Garcha v. City of Beacon

• Decision Date: 10 April 2007
• Docket Number: 2005-09867.
• Citation: Garcha v. City of Beacon, 39 A.D.3d 587, 834 N.Y.S.2d 275, 2007 NY Slip Op 3096 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
• Parties: SATWANT SINGH GARCHA, Appellant, v. CITY OF BEACON et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

39 A.D.3d 587

834 N.Y.S.2d 275

2007 NY Slip Op 03096

SATWANT SINGH GARCHA, Appellant, v. CITY OF BEACON et al., Respondents.

2005-09867.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.

Decided April 10, 2007.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for civil rights violations pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Sproat, J.), dated September 29, 2005, which granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The instant action arises out of the 1998 seizure of the plaintiff's personal handgun by officers of the City of Beacon Police Department when they arrested the plaintiff while responding to a 911 call related to a domestic dispute at his residence. Subsequently, after a hearing at which the plaintiff appeared, the City Court of the City of Beacon ordered the destruction of the weapon. The plaintiff commenced an action against the City of Beacon, City of Beacon Police Chief R. Stassi, and City of Beacon Police Detective Donald F. Williams, Jr., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging, inter alia, the violation of certain constitutional rights, including due process and equal protection, and seeking damages. After that action was dismissed on the merits by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (see Garcha v City of Beacon, 351 F Supp 2d 213 [2005]), the plaintiff commenced this action alleging the same causes of action against the same defendants. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7), contending that the action was barred by res judicata and, inter alia, failed to state a cause of action in any event.

The Supreme Court granted that branch of the...