Lee v. Budde

• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
• Writing for the Court: JUDITH C. MCCARTHY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
• Docket Number: 24 Civ. 168 (JCM)
• Decision Date: 15 January 2026
• Citation: Lee v. Budde, 24 Civ. 168 (JCM) (S.D. N.Y. Jan 15, 2026)
• Parties: DA VON LEE AND PAUL GARRETT, Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT BUDDE, JUSTIN LARCHEVESQUE, AND DANIELLE LONG, Defendants.

1

DA VON LEE AND PAUL GARRETT, Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT BUDDE, JUSTIN LARCHEVESQUE, AND DANIELLE LONG, Defendants.

No. 24 Civ. 168 (JCM)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

January 15, 2026

OPINION AND ORDER

JUDITH C. MCCARTHY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiffs Davon Lee and Paul Garrett (collectively “Plaintiffs”) commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 against Defendant Robert Budde, a police officer with the Village of Buchanan Police Department, and Defendants Justin Larchevesque and Danielle Long, police officers with the Peekskill Police Department (collectively, “Defendants”). (Docket No. 1). Presently before the Court are (1) Defendants Larchevesque's and Long's (collectively “Peekskill Defendants”) motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (Docket No. 49), accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the motion, (Docket No. 52) (together “Peekskill Motion”); and (2) Defendant Budde's motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, (Docket No. 61), accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the motion, (Docket No. 63) (together, “Budde Motion”). Plaintiffs filed oppositions to the Peekskill and Budde Motions, (Docket Nos. 57, 68), and the Peekskill Defendants and Defendant Budde filed replies, (Docket Nos. 54, 65).

For the reasons set forth below, Defendant Budde's and the Peekskill Defendants' motions for summary judgment are denied in their entirety.^[1]

I. BACKGROUND

A. Relevant Facts

The following facts, based on evidence submitted in support of Defendants' motions and Plaintiffs' oppositions,^[2] are construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs as the party opposing summary judgment. See Wandering Dago, Inc. v. Destito, 879 F.3d 20, 30 (2d Cir. 2018). Any disputes of material fact are noted.

1. Plaintiffs' Arrival at Da-Ro's and Encounter with Thompson^[3]

On June 28, 2023, Plaintiffs arrived at Da-Ro's Deli, a convenience store owned by Hesham Saleh in the Village of Buchanan, to pick up a U-Haul truck they had rented for a junkremoval job in Peekskill. (Pl. 56.1 Budde Resp. ¶¶ 67, 74-75^[4]). Customers could rent U-Haul trucks in person through the convenience store or by an online system. (Id. ¶ 71). Plaintiffs disagree on when they arrived at the parking lot. Plaintiff Garrett testified that they arrived around 5:45 p.m., and Plaintiff Lee testified that they arrived around 8:00 p.m. (Id. ¶¶ 2-3).

Upon arrival. Plaintiff Lee inspected the U-Haul he reserved and attempted to complete the reservation to obtain the keys. (Id. ¶ 78). As part of the inspection. Plaintiff Lee entered the cab and back of the truck, which was unlocked, to check for damage and equipment that was included with the rental. (Id. ¶¶ 79-81). Plaintiff Garrett also entered the cab of the truck. (Id. ¶ 83). Plaintiff Lee testified during his deposition that it was “protocol to inspect the U-Haul before you actually pull off with it.” (Docket No. 67-11 at 47:18-20). Plaintiff Lee estimated that he and Plaintiff Garrett were inside the truck's cab for five to seven minutes; Plaintiff Garrett estimated they were inside for approximately ten to fifteen minutes. (Pl. 56.1 Budde Resp. ¶¶ 84-85).

During the inspection, Plaintiff Lee received messages from U-Haul indicating there was a problem with his reservation. (Id. ¶ 86). At 8:23 p.m., he was directed to call U-Haul, (id. ¶ 87; Docket No. 67-22 at 2), and he spoke to a representative who informed him of an issue with an existing balance that needed to be cleared before the rental process could be completed, (Pl. 56.1 Budde Resp. ¶ 87). Plaintiff Lee was unable to resolve the issue and cancelled his reservation at 8:37 p.m. (Docket No. 67-22 at 2). Then he attempted to rent the truck in Plaintiff Garrett's name, but was unsuccessful. (Pl. 56.1 Budde Resp. ¶¶ 90-92). Plaintiffs assert they did not reenter the U-Haul truck after Plaintiff Lee's call with the representative. (Id. ¶ 89).

At some point after Plaintiffs arrived, Deborah Thompson walked by them on her way to get cigarettes from Da-Ro's, (id. ¶ 101), and asked Plaintiffs what they were doing, (Def. Budde 56.1 ¶ 10). Thompson asserts she had been watching Plaintiffs open the back and front of the truck, and enter the cab of the truck, for twenty to thirty minutes from her cousin's porch, which was located directly across the road from the parking lot and the U-Haul Plaintiffs were attempting to rent. (Id. ¶¶ 15-18).^[5] She told Plaintiffs that the owner of Da-Ro's lived inside the building and they could knock on the door if they needed assistance. (Docket No. 67-14).^[6]Plaintiffs explained to Thompson that they were renting a U-Haul via an app on their phone and did not need help. (Def. Budde 56.1 ¶ 11; Docket Nos. 67-14; 67-6 at 41:16-17). After the interaction with Thompson, since they were unable to rent the U-Haul, Plaintiffs ordered an Uber and left Da-Ro's to wait for their driver. (Pl. 56.1 Budde Resp. ¶ 93). After Plaintiff Lee called the Uber, Plaintiff Garrett observed a police vehicle drive pass them. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 95). Plaintiffs contend they were in the parking lot for at least an hour after Da-Ro's closed at 8:00 p.m. and before their encounter with Defendant Budde at 9:21 p.m. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 13, 41).

2. Thompson's Call to Police and Defendant Budde's Initial Investigation

At 9:02 p.m., Thompson called the Village of Buchanan Police Department, (Docket No. 67-20), while driving home from her cousin's house, to report two men she had seen “near rentable uhaul trucks behind daro's deli,” (Docket No. 67-14). She thought this was “suspicious.” (Id.). Thompson initially stated to Defendant Budde, who answered, that she called the police to investigate because she was “worried [about] recent vehicle break ins in the area,” (id.), and later testified at her deposition that she also had concerns for her cousin's safety, (Docket No. 67-6 at 52:4-53:25; 59:8-12; 63:25-64:10; 65:14-19).

Defendant Budde maintains that Thompson told him Plaintiffs were “looking underneath the dash and moved things around inside the U-Haul.” (Def. Budde 56.1 ¶ 34). Plaintiffs dispute this, as Thompson denied telling Defendant Budde that “she had observed the two men looking under the dash, rearranging the seats, or rolling down the window of any vehicle.” (Pl. 56.1 Budde Resp. ¶¶ 34, 136). In addition. Defendant Budde testified that Plaintiffs told Thompson “they were waiting for keys.” (Def. Budde 56.1 ¶ 35). Plaintiffs dispute Thompson told Defendant Budde this, citing Thompson's deposition testimony that she did not tell Defendant Budde about the earlier conversation she had with the two men. (Docket No. 67-6 at 66:18-23; 70:21-71:2; Pl. 56.1 Budde Resp. ¶¶ 35, 134). Defendant Budde also testified in his deposition that he asked Thompson what led her to believe the two men intended to steal the vehicle, (Pl. 56.1 Budde Resp. ¶ 152; Docket No. 67-8 at 41:2-3), but Thompson denied this and said that Defendant Budde did not ask her any questions during their three-to-four-minute call, (Pl. 56.1 Budde Resp. ¶ 152; Docket No. 67-6 at 65:6-68:15). Given these contradictions. Plaintiffs maintain that what transpired during Thompson's conversation with Defendant Budde is in dispute and “a matter of credibility for the jury.” (Pl. 56.1 Budde Resp. ¶ 35).

Defendant Budde further testified that approximately seven minutes after speaking with Thompson, he drove past the U-Haul and observed Plaintiffs Lee and Garrett sitting in the cab of the truck. (Def. Budde 56.1 ¶¶ 36-37; Docket No. 67-8 at 70:7-18). Plaintiffs dispute this testimony, noting that Defendant Budde's contemporaneous incident report omits any reference to this drive-by and, moreover, they “were not in the vehicle at any point after [P]laintiff Lee spoke to the U-Haul representative and learned that he owed a balance.” (Pl. 56.1 Budde Resp. ¶¶ 36-37). Defendant Budde maintains that he drove past the U-Haul twice more and observed the same, then stayed in the area for approximately an hour. (Def. Budde 56.1 ¶¶ 38-39). Plaintiffs dispute what Defendant Budde observed during these additional drives past the U- Haul, as well as his assertion that he remained in the area for an hour. (Pl. 56.1 Budde Resp. ¶¶ 38-39).

Defendant Budde testified that he then drove to a Dunkin' Donuts parking lot with a “limited view” of the parking lot behind Da-Ro's deli, and he could no longer see the U-Haul vehicle in which he said he first observed Plaintiffs sitting. (Id. ¶¶ 176, 179; Docket No. 67-8 at 82:1-7). While in the Dunkin' Donuts parking lot. Defendant Budde said he attempted to contact the proprietor of Da-Ro's as part of his investigation and “had already concluded that the two men he had observed were unlawfully occupying the U-Haul vehicle.” (Pl. 56.1 Budde Resp. ¶¶ 181-82; Docket No. 67-8 at 75:4-76:7). However, he never called the owner, Mr. Saleh, because the police department's “business contact book” was not updated with the new owner's contact information. (Pl. 56.1 Budde Resp. ¶ 183; Docket No. 67-8 at 76:8-77:6). Defendant Budde did not recall if he used his work phone “to conduct a web search for a contact phone number for the owner of Da-Ro's deli or to investigate the means by which an individual could rent a U-Haul vehicle,” and his incident report does not include any reference to him doing so. (Pl. 56.1 Budde Resp.¶¶ 199-200).

Plaintiffs dispute both the scope of Defendant Budde's alleged investigation, (id. ¶¶ 38, 163-214), and the duration, (id. ¶¶ 39, 215-21). The phone log for the Village of Buchanan Police Department shows Thompson's only incoming call to the police took place at 9:02 p.m. (Id. ¶ 218). Defendant Budde testified that he spoke with...