Collins v. City of N.Y.
Citation | 295 F.Supp.3d 350 |
Decision Date | 29 March 2018 |
Docket Number | 14–CV–08815 (AJN) |
Parties | Marilyn COLLINS et al., Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Gideon Orion Oliver, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.
Andrew Joseph Lucas, Brachah Goykadosh, Joy Tolulope Anakhu, Amy Robinson, Dara Lynn Weiss, Lamar Devaughn Winslow, NYC Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel, New York, NY, for Defendants.
This case arises out of arrests following an Occupy Wall Street demonstration that occurred in 2011. Plaintiffs bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of their constitutional rights against the Defendants, who are officers with the New York Police Department and the City of New York. Defendants move for summary judgment on all claims. The Court grants summary judgment on nearly every claim but concludes that genuine issues of material fact remain regarding the claims of deprivation of a right to a fair trial brought by two of the Plaintiffs.
On November 5, 2011 on Occupy Wall Street demonstration occurred in the area around the courthouse at 60 Centre Street and Foley Square in New York, New York. Pl. Affirmative 56.1 Statement ("Pl. 56.1"), Dkt. No. 102, ¶ 1; Def. 56.1 Statement ("Def. 56.1"), Dkt. No. 95, ¶¶ 1–2; Pl. Response to Def. 56.1 ("Pl. Resp."), Dkt. No. 103, Resp. 1, 2. Plaintiffs Shirazi, Heinz, LaPenne, Collins, A. Weisenhaus and C. Weisenhaus were participants in the demonstration, and Plaintiff Maclean was a volunteer Legal Observer with the National Lawyers Guild—New York Chapter who was present during the demonstration. Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 81–82; Pl. Resp. 1. Defendant Anger was the "NYPD Incident Commander in charge of subordinate officers policing the [Occupy Wall Street] demonstration" on November 5. Pl. 56.1 ¶ 1. Demonstrators formed a crowd on the sidewalk in front of 60 Centre Street but were kept off the steps of the courthouse by police officers issuing verbal warnings. Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 15–16, 18; Pl. Resp. 16, 18.
At approximately 3:00 p.m., Anger ordered subordinates, including Defendant Zielinski, to direct all people on the sidewalk in front of 60 Centre Street to leave the area or face arrest due to an alleged concern that demonstrators were obstructing the sidewalk and causing some pedestrians to walk in the roadway. Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 8–9; Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 23, 26; Pl. Resp. 23, 26; Def. Response to Pl. 56.1 ("Def. Resp."), Dkt. No. 108, at 4. Video taken between 2:58 p.m. and 3:02 p.m. does not show any pedestrians being forced to walk in the roadway. Def. Ex. U, Dkt. No. 94–23, at 0:00–4:18; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 7; Def. Resp. at 4. Defendant Zielinski gave a warning at approximately 3:05 p.m. through a bullhorn, stating Def. 56.1 ¶ 26; Pl. Resp. 26; Def. Ex. U at 6:35–7:00. The parties dispute whether all demonstrators were able to hear this order. Def. 56.1 ¶ 27; Pl. Resp. 26, 27. From video of the event, it appears that Defendant Zielinski's initial order was intermittently drowned out by the playing of harmonicas and shouts from the crowd. See Def. Ex. U at 6:47–50, 6:55–58. Defendant Zielinski thereafter read several orders telling the crowd to leave the area. Def. Ex. U at 8:00–15, 8:52–9:10; Def. 56.1 ¶ 35; Pl. Resp. 35. The parties dispute whether Defendant Zielinski told the protestors that they were able to continue protesting across the street in Foley Square. Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 13–14, 18; Def. Resp. at 5–7.
Following these orders by Defendant Zielinski, Defendant Cooke proceeded to walk through the crowd, issuing orders from a bullhorn that included Def. Ex. U at 10:09–10:25; Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 41–44; Pl. Resp. 41. An unidentified third officer issued orders from the courthouse steps, stating "folks you have to clear the sidewalk, thank you." Def. Ex. U at 10:55–11:36, 11:55–12:17; Def. 56.1 ¶ 45; Pl. Resp. 45.1. In response to these orders, the demonstrators began a chant of "We are pedestrian traffic." Def. Ex. U at 10:54–11:10; Pl. Resp. 46.
Over the following several minutes, officers gave a series of other warnings. Defendant Zielinski announced through a bullhorn Def. Ex. V, Dkt. No. 94–24, at 3:25–46; Def. 56.1 ¶ 48; Pl. Resp. 48. A few seconds later, Defendant Zielinski repeated Def. Ex. U at 12:13–23; Def. Ex. V at 4:00–15; Def. 56.1 ¶ 49; Pl. Resp. 49. Defendant Zielinski then announced Def. Ex. U at 12:25–31; Def. Ex. V at 4:29–35; Def. 56.1 ¶ 50; Pl. Resp. 50. Defendant Cooke announced through a bullhorn Def. Ex. U 12:37–51; Def. 56.1 ¶ 51; Pl. Resp. 51. He repeatedly ordered the sidewalks be cleared over the course of the next two minutes. Def. Ex. U at 12:58–14:37; Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 52–53, 62–63; Pl. Resp. 52, 53, 62, 63. Defendant Zielinski also made repeated announcements that the sidewalk was temporarily closed, and the demonstrators needed to "move on." Def. Ex. T, Dkt. No. 94–22, at 6:34–8:19 Def. Ex. U at 14:29–37; Def. Ex. V at 5:44–6:00; Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 58–59, 64–74; Pl. Resp. 58, 59, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74.
Defendant Zielinski attempted to confirm that officers standing near the back of the crowd could hear him before giving additional announcements. Def. Ex. U at 17:10–25, Pl. Resp. 83. Defendant Zielinski subsequently read an explicit arrest warning through a bullhorn, stating: Def. Ex. U at 17:24–17:50; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 32; Def. 56.1 ¶ 84; Pl. Resp. 84. Shortly thereafter, Defendant Zielinski stated Def. Ex. U at 18:06–18:31; Def. 56.1 ¶ 88; Pl. Resp. 88.
Defendant Zielinski then stopped in front of Plaintiffs A. and C. Weisenhaus, who were standing in the Centre Street bike lane at the corner of Centre Street and Pearl Street, see Def. Ex. U at 18:44–46; Def. Ex. Y, Dkt. No. 104–27, at 2:20–45, and stated He then grabbed C. Weisenhaus and stated, "Put your hands behind your back." Def. Ex. U at 18:39–55; Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 37–38; Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 90–91; Pl. Resp. 90, 91. Defendant Zielinski assigned the arrest of C. Weisenhaus to Defendant Walker. Pl. 56.1 ¶ 39; Def. 56.1 ¶ 206; Pl. Resp. 206. Defendant Zielinski ordered Defendant Li to arrest A. Weisenhaus. Def. 56.1 ¶ 194; Pl. Resp. 194. Plaintiff C. Weisenhaus told the arresting officers that she had been confused by the police officers, and the officer responded either that she should not have been arrested or that the officer was not sure why she had been arrested. Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 43–44; Def. Resp. at 15.
Defendant Zielinski again told the crowd that if they did not leave, they would be arrested. Def. Ex. U at 19:00–05; Def. 56.1 ¶ 94, Pl. Resp. 94. Plaintiffs Collins and LaPenne attempted to cross Centre Street to Foley Square to comply with the police orders. Pl. 56.1 ¶ 46. Either Defendant Zielinski or another officer then arrested Plaintiff LaPenne as she stood in the crosswalk at approximately 3:28 p.m. Def. Ex. U at 19:55; Def. Ex. W, Dkt. No. 94–25, at 1:42–58; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 48; Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 95, 175; Pl. Resp. 95, 175; Def. Resp. at 16.
Plaintiff Collins was arrested in the same crosswalk as Plaintiff LaPenne. Def. Ex. W at 1:51–59; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 47; Def. 56.1 ¶ 95. She was arrested by Defendant Zielinski and handed over to Defendant Sharma, who had observed Collins for a couple minutes prior to her arrest and who had asked Collins to "move along." Def. Ex. L ("Sharma Dep."), Dkt. No. 94–12, p. 68 ln. 3–22; Def. 56.1 ¶ 147; Pl. Resp. 147. Plaintiff Collins was arrested at approximately 3:30 p.m. Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 147–48; Pl. Resp. 147, 148.
Defendant Zielinski continued to repeat warnings that demonstrators needed to leave or they would be arrested after Collins was arrested. Def. Ex. U at 20:05–21:54; Def. Ex. W at 1:58–2:16; Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 96–97; Pl. Resp. 96, 97. Police then attempted to close the Pearl Street alley by expanding an orange mesh barrier from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fernandez v. City of N.Y.
...them satisfies the deprivation of liberty element of the claim." (Pltf. Opp. Br. (Dkt. No. 98) at 17 (citing Collins v City of N.Y., 295 F. Supp. 3d 350, 375-376 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) )) Collins does not support Plaintiffs’ argument. In Collins, plaintiff was arraigned and "required to appear in ......
-
Kayo v. Mertz
...See Ricciuti , 124 F.3d at 129. Accordingly, a "trial [was] not a prerequisite to a [fair trial] claim," Collins v. City of New York , 295 F. Supp. 3d 350, 371 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), and fair trial claims were sustained even where charges had been dismissed before trial, Rodriguez v. City of New ......
-
Case v. City of N.Y.
...area." Mesa v. City of New York , No. 09 Civ. 10464, 2013 WL 31002, at *23 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2013) ; see also Collins v. City of New York , 295 F. Supp. 3d 350, 363 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), reconsideration denied , No. 14 Civ. 08815, 2019 WL 1413999 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019) ("Defendants are entitle......
-
Egan v. N.Y.C.
...Sergeant Polanco is not entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's denial of fair trial claim. See Collins v. Citv of New York, 295 F. Supp. 3d 350, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (where Plaintiff claimed that police officer lied when he testified he saw Plaintiff in a group blocking traffic, distric......