Mandola v. Cnty. of Nassau, 13–cv–3064 (DLI)(ST)

• Citation: 222 F.Supp.3d 203
• Decision Date: 30 September 2016
• Docket Number: 13–cv–3064 (DLI)(ST)
• Parties: Salvatore MANDOLA, Staci Mandola, S.M. an infant, by his Mother and Natural Guardian, Staci Mandola, and N.M., an infant, by his Mother and Natural Guardian, Staci Mandola, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, Jeffrey Kuchek, Eric Dier, Joseph Beirne, and Christopher Lee, in their Individual and in their Official Capacities, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

222 F.Supp.3d 203

Salvatore MANDOLA, Staci Mandola, S.M. an infant, by his Mother and Natural Guardian, Staci Mandola, and N.M., an infant, by his Mother and Natural Guardian, Staci Mandola, Plaintiffs,

v.COUNTY OF NASSAU, Jeffrey Kuchek, Eric Dier, Joseph Beirne, and Christopher Lee, in their Individual and in their Official Capacities, Defendants.

13–cv–3064 (DLI)(ST)

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Signed September 30, 2016

Craig Trainor, The Trainor Law Firm, P.C., New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Ralph J. Reissman, Nassau County Attorney's Office, Mineola, NY, Peter A. Laserna, U.S. Attorney's Office, Brooklyn, NY, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

DORA L. IRIZARRY, Chief Judge:

Plaintiffs Salvatore Mandola, Staci Mandola, and S.M., and N.M., infants by their mother Staci Mandola¹ , ("Plaintiffs"), bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 against the County of Nassau, and Deputy Sheriffs Jeffrey Kuchek ("Kuchek"), Eric Dier ("Dier"), Joseph Beirne ("Beirne") and Christopher Lee ("Lee"), in both their official and individual capacities (collectively, "the Individual Defendants," and with the County of Nassau, "Defendants"). Plaintiffs contend that the Individual Defendants illegally entered and searched Plaintiff's home without a search warrant in violation of provisions of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. (See generally , Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition ("Pl. Opp."), Dkt. Entry No. 25–5.) Plaintiffs further assert multiple New York State law causes of action including: (1) trespass; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (4) negligent screening, hiring and retention; (5) negligent training and supervision; (6) negligence; (7) respondeat superior liability; and (8) violation of provisions of the New York State Constitution. (Complaint ("Compl.") at ¶¶ 69–95, Dkt. Entry No. 1.) Defendants move for summary judgment. Plaintiffs oppose and cross-move for summary judgment in their favor. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted and Plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment is denied.

BACKGROUND

I. Family History

Salvatore and Staci Mandola have been married since March 7, 2003, and have three children: S.M., Jr. (eleven years-old), N.M. (nine years old) and S. (three years old). (Plaintiffs' Rule 56.1 Statement ("Pl. 56.1 Statement"), ¶ 65, Dkt. Entry No. 25–4; Defendant's Rule 56.1 Statement ("Def. 56.1 Statement"), ¶¶ 5, 6, 8 and 10, Dkt. Entry No. 25.) Plaintiffs have resided at 2169 East 70^th Street, Brooklyn, New York since 2006. (Transcript of Staci Mandola Deposition ("Staci M. Dep.") at 13:8–13, Dkt. Entry No. 25.) Although the deed to this property reflects that Staci Mandola's mother, Roberta Zahler, owns it, Staci Mandola pays the mortgage. (Id. at 13:14–25.) Ms. Zahler resides in the finished basement apartment of the house while Plaintiffs live on the first and second floors. (Transcript of Salvatore Mandola Deposition ("Salvatore M. Dep.") at 11:16–23, Dkt. Entry No. 25.)

Krista Selig ("Selig") is Staci Mandola's half-sister and the mother of [now] four year-old C.M.S. (Staci M. Dep. at 22:10–18; Declaration of Ralph J. Reissman² ("Reissman Decl."), Ex. C at ¶ 4, Dkt. Entry No. 25.) Selig has been embroiled in a custody battle with C.M.S.'s father, Joseph Sammartino ("Sammartino"), in Nassau County Family Court since July 2011. (Reissman Decl., Ex. C at ¶ 5.) For the majority of 2011, Selig was living in Roslyn, New York, which is in Nassau County. (Tr. of Staci Mandola Dep. at 20:8–12.)

II. Family Court Proceedings

On or about July 27, 2011, Sammartino filed a petition for custody and visitation rights for C.M.S. in Nassau County Family Court ("Family Court"). (Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶ 35.) However, in December 2011, Selig relocated to Boca Raton, Florida where she and her son lived with her brother, John Selig. (Staci M. Dep. at 19:20–24; 20:5–12.) Prior to this relocation, the Family Court issued an order of protection directing Sammartino to refrain from contacting Selig at all. (Pl. 56.1 Statement at ¶ 89.) On three separate dates August 24, 2011, November 16, 2011 and July 10, 2012, Sammartino was arrested for violating the order of protection. (Declaration of Craig Trainor³ ("Trainor Decl."), Ex. D, Dkt. Entry No. 25–1.)

The Family Court issued a summons on April 12, 2012, compelling Selig's appearance on May 3, 2012, for a preliminary proceeding to answer Sammartino's petition. (Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶ 36.) When Selig failed to appear in court on May 3, 2012, an arrest warrant issued pursuant to the New York Family Court Act § 153–a (" NYFCA § 153–a") directing the Nassau County Sheriff's Department to apprehend and produce her to the Family Court. (Id. at ¶ 37.) However, when the summons and arrest warrant were issued, Selig contends that she and her son still were residing in Florida. (Def. 56.1 Statement, Ex. C at ¶ 16.)

On December 18, 2013, Selig, her son, and her mother moved into the basement apartment of Plaintiffs' residence. (Staci M. Dep. at 20:2–4.)

III. Search of Plaintiff's Home

On July 16, 2012, Deputy Sheriff Sergeant Maureen Derner ("Sgt. Derner") of the Nassau County Sheriff's Department, Family Court Division, received a telephone call from Sammartino informing her that Selig was "staying with her mother, Roberta Zahler" in the basement apartment of 2169 East 70^th Street, Brooklyn, New York. (Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶ 38.) According to Beirne, Sammartino specifically informed Sgt. Derner that either he or someone else observed Selig enter Plaintiffs' residence and Selig currently was in the house. (Transcript of Deputy Sheriff Joseph Beirne Deposition ("Beirne Dep.") at 23:17–24:13; 29:11–17, Dkt. Entry No. 25.) Sgt. Derner then deployed the Individual Defendants to that address and instructed them to execute the arrest warrant for Selig. (Id. at ¶ 39.)

The Individual Defendants arrived at Plaintiffs' residence at approximately 4:00 p.m. on July 16, 2012. (Transcript of Deputy Sheriff Eric Dier Deposition ("Dier Dep.") at 67:12–24, Dkt. Entry No. 25.) Upon arrival, the Individual Defendants briefly searched the perimeter of Plaintiffs' property before knocking on the front door, consistent with their protocol. (Id. at 69:18–25; 70:2–4.) Dier first approached the left side of the house while Kuchek went to the rear of the house. (Id. at 70:4–6.) When Dier went to assess Kuchek's progress at the rear of the property, Dier observed that Kuchek was already inside the house. (Id. at 70:10–13.)

When Kuchek first entered the backyard, he observed two sliding glass doors leading to a kitchen, one of which was unlocked and slightly ajar. (Transcript of Deputy Sheriff Jeffrey Kuchek Deposition ("Kuchek Dep.") at 82:5–9, Dkt. Entry No. 25.) Through the glass doors, Kuchek observed a pair of flip flops and a ladle on the floor of the kitchen, a pot or pan on the stove or countertop, and a television that was on. (Id. at 83:12–19; 86:24–87:1.) Kuchek knocked on one of the sliding glass doors and after several minutes of waiting for an answer, Kuchek entered the house. (Id. at 83:23–84:19.) Kuchek testified that he entered the house because, based on the observations he made through the sliding glass doors, he believed that Selig was hiding inside. (Id. at 85:5–18; 87:8–20.) Kuchek further believed that he was authorized to enter the residence without consent of the owners pursuant to the authority accorded him by the arrest warrant. (Id. at 90:4–8.) Upon entering the house, Kuchek walked to the front of the house, unlocked and opened the front door to let the other deputy sheriffs inside. (Id. at 91:2–8.) Kuchek first searched the main floor of the house and then searched the basement because the deputy sheriffs had been informed that Selig was residing in the downstairs bedroom. (Id. at 91:20–92:20.) However, Kuchek's search of the basement did not reveal anyone in that area. (Id. at 97:12–15.) Kuchek further testified that the Individual Defendants searched the main level of Plaintiffs' home because there was access between that level and the basement. (Id. at 96:16–21.)

Kuchek's testimony was corroborated by Dier who also testified that, once he entered the house through the sliding glass doors, he observed food in a pot on the stove along with flip flops and what appeared to be a spatula on the kitchen floor. (Dier Dep. at 70:25–71:7.) These observations also raised Dier's suspicions that someone was hiding somewhere inside the house. (Id. at 71:7–19.) Dier searched the main level of the residence and did not recall any of the deputy sheriffs searching the upstairs portion of Plaintiffs' home. (Id. at 72:11–73:11.) Beirne positioned himself in front of the house while the other deputy sheriffs searched the interior. (Beirne Dep. at 68:6–12.)

On that same, date at approximately 4:10 p.m., Plaintiffs returned to their residence after picking up their sons from summer day camp. (Def. 56.1 Statement at ¶¶ 40–42.) Upon arriving, Plaintiffs observed the Individual Defendants congregated both inside and outside of their home. (Id. ) Both Salvatore and Staci inquired as to the legal basis for the officers' presence inside their residence and expressed indignation at the inability to enter their home due to the search being conducted. Salvatore and Staci testified that the Individual Defendants initially refused to explain why their home was being searched. (Salvatore M. Dep. at 27:13–18; Staci M. Dep. at 31:13–22.) However, Beirne testified that, as he was securing the exterior of the residence, a man approached him professing to be a resident of the home and asked why the officers were there. (Beirne Dep. at 68:13–17.) Beirne asked the man if Selig resided at the house, and the man responded that she did not. (Id. at 68:17–19.) When a visibly upset woman approached Beirne inquiring as to why the officers were inside the home, Beirne explained to both the...