Conte v. Cnty. of Nassau
| Decision Date | 26 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | No 06-CV-4746 (JFB)(ETB),06-CV-4746 (JFB)(ETB) |
| Parties | ANTHONY CONTE, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, ET AL., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Pro se plaintiff Anthony Conte ("plaintiff" or "Conte") filed the instant action against the County of Nassau ("the County"), Robert Emmons ("Emmons"), Philip Wasilausky ("Wasilausky"), William Wallace ("Wallace"), Christina Sardo ("Sardo"), Michael Falzarano ("Falzarano") (collectively, the "County defendants"), Tefta Shaska ("Shaska"), and Larry Guerra ("Guerra") (collectively, "defendants"), alleging federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, violation of the First Amendment, conspiracy, and Monell liability against the County. Plaintiff also asserted various state-law claims.
Following discovery, both plaintiff and defendants filed motions for summary judgment with the Court. After a detailed review of the record and submissions of the parties, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order dated September 30, 2010, granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions for summary judgment and denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in its entirety. Pursuant to that Order, the following claims survived summary judgment: (1) plaintiff's false arrest claim against Wasilausky; (2) plaintiff's abuse of process claim against all of the County defendants except Sardo; (3) plaintiff's Monell claim against the County; and (4) plaintiff's tortious interference with contract claim against all of the County defendants except Sardo and Shaska.
The matter was then tried before a jury, which found that (1) Wasilausky subjected plaintiff to an unlawful arrest; (2) none of the County defendants maliciously abused process in connection with plaintiff's arreston a bad check charge or in connection with the issuance of Grand Jury subpoenas; and (3) Emmons, Wallace, and Falzarano tortiously interfered with plaintiff's contractual relationships.1 With respect to damages, the jury awarded $500.00 in compensatory damages and $26,000.00 in punitive damages against Wasilausky in connection with plaintiff's false arrest claim. As to plaintiff's tortious interference with contract claim, the jury awarded plaintiff $3,500.00 in compensatory damages for tortious acts which took place before June 1, 2005, and $700,000.00 in compensatory damages for tortious acts which took place on or after June 1, 2005. The jury also awarded punitive damages in connection with plaintiff's tortious interference with contract claim: $60,000.00 against Emmons; $443,000.00 against Wallace; and $175,000.00 against Falzarano.
Presently before the Court are post-trial motions brought by defendants Wasilausky, Wallace, Emmons, and Falzarano. These defendants move for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) on the basis that plaintiff has failed to establish the required elements of the false arrest and tortious interference with contract causes of action asserted against them. As to the false arrest, Wasilausky claims that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the following grounds: (1) he had no personal involvement with plaintiff's arrest; (2) his actions are immune from suit (he is entitled to absolute immunity for his actions surrounding the preparation and initiation of the prosecution, and he is entitled to qualified immunity for his role in the investigation phase); and (3) the presumption of probable cause created by the existence of a valid arrest warrant precludes plaintiff's cause of action entirely. As to the tortious interference claim, Emmons, Falzarano, and Wallace argue that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there is no evidence of conduct amounting to tortious interference with contract that occurred within the applicable limitations period. Specifically, Wallace argues that the only alleged tortious conduct that occurred within the limitations period are his communications with Joseph Giaimo ("Giaimo") in the summer/early fall of 2005, but that those conversations are not the basis of a tortious interference with contract claim because, inter alia, (1) there is no evidence that, in speaking to Giaimo, Wallace intentionally induced route distributors to breach their contracts with plaintiff, and (2) the damage plaintiff testified to at trial is generalized reputational injury that sounds in defamation, rather than in tortious interference with contract. Moreover, Emmons and Falzarano argue that there is no evidence of any actions by them or any injury sustained prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
The County defendants also move for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 on the grounds that (1) the jury's verdict finding tortious interference with contract is against the weight of the evidence; (2) the jury's verdict, to the extent it is based upon defamation against representatives of a District Attorney's office during their investigation of plaintiff, is erroneous and a miscarriage of justice; (3) the jury's verdict is inconsistent because the jury found for the defendants on plaintiff's malicious abuse of process claim (the only cause of action that required a showing of malice), yet awarded punitive damages against the defendants in connection with plaintiff's other claims; and (4) the damages awarded by the jury finds no basis in the record.
Also before the Court is plaintiff's motion for a new damages trial, made pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff argues that, because he was improperly denied the opportunity to present certain evidence of general damages to the jury, he is entitled to a new trial on the issue of damages.
For the reasons that follow, the County defendants' Rule 50(b) motion is granted in its entirety - Wasilausky is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff's false arrest claim and Emmons, Falzarano, and Wallace are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff's tortious interference with contract claim. Accordingly, the County defendants' Rule 59 motion for a new trial is denied as moot, as is plaintiff's motion for a new trial.
Conte founded and created I Media, a publishing and distribution company that circulated a free, colored, glossy-covered TV guide publication to households in given zip codes. (Tr. 55-57.) The first TV guide publication that I Media released was called "TV Time Magazine." (Id. at 58.) The first edition of TV Time Magazine was released for the period of November 12-27, 2004. (See Pl.'s Ex. 130.) During the course of 2004 and 2005, I Media released approximately 15 or 16 different editions of the magazine. (Tr. 77.)
Each publication contained a centerfold shopper's guide, which featured products sold by I Media's advertising affiliates. (Id. at 57-58.)2 At times, certain products were also featured on the cover of the publication. (Id. at 59.) Conte anticipated that, over time, his business would profit from advertising revenues. (Id. at 57.)
To fund I Media initially, Conte took out a second mortgage on his home and received loans from his wife and her family. (Id. at 71.) Developing I Media required (1) signing route distributors (who would purchase specific routes along which to deliver I Media's publication), and (2) finding a printer to print the publication. (Id. at 69.) In May of 2003, Conte accepted a quote from Walden Printing in Walden, New York. (Id. at 69-70.) Over the next two months, Conte signed between 20 and 30 route distributors and collected content for his publication. (Id. at 70.) When he called Walden Printing in the middle of June to inform them of these developments, he learned that the company "had stopped printing and [that] they were going out of business." (Id.) Conte was forced to begin a new search for a printer, which was time consuming. (Id. at 71.) Conte also engaged in discussions with Transcontinental Printing, a company based out of Montreal, Canada. (Id. at 626-28.) The company never entered into a contract with I Media (it merely supplied various quotations to Conte) (id. at 632-33, 650), nor did it print any editions of TV Time Magazine (id. at631).3 Conte eventually signed a contract with Quebecor World, a printing company located in Canada, on January 9, 2004. (Id. at 115-16.) Despite the existence of this contract, no printing was ever done by Quebecor World. (Id. at 130.) Conte finally switched to Evergreen Printing in January of 2005, who he printed with approximately thirteen times. (Id. at 689, 1283.)
I Media had its route distributors sign home distributor agreements.4 The contracts provided details of the route and how it was to be operated, the number of years for which the route would be in existence, information about how the route distributor would be paid, and rules and procedures of the business. (Id. at 72.) The contracts also contained a disclaimer indicating that because the business was new, its success could not be guaranteed, and that the route distributor would have the option to ask for a refund under certain conditions (i.e., if the publication was not rolled out in a certain period of time). (Id. at 73.) Each route distributor paid Conte an up-front license fee associated with the particular route that they acquired. (Id. at 694.)5 Conte sold between 40 and 60 of these routes in 2003. (Id. at 701.) Distributors were generally paid between 20 and 25 cents for each issue of TV Time Magazine that they distributed. (Id. at 693.) However, they did not begin getting paid until the fall of 2004 (despite the fact that they invested thousands of dollars up-front in 2003), when TV Time Magazine was first published. (Id. at 700-01.)
I Media created a rate card for prospective advertisers, which listed the sizes and rates of various advertising...
To continue reading
Request your trial