Kalamaras v. Cnty. of Nassau

Decision Date16 September 2019
Docket NumberCase No. 17-cv-1068 (SFJ)(ARL)
PartiesJAMES KALAMARAS, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, MADELINE SINGAS, in her individual and official capacities, GEORGE SMIT, in his individual and official capacities, ANNE DONNELLY, in her individual and official capacities, DETECTIVE BRIAN KAMINSKI, in his individual and official capacities, DETECTIVE MATTHEW SCHILLER, in his individual and official capacities, JOHN DOE POLICE OFFICER #1, in his individual and official capacities, JOHN DOE POLICE OFFICER #2, in his individual and official capacities, JANE DOE POLICE OFFICER #1, in her individual and official capacities, NICHOLAS BAIALARDO, JAMES M. CHMELA, and JOSE SANTIAGO, Defendants.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)

JAMES KALAMARAS, Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF NASSAU,
MADELINE SINGAS, in her individual and official capacities,
GEORGE SMIT, in his individual and official capacities,
ANNE DONNELLY, in her individual and official capacities,
DETECTIVE BRIAN KAMINSKI,
in his individual and official capacities,
DETECTIVE MATTHEW SCHILLER,
in his individual and official capacities,
JOHN DOE POLICE OFFICER #1,
in his individual and official capacities,
JOHN DOE POLICE OFFICER #2,
in his individual and official capacities,
JANE DOE POLICE OFFICER #1,
in her individual and official capacities,
NICHOLAS BAIALARDO,
JAMES M. CHMELA, and JOSE SANTIAGO, Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-1068 (SFJ)(ARL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

September 16, 2019


Memorandum and Order

FEUERSTEIN, S., Senior District Judge:

I. Introduction

Plaintiff James Kalamaras ("Plaintiff" or "Kalamaras") commenced this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 & 1986 against Defendants County of Nassau ("County"), Madeline Singas ("Singas"), in her individual and official capacities, George Smit ("Smit"), in his individual and official capacities, Anne Donnelly ("Donnelly"), in her individual and official capacities (collectively with Singas and Smit, the "Prosecutors"), Detective Brian Kaminski ("Kaminski"), in his individual and official capacities, Detective Matthew Schiller

Page 2

("Schiller"), in his individual and official capacities (together with Kaminski, the "Detectives"), John Doe Police Officer #1 ("Officer 1"), in his individual and official capacities, John Doe Police Officer #2 ("Officer 2"), in his individual and official capacities, Jane Doe Police Officer #1 "(Officer 3"; collectively with Officers 1 & 2, the "Officers"), in her individual and official capacities, (with the County, Prosecutors, Detectives, and Officers, hereafter collectively the "County Defendants")1, alleging various violations of his constitutional rights arising out of his arrest and prosecution on arson and burglary charges related to a February 25, 2015 fire at a commercial property located in Great Neck, New York. (See generally Complaint ("Complaint")(ECF No. 1).) Presently before the Court are: the County Defendants' motion seeking summary judgment in its favor on all of Plaintiff's claims (hereafter, the "Summary Judgment Motion") (see ECF No. 41; see also Mem. in Supp. ("Support Memo") (ECF No. 41-10)), which the Plaintiff opposes (hereafter, "Opposition" or "Opp'n")(ECF No. 41-16); and, the Plaintiff's cross-motion to strike the County Defendants' Answer (hereafter, the "Strike Motion") (see ECF. 29 at 1-2; see also Opp'n), which the County Defendants oppose (see ECF

Page 3

No. 43 ("Reply")). For the reasons that follow, the County Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion is GRANTED, and the Plaintiff's Strike Motion is DENIED.

II. Background

A. Factual Background2

1. The Fire

Sometime after 8:00 p.m. on February 25, 2015, there was a fire (hereafter, the "Fire") in a commercial office building (the "Building") at 38 Northern Boulevard in Great Neck, New York (hereafter, the "Fire Scene"). (See D-Rule 56.1 Stmt., ¶7; P-Rule 56.1 Stmt., ¶2.) Finding signs that the Fire was set intentionally, fire fighting personnel called the Nassau County Police Department ("NCPD") arson and bomb squad (hereafter, the Squad"). (See D-Rule 56.1 Stmt., ¶8.)

2. The Police Investigation

Having received the call about the suspicious nature of the Fire, Kaminski, a Squad member, responded to the Fire Scene to begin investigating it (hereafter, the "Investigation"). (See D-Rule 56.1 Stmt., ¶9; see also P-Rule 56.1 Stmt., ¶11.) At the Fire Scene, Kaminski spoke

Page 4

with Santiago, a witness. (See D-Rule 56.1 Stmt., ¶10; see also P-Rule 56.1 Stmt., ¶12.) Santiago told Kaminski he: "observed a person enter the [B]uilding;" "heard an alarm go off inside the [B]uilding;" "saw the same individual running out;" and, shortly thereafter, "observed that the [B]uilding was on fire." (D-Rule 56.1 Stmt., ¶11.)

During the Investigation, Kaminski learned of an employment dispute between a Building occupant and one of his former employees, a Dr. Anthony Moschetto ("Moschetto"), who "became an initial suspect in the arson." (Id. at ¶14; see also id. at ¶¶12-13.) Kaminski had fellow Squad member, Schiller, prepare a photo array that included Moschetto and "five other men, selected randomly, of similar age and appearance" to show Santiago (hereafter, the "First Photo Array"). (Id. at ¶15; see also id. at ¶16; P-Rule 56.1 Stmt., ¶¶13-14.) Upon review, Santiago circled the photo of another man who he indicated "looks like" the person he saw on the night of the Fire. (Id. at ¶16; cf., P-Rule 56.1 Stmt., ¶15.)

As the Investigation continued, Baialardo "was identified as a suspect in the arson." (Id. at ¶18.) Thereafter, on March 9, 2015, Kaminski showed Santiago a second photo array, which consisted of photos of Baialardo and five other males of similar age and appearance (hereafter, the "Second Photo Array"). (See id. at ¶19; cf., P-Rule 56.1 Stmt., ¶16.) Santiago did not identify Baialardo. (See id. at ¶20.)

In a March 12, 2015 written statement, Baialardo provided information to the police, to wit: Moschetto had hired Baialardo to burn down the Building; Baialardo had recruited Plaintiff and Chmela to help start the Fire; on the evening of the Fire, after picking up bottles of gasoline from Baialardo, Chmela picked up Plaintiff from a homeless shelter (hereafter, the Shelter), and proceeded to drive to the Building; Plaintiff "then entered the [B]uilding with the bag [containing the gasoline] and started the [F]ire;" and, "Chmela and [Plaintiff] then met with Baialardo

Page 5

confirming their actions" (hereafter, "Baialardo's Written Statement") (Id. at ¶22.) This information led to the preparation of a third photo array, which included a photo of Plaintiff as well as five other men of similar age and appearance and which was shown to Santiago (hereafter, the "Third Photo Array"; collectively with the First Photo Array and Second Photo Array, the "Photo Arrays"). (See id. at ¶23; cf., P-Rule 56.1 Stmt., ¶18.) Santiago positively identified "Kalamaras as the person he saw entering the [B]uilding and then running out to the [B]iulding on the night of the [F]ire." (Id., ¶24; cf., P-Rule 56.1 Stmt., ¶18.)

On March 20, 2015, Smit issued a subpoena directed to the Shelter where Plaintiff was staying at the time of the Fire directing the production of a staff log book and an overnight body count document (hereafter, collectively, the "Shelter Documents"), which were produced. (See P-Rule 56.1 Stmt., ¶23; see also Plaintiff's Depo. Tr., 219-27; cf., D-Rule 56.1Stmt., ¶¶69-70.) The log book indicates Plaintiff reported his plan to attend an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting the evening of the Fire. (See Plaintiff's Depo. Tr., 224:13-18 ("[Q:] Then it says, 'Client stated he plans on attending AA meeting at Hope house this evening.' . . . Did I read that properly? A: Yes.").) The Shelter's body count documentation indicates that on the night of the Fire, Plaintiff was in his assigned bed at the Shelter from between 12:15 a.m. and 7:00 or 8:00 a.m. (See id. at 225:20-226:23.) Plaintiff maintains the Shelter Documents provide "a reliable explanation for his whereabouts during the time that [the F]ire at [the Building] was set on February 25, 2015" (P-Rule 56.1 Stmt, ¶22; see also id. at ¶23), but the County Defendants do not concur. (See D-Rule 56.1 Stmt., ¶69 (stating the Shelter Documents establish only "that [P]laintiff was speaking with a counselor . . . about 6:00 p.m., and that [P]laintiff was in bed sometime between midnight and 7:00 a.m. on the morning of the date that the [F]ire was set"; id. at ¶70 (stating that

Page 6

on the evening of the Fire, Plaintiff "admitted that he was not in the . . . [S]helter, but rather left to attend an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting").)

"On March 30, 2015, [] Kaminski and other members of the NCPD met with [] Baialardo for the purpose of making a recorded telephone call to [] Kalamaras [(hereafter, the "Recorded Call")]." (Id. at ¶26.) The phone number used to make the Recorded Call was associated with a contact in Baialardo's cell phone listed as "Jimmy". During the Recorded Call, Plaintiff implicated himself in the Fire by assuring Baialardo that he had not left his fingerprints at the Fire Scene and then offering to set another fire at the Building when Baialardo stated Moschetto was not satisfied with the results of the Fire. (See id. at ¶30.) "On April 14, 2015, . . . Schiller obtained the written statement of admission from [] Chmela," which corroborated information acquired from Baialardo (hereafter, "Chmela's Written Statement"; together with Baialardo's Written Statement, the "Written Statements"). (Id., ¶32; see also id. at ¶33; cf., P-Rule 56.1 Stmt., ¶25.)

3. Kalamaras' Arrest and Indictment

On April 14, 2015, Plaintiff was arrested by Kaminski and another officer, who placed Kalamaras in handcuffs. (See id. at ¶¶34, 40; cf., P-Rule 56.1 Stmt., ¶¶4, 28.) "Plaintiff claims the handcuffs were "very tight" and "that he suffered injuries to his wrists," but also admits "he was not hit, struck with a weapon or kicked by any officer during his arrest" nor "sought medical attention for [his] alleged injuries." (Id. at ¶¶42, 43; see also ¶41 (stating Plaintiff "was cooperative when arrested"); ¶46 (stating Plaintiff "signed a physical condition questionnaire . . . indicating that he did not have any injuries"); ¶48 ("Kalamaras signed another physical condition questionnaire indicating that he was not suffering any injuries"); cf., P-Rule 56.1 Stmt., ¶¶28-29.) Kaminski read Plaintiff his Miranda rights, after which Plaintiff provided pedigree information.

Page 7

(See id. at ¶45.) That same day, two felony complaints against Plaintiff were executed by a non-party police officer, with one accusing Plaintiff of the crime of burglary in the third degree and the other...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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