Hughes v. The City of New York

• Decision Date: 21 September 2021
• Docket Number: 1:18-cv-09380-MKV
• Parties: VARDELL HUGHES, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER STEPHEN MALVAGNA, JOHN CAMPANELLA, LIEUTENANT CARLOS FABARA, AND OFFFICERS JOHN DOES 1-5, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

VARDELL HUGHES, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER STEPHEN MALVAGNA, JOHN CAMPANELLA, LIEUTENANT CARLOS FABARA, AND OFFFICERS JOHN DOES 1-5, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.

No. 1:18-cv-09380-MKV

United States District Court, S.D. New York

September 21, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PARTIALLY GRANTING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Vardell Hughes asserts claims against Defendants the City of New York, Police Lieutenant Carlos Fabara, and Police Officers Stephen Malvagna and John Campanella (collectively “Defendants”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York law for false arrest, malicious prosecution, failure to intervene, and respondeat superior liability. Defendants have moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of all of Plaintiff's claims (Defs.' Mot. [ECF No 84]), and Plaintiff has cross-moved for spoliation sanctions (Pl.'s Mot. [ECF No. 91]). For the reasons discussed below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED and Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background^[1]

On the night of July 14, 2017, Plaintiff, his brother Larnel, and Selfjustice Gibson were involved in a street brawl with Gamaliel Arroyo and his friends in Chelsea, Manhattan. What transpired before and during the fight is hotly contested. The Defendant officers responded to 911 calls and arrested Plaintiff, Larnell, and Gibson. As explained below, the dispositive issue on Defendants' summary judgment motion is whether Defendants had probable cause to arrest and charge Plaintiff. The following statement of facts describes the competing accounts of Arroyo and the Hughes brothers, then outlines the incident from the perspective of the Defendant officers.

According to Arroyo, Plaintiff, Larnell, and Gibson approached Arroyo and his five friends as they were walking to a deli. (Pl.'s 56.1 Response ¶ 7.) Larnell threatened Arroyo that he was going to “knock [his] head off.” (Defs.' 56.1 Statement ¶ 12.) Then Larnell and Plaintiff attacked him. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 15.) Arroyo claims he was “punched and kicked “everywhere, my face, my stomach.” (Id. ¶ 18.) Arroyo's friends fled, except for one who “squared up” with Gibson. (Id. ¶ 17.) Arroyo tried to flee into a store but was directed to leave. (Id. ¶ 20.) Arroyo left the store and continued to fight. (Id. ¶ 20.) Arroyo testified that “[a]t that time every body [sic] was throwing trash cans and garbage because I think my friends came back.” (Id. ¶ 21.) Police arrived and broke up the fight. (Id. ¶ 23.)

According to Plaintiff, Arroyo and another man approached Plaintiff and Larnell after Plaintiff handed Larnell some cash. (Pl.'s 56.1 Response ¶¶ 43, 150.) Arroyo pulled a knife and attempted to rob Plaintiff and Larnell. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 12-14, 43.) Larnell responded, “I'm not giving you anything.” (Id. ¶ 150.) Arroyo swung the knife at Larnell, grazing him (id. ¶¶ 18, 21, 45-46), so Larnell punched Arroyo (id. ¶¶ 49-50). Then approximately ten people attacked Plaintiff from behind. (Id. ¶¶ 51-53.) “Arroyo and his buddies had the upper hand throughout the fight,” Plaintiff testified. (Id. ¶ 18; see id. ¶¶ 53-65.) During the fight, the individuals threw bottles and other trash at Plaintiff and Larnell. (Id. ¶ 65.) Arroyo and Larnell fell into nearby tree shrubs as they were fighting. (Id. ¶ 68.) Plaintiff observed Arroyo on top of Larnell, so he got on top of Arroyo and began punching him. (Id. ¶¶ 67-71.) An unidentified man sprayed Larnell in the face with mace. (Id. ¶ 72.) Plaintiff punched the man and chased him off less than half a block away. (Id. ¶¶ 73-74.) As police arrived, most of Arroyo's group fled. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 156.) At that moment, Plaintiff was heading “back to the area where Larnell and Arroyo were tussling.” (Id. ¶ 23; see Id. ¶¶ 73-75.)

Defendant officers Malvagna and Campanella were on patrol that night when they received several radio transmissions regarding a large street fight. (Pl.'s 56.1 Response ¶¶ 86-89.) The dispatcher provided details about the fight, as reported by 911 callers. (Id. ¶ 88.) One radio transmission alerted the officers to fifteen people fighting, another to ten people fighting, another to ten people fighting and dispersing. (Defs.' 56.1 Response ¶¶ 152-54.) There were no reports of weapons being used. (See generally Marquez Supp. Decl. Ex. E [ECF No. 87-5].)

Officers Malvagna and Campanella arrived on scene within minutes of the first radio transmission. (Pl.'s 56.1 Response ¶ 90.) Officer Malvagna testified that he observed Plaintiff and Larnell on top of Arroyo in a “planter,” or “elevated flower bed.” (Defs.' 56.1 Statement ¶ 93.) Officer Malvagna separated Arroyo and Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 100.) Plaintiff, however, claims he was not near Arroyo when the police arrived (Pl.'s 56.1 Response ¶¶ 93, 100) but admits that at one point he, Larnell, and Arroyo were fighting in the tree shrubs (id. ¶¶ 68-71).

Officer Malvagna spoke to Arroyo and Plaintiff “to figure out what exactly happened.” (Id. ¶¶ 101-02.) Officer Malvagna testified that Arroyo informed him that he was physically attacked by Plaintiff, Larnell, and Gibson after a verbal dispute. (Defs.' 56.1 Statement ¶¶ 10304.) One of Arroyo's friends corroborated Arroyo's account-that the Hughes brothers were the initial aggressors-to Officer Malvagna. (Pl.'s 56.1 Response ¶ 108.) According to Officer Malvagna, Arroyo was upset, loud, and appeared to be injured: his shirt was ripped, his back and head were scratched, and his lip was bloody and swollen. (Defs.' 56.1 Statement ¶¶ 105-07.) However, Larnell testified that Arroyo had no noticeable injuries. (Pl.'s 56.1 Response ¶ 105; see Joubin Opp. Decl. Ex. B ¶ 10 [ECF No. 88-2].)

Officer Malvagna testified that Plaintiff and Larnell told him that they were attacked by Arroyo and his group. (Defs.' 56.1 Statement ¶ 109; Marquez Supp. Decl. Ex. C 35:10-37:6.) Officer Malvagna claims Plaintiff and Larnell never said that Arroyo's group demanded money. (Marquez Supp. Decl. Ex. C 37:7-37:10.) But Plaintiff and Larnell both testified that they told Officer Malvagna that Arroyo and his friends demanded money from them. (Pl.'s 56.1 Response ¶ 109; Defs.' 56.1 Response ¶ 159; Marquez Supp. Decl. Ex. B 31:15-31:18, 41:2-41:10; Joubin Opp. Decl. Ex. B ¶¶ 12-13.) Officer Malvagna testified that he did not observe injuries, scratches, or marks on Plaintiff (Defs.' 56.1 Statement ¶ 110), while Plaintiff testified that he had visible scratches and marks on his face, arms, and legs (Pl.'s 56.1 Response ¶ 110).

Officer Malvagna spoke with several witnesses. Two witnesses told him that Plaintiff, Larnell, and Gibson had “attacked” and were “beating up” Arroyo. (Defs.' 56.1 Statement ¶ 112; Marquez Supp. Decl. Ex. C 49:9-50:15.) A third witness told him that Plaintiff, Larnell, and Gibson started the fight. (Defs.' 56.1 Statement ¶ 113; Marquez Supp. Decl. Ex. C 62:6-62:10.) Most of Arroyo's friends refused to speak with police and left to avoid getting arrested. (Pl.'s 56.1 Response ¶ 157.)

Officer Malvagna testified that after hearing from the parties and witnesses, the police decided to handcuff and arrest Plaintiff, Larnell, and Gibson. (Defs.' 56.1 Statement ¶ 113.) Plaintiff, however, testified that police placed him in handcuffs before he gave Officer Malvagna his side of the story. (Pl.'s 56.1 Response ¶ 113; Marquez Supp. Decl. Ex. B 34:5-34:16.) Officer Malvagna testified that he did not know who made the call to arrest Plaintiff, though he believed all officers reached the same conclusion as to what had happened. (Pl.'s 56.1 Response ¶ 116.)

Plaintiff, Larnell, and Gibson were transported to the 10th Precinct. (Id. ¶ 118.) Officer Malvagna testified that he did not observe any injuries on them resembling a knife wound. (Defs.' 56.1 Statement ¶ 120.) A photograph of Larnell's arm reflects a minor cut that Larnell claims he sustained when Arroyo slashed him. (Pl.'s 56.1 Response ¶ 120; Joubin Opp. Decl. Ex. B ¶ 6 & sub-Ex. A.) Plaintiff's mugshot shows minor swelling around Plaintiff's left eye. (Marquez Supp. Decl. Ex. J [ECF No. 87-10].) Officer Malvagna took photographs of Plaintiff, Larnell, Gibson, and Arroyo on his NYPD-issued smartphone. (Marquez Supp. Decl. Ex. C 52:3-53:6, 59:359:13.)

Plaintiff was issued a desk appearance ticket. (Pl.'s 56.1 Response ¶ 122.) Officer Malvagna was designated as the arresting officer and signed the criminal court complaint. (Id. ¶¶ 121, 123.) Plaintiff was charged with assault in the third degree, N.Y. Penal Law § 120.00(1)(2), attempted assault in the third degree, N.Y. Penal Law § 110, and harassment in the second degree, N.Y. Penal Law § 240.26(1). (Id. ¶ 140.) Plaintiff's prosecution was later dismissed on speedy trial grounds pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law § 30.30. (Id. ¶ 142.)

On January 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Claim with the New York City Law Department. (Joubin Supp. Decl. Ex. A [ECF No. 92-1].) The Notice of Claim summarized the legal claims now alleged in this action; stated the date, time, and place of Plaintiff's arrest; identified Officer Malvagna specifically; and provided the docket number for the criminal case against Plaintiff. (See id.) Ten days later, on January 18, 2018, Officer Malvagna exchanged his NYPD-issued cell phone for a new one, and consequently, all of the data including the photographs of Plaintiff, Larnell, Gibson, and Arroyo, were erased. (See Marquez Supp. Decl. Ex. C 34:10-34:17; Joubin Supp. Decl. Ex. C [ECF No. 92-3].) On July 14, 2018, the NYPD Tape and Records Unit deleted the 911 calls and radio transmissions, pursuant to the 365-day audio retention policy of the NYPD. (Joubin Supp. Decl. Ex. E ¶¶...