down to see what it was and found the gun there." (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 99; see also Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 17; Pl.'s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 17.) Buonora had spoken with the Assistant District Attorney ("ADA") who handled the case prior to his grand jury testimony, and Buronora only testified about the gun. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 100, 102.) Buonora's sworn handwritten statement to the NCPD Internal Affairs Unit ("Internal Affairs") also states that he, not Wilson, found the magazine next to plaintiff's vehicle. (Id. ¶ 103.)

In addition, the arrest report completed by Detective Barnych indicated that Vara had reported hearing the sound of a gun hit the ground when plaintiff jumped over a chain link fence and that Vara had secured the gun. (Id. ¶ 83.) His Standard Requisition Request Form also indicates that he "safeguarded the wepon [sic]." ( Id. ¶ 86.) At his deposition, however, Vara testified that he never told Detective Barnych that he had heard the sound of a gun hitting the ground or secured the gun. (Id. ¶ 84.) Vara later admitted to investigators that he falsified the Requisition Form. (Id. ¶ 88.)

The criminal case against plaintiff was dismissed when Buonora's false testimony came to light. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 18; Pl.'s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 18.) On October 29, 2005, NCPD's Forensic Evidence Bureau discovered that the handgun Wilson recovered at the scene had been reported missing from the Orangeburg Department of Public Safety in South Carolina. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 108.)

Internal Affairs charged Vara with perjury, making a false sworn statement, making a false written statement, and harassment for his false statements made in connection with the arrest and prosecution of plaintiff. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 90.) Vara accepted immunity in exchange for his testimony against Buonora. (Id. ¶ 92.) Internal Affairs ultimately found Vara guilty of issuing a false communication, but the perjury charge was left "undetermined" based on his immunity. (Id. ¶¶ 94–95.) Ten vacation days were revoked as punishment on the false communication charge. (Id. ¶ 96.) He was not suspended or demoted, his salary was not reduced, and the County has indemnified him in the current action for the counts in the Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"). (Id. ¶¶ 97–98.)

Internal Affairs charged Buonara with submitting false official communications. (Id. ¶ 110.) He was also arrested, criminally charged with first-degree perjury (a felony), and suspended without pay for one month in September 2005. (Id. ¶¶ 109, 113.) Buonora did not challenge the Internal Affairs charges and entered into a Disciplinary Stipulation and Agreement on August 15, 2006. (Id. ¶ 111.) As punishment, he lost 100 vacation days, was put on desk duty, and was put on probation for one year. (Id. ¶¶ 111–12.) In the criminal case, he pled guilty to third-degree perjury (a misdemeanor) and was sentenced to three years' probation. (Id. ¶¶ 114; see also Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 19; Pl.'s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 19.)

B. Procedural History

Coggins filed the Complaint on August 28, 2007. (ECF No. 1.) The case has undergone extensive motion practice since that time, including two motions to dismiss and multiple appeals to the Second Circuit. (See, e.g. , ECF Nos. 28, 70, 170.) The Court dismissed several of plaintiff's claims on defendants' ...