Gisondi v. Town of Harrison

Decision Date12 July 1988
Citation528 N.E.2d 157,532 N.Y.S.2d 234,72 N.Y.2d 280
Parties, 528 N.E.2d 157, 81 A.L.R.4th 1021 Peter V. GISONDI, Appellant, v. TOWN OF HARRISON, Respondent.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
OPINION OF THE COURT

WACHTLER, Chief Judge.

In this action to recover damages for false arrest and imprisonment and malicious prosecution, the primary question on the appeal is whether the evidence at trial was sufficient to establish a prima facie case that the police improperly withheld evidence from the courts in applying for an arrest warrant and testifying at a felony hearing, thus forfeiting their right to claim the immunity generally available to those acting in reliance on court orders.

On August 8, 1979 a woman was dragged into a car and raped in the Town of Harrison. She described her assailant to the police as a white male, over six-feet tall, with brown or black hair of medium length covering his ears, with a large muscular build, like a weight lifter, wearing a tank top, approximately 35 to 40 years old. She also said that she had scratched or "scratched at" his face during the assault. The victim described his car as new or fairly new, possibly a tan or light brown, four door, Ford LTD.

Based on the victim's description the investigating officer compiled an array of 12 photographs including the plaintiff's. The victim identified the plaintiff from his photo, as her assailant. The plaintiff fit the description the victim had given to the police, except for his age, which was 19 at the time of the incident.

The officer then took the victim to a Ford dealership where she identified a Thunderbird as the type of car used in the rape. She later identified a Thunderbird parked at the plaintiff's residence as the car in which she was raped. This car, a 1979 grey Thunderbird, is registered to the plaintiff's father's business.

On August 22 the officer obtained an arrest warrant based on the victim's identification. The following day the police arrested the plaintiff on the warrant. At the time of his arrest no scratches were noted on his face. When informed of the charge the plaintiff stated that he was at his family's summer residence in Massachusetts on the date of the rape, and produced a Massachusetts vehicle inspection sticker issued on that date and a temporary driver's license issued the following day. Subsequent investigation indicated that his car had been inspected in Massachusetts between 11:00 A.M. and 12:00 noon on the day of the rape and the plaintiff had taken a driving test there at 1:30 P.M. the following day. The Gisondi summer residence in Massachusetts is approximately 260 miles from Harrison, or about 4 to 5 hours by car.

At a felony hearing held on August 29, the victim identified the plaintiff as the rapist and the plaintiff called two witnesses who testified that they were with him in Massachusetts on the night of the rape. The court ordered the plaintiff held for the Grand Jury and on November 16 the Grand Jury voted to dismiss the charge.

The plaintiff then brought this action against the town seeking damages for false arrest and imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The plaintiff claimed that town police officers falsified certain facts and withheld exculpatory information from the courts in applying for the arrest warrant and testifying at the felony hearing.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff but the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case that the police had falsified facts or withheld evidence exculpating the defendant (120 A.D.2d 48, 507 N.Y.S.2d 419). The plaintiff appeals.

The plaintiff could not prevail on either cause of action if the police had probable cause to believe that the defendant, the plaintiff in the civil action, was the person who committed the rape ( Broughton v. State of New York, 37 N.Y.2d 451, 373 N.Y.S.2d 87, 335 N.E.2d 310). In this case the victim positively identified the plaintiff and the car, and two courts held in successive proceedings that probab cause existed to arrest the plaintiff and hold him for the Grand Jury. Under these circumstances there is a presumption that the police acted with probable cause ( Colon v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 78, 468 N.Y.S.2d 453, 455 N.E.2d 1248; Broughton v. State of New York, supra, 37 N.Y.2d at 458, 373 N.Y.S.2d 87, 335 N.E.2d 310; Langley v. City of New York, 34 N.Y.2d 885, 359 N.Y.S.2d 281, 316 N.E.2d 716). That presumption is not overcome by the fact that the Grand Jury later voted to dismiss the charges ( cf., Colon v. City of New York, supra, 60 N.Y.2d at 84, 468 N.Y.S.2d 453, 455 N.E.2d 1248). It could only be rebutted by proof the court orders were the result of fraud, perjury or the suppression of evidence by the police ( Colon v. City of New York, supra, at 82-83, 468 N.Y.S.2d 453, 455 N.E.2d 1248; Lee v. City of Mount Vernon, 49 N.Y.2d 1041, 1042, 429 N.Y.S.2d 557, 407 N.E.2d 404; Broughton v. State of New York, supra; Langley v. City of New York, supra ).

On this appeal the plaintiff focuses on the information allegedly withheld by the police in the warrant application and at the felony hearing, and claims that the proof on this point was sufficient to raise a factual question of concealment for the jury. The evidence allegedly withheld falls into two general categories.

First the plaintiff claims that the police should have disclosed to the courts the discrepancies in the victim's identification. He notes that the plaintiff was 19 at the time of the incident and not 35 to 40 years old, that no scratches were observed on his face at the time of his arrest, and that the Gisondi car is a grey two-door Ford Thunderbird, not a tan four-door Ford LTD.

Secondly he urges that the police should have investigated the alibi and disclosed the information to the court at the felony hearing.

Claims that the police concealed evidence in connection with a court application or proceeding raise special problems. The police must never resort to fraud or perjury in making such applications. However, they generally do not have to disclose everything they know whenever they appear in court. Whether the withholding of certain evidence constitutes improper concealment or proper prosecutorial discretion depends initially on the type of proceeding involved.

Under existing statutes and accepted practices little need be revealed at the earliest stages, while fuller disclosure is required before the Grand Jury ( see, e.g., Boose v. City of Rochester, 71 A.D.2d 59, 421 N.Y.S.2d 740), although even then the prosecutor is not always required to disclose all evidence that may benefit the accused ( People v. Lancaster, 69 N.Y.2d 20, 22, 511 N.Y.S.2d 559, 503 N.E.2d 990). Similarly, the police are not obligated to pursue every lead that may yield evidence beneficial to the accused, even though they had knowledge of the lead and the capacity to investigate it (Colon v. City of New York, supra; Lee v. City of Mount Vernon, supra). In short, the police and prosecutors cannot be said to have improperly concealed evidence every time the plaintiff is able to show that they could have done more or could have disclosed more. What is required is proof that the police conduct deviated...

To continue reading

Request your trial
98 cases
  • Donovan v. Briggs
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • 26 Febrero 2003
    ...need only show that there was arguably a probability that the arrestee had committed a crime. See Gisondi v. Town of Harrison, 72 N.Y.2d 280, 285, 532 N.Y.S.2d 234, 528 N.E.2d 157 (1988) ("[i]n any investigation the police are likely to encounter discrepancies .... These matters may impair ......
  • Carson v. Lewis
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 4 Febrero 1999
    ...York, 60 N.Y.2d 78, 468 N.Y.S.2d 453, 455-56, 455 N.E.2d 1248 (1983)). By further example, in Gisondi v. Town of Harrison, 72 N.Y.2d 280, 283-84, 532 N.Y.S.2d 234, 236, 528 N.E.2d 157 (1988), the New York State Court of Appeals affirmed an appellate reversal of a plaintiff's jury verdict on......
  • Maxwell v. City of New York
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 10 Julio 2003
    ...v. City of New York, No. 97 Civ. 7990, 2003 WL 21036365, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2003); accord Gisondi v. Town of Harrison, 72 N.Y.2d 280, 532 N.Y.S.2d 234, 528 N.E.2d 157, 160 (1988). As the Gisondi court Similarly, the police are not obligated to pursue every lead that may yield evidence ......
  • Poux v. Cnty. of Suffolk
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 23 Marzo 2012
    ...879 F. Supp. at 343 (quoting Gisondi v. Town of Harrison, 120 A.D.2d 48, 53, 507 N.Y.S.2d 419 (2d Dept. 1986), aff'd. 72 N.Y.2d 280, 532 N.Y.S.2d 234, 528 N.E.2d 157 (1988)) (alterations in original). "Police officers need not conduct an investigation which exculpates an arrestee." Id.; see......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT