Martinsky v. City of Bridgeport

• Decision Date: 02 September 2011
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 3:09–CV–759 (VLB).
• Citation: 814 F.Supp.2d 130
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: William C. MARTINSKY, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT, Charles Paris, Frank Santora, James Viadero and James Honis, Defendants.

814 F.Supp.2d 130

William C. MARTINSKY, Plaintiff,

v.CITY OF BRIDGEPORT, Charles Paris, Frank Santora, James Viadero and James Honis, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:09–CV–759 (VLB).

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

Sept. 2, 2011.

Christine A. Caulfield, Kathryn Emmett, Emmett & Glander, Stamford, CT, for Plaintiff.

Betsy Edwards, City Of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, CT, John Richard Mitola, City Of Bridgeport Office of The City Attorney, Bridgeport, CT, John Patrick Bohannon, Jr., Fairfield, CT, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Dkt. # 43 and # 47]

VANESSA L. BRYANT, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a former Sergeant employed by the City of Bridgeport Police Department [“BPD”] brought this action: 1) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Connecticut common law against Defendants Paris, Santora, Viadero, and Honis, who are and/or were officers in the BPD, for false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Connecticut statutory common law, and 2) under the American with Disabilities Act [ADA], 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et. seq., and Connecticut's Fair Employment Practices Act [CFEPA], C.G.S. § 46a–51 et seq. , to seek redress against the City of Bridgeport for disability discrimination.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. June 11, 2007 Incident

Several years prior to the incident on June 11, 2007, Sgt. Martinsky (Plaintiff) and Sgt. Paris (Defendant Paris) co-owned a restaurant business known as the Savoy Bar and Grill [“Savoy”]. [Dkt. # 63, Pl. Rule 56 Stmt. ¶ 13]. The Savoy was located in a building at the corner block of State Street and Markle Court in Bridgeport, CT. Id. In October 2005, the parties' business arrangement ended when Plaintiff sold his share of the business to “Savoy on State, LLC,” a group in which Paris had an interest, and Paris continued to retain an interest in the Savoy up to the date of the incident on June 11, 2007. Id. at ¶ 14. Pursuant to the sale, Plaintiff sold and the LLC bought Plaintiffs interest in the assets of the restaurant, including furniture, fixtures, equipment, and inventory contained within the restaurant. [Dkt. # 63, Ex. # 20, at 1]. To effect this transfer of assets, the parties created a detailed inventory of the property included in the sale, which was attached to the agreement. Id. at pp. 2–3. Sgt. Paris and his girlfriend, Ms. Viglione, were not involved in these negotiations and were not familiar with the terms of the agreement or the inventory list. [Dkt. # 63, Ex. # 7a, at 70–75].

Plaintiff visited the Savoy on June 11, 2007 while on duty and in uniform. [Dkt. # 63, Ex. # 1b, Dep. of Martinsky at 152:13–16; 152–53:25–1]. During the course of the visit, Plaintiff represented to Mike Falcigno, the owner of an adjacent business, City Lights Gallery, that the building custodian had given him permission to access the basement of the building, and asked that Mr. Falcigno grant him access to the common area of the basement so that he could retrieve two circus posters because the Savoy had gone out of business. [Dkt. # 63, Pl. Rule 56 Stmt. ¶¶ 18, 20]. Mr. Falcigno, having access to a key to the shared basement area, granted Plaintiff's request and unlocked and let Plaintiff into the shared area. Id. at ¶ 19.

While in the shared basement area, Plaintiff identified objects that he claimed were his lawful possessions, consisting of two antique PT Barnum Circus posters, two framed portraits, a neon beer light, a ceramic pot, some wine glasses, and seven chafing dishes. He moved these items into the adjacent City Lights Gallery's private locked storage area which can only be accessed from the common space of the building with the use of a key. [Dkt. # 63, Ex. # 1b, Dep. of Martinsky at 136–141]. The items were covered by a flag or a piece of fabric. [Dkt. # 63, Pl. Rule 56 Stmt. ¶ 38]. Sgt. Paris, off duty and doing work at the Savoy, was later notified by Mr. Falcigno that he had given Plaintiff access to the basement and that Plaintiff had removed several items from the Savoy storage area. Id. at ¶¶ 16, 21. Later in the day, Plaintiff received call from Mike Falcigno informing him that Sgt. Paris was angry and yelling about posters, worried that someone had taken his things whilst conducting an inventory review. [Dkt. # 63, Ex. # 1 b Dep. of Martinsky at 151:10–12].

When Sgt. Paris found out that Plaintiff had removed items from the Savoy basement area, he called Lt. Santora on his personal cell phone to notify him that Plaintiff had stolen property from the Savoy and asked him to come to the scene. [Dkt. # 63, Pl. Rule 56 Stmt. ¶¶ 6, 11]. The BPD then dispatched Lt. Santora to the location. Id. at ¶ 7.

Plaintiff arrived at the scene at the same time as Lt. Santora. [Dkt. # 63, Ex.# 1 b Dep. of Martinsky, at 151–52:13–23]. Once Plaintiff arrived at the Savoy, Sgt. Paris allegedly threatened him, stating “[he] will kill [him]” and that “[he's] going to have [Plaintiff's] pension.” Id. at 278:14–25; [Dkt. # 63, Pl. Rule 56 Stmt. ¶ 9]. During this dispute, Sgt. Paris told Lt. Santora that Plaintiff had stolen property belonging to either him or the Savoy, having gone into the basement earlier and taken various items. [Dkt. # 63, Pl. Rule 56 Stmt. ¶ 11]. Among the items that Sgt. Paris alleged that Sgt. Martinsky had stolen were two antique PT Barnum Circus posters, two framed portraits, a neon beer light, a ceramic pot, some wine glasses, and seven chafing dishes. See [Dkt. # 63, Ex. # 12a, Bridgeport Police Department Incident Report No. 070611–244, dated June 11, 2007, at Bates # 12]. Plaintiff claimed these items were not included in the asset sale when Plaintiff sold his share of the Savoy to Sgt. Paris in October 2005, and that documentation existed to support his assertion. [Dkt. # 63, Ex.# 1 b, Dep. of Martinsky at 166:19–24]. In his deposition, Sgt. Paris stated that he initially told Lt. Santora over the phone that he “found that [Plaintiff] ... came in and removed items from the Savoy that the Savoy owned and took them and hid them.” [Dkt. # 63, Ex. # 7b, Dep. of Paris at 152:4–7]. However, later in his deposition, Paris testified in contrast to his prior assertion that Plaintiff did not own the allegedly stolen items, stating that he told Lt. Santora and the officers at the scene, or would have told them if they had asked, that the circus posters did not belong to the Savoy but rather to Plaintiff's friend. Id. at 154–60.

Lt. Santora instructed Plaintiff to wait while he talked to Sgt. Paris and examined the scene. [Dkt. # 63, Pl. Rule 56 Stmt. ¶ 12]. Lt. Santora then spoke to Mr. Falcigno, who was at the scene. [Dkt. # 44, Defs. Rule 56 Stmt. ¶ 12]. All of the doorways by which to gain access to the common area of the basement were locked. [Dkt. # 63, Pl. Rule 56 Stmt. ¶ 33]. Plaintiff did not have a key to any of those doors. Id. at ¶ 35. Lt. Santora saw the allegedly stolen items under the stairs of the City Lights Gallery covered by a piece of fabric. Id. ¶ 37.

When asked, Plaintiff admitted to having moved these items from the common space of the building basement into the locked storage area of the City Lights Gallery. Id. at ¶ 42. Plaintiff also admitted to having moved the items for the purpose of securing them in a locked area where they would be inaccessible to other persons with access to the common space of the building basement. Id.

After exiting the building, Lt. Santora spoke with Plaintiff about the items in the basement, and Plaintiff again claimed that he owned the items at issue. [Dkt. # 63, Pl. Rule 56 Stmt. ¶ 46]. Lt. Santora returned about 15–20 minutes later and informed Plaintiff he was being arrested, despite Plaintiff's attempts to tell Lt. Santora that the posters were his. Id. at ¶ 14.

Other officers arrived at the scene including Deputy Chief James Honis. Id. at ¶ 51. Plaintiff told Deputy Chief Honis that the items were his and that he had documentation of ownership. Once Honis confirmed that Plaintiff would give a statement and produce the documentation, Honis told Plaintiff that he could leave. Id.

Although Deputy Chief Honis told Plaintiff he could leave, Lt. Viadero (who was then in charge because he was the senior officer from the Detective Division and had been summoned by Honis), instructed Plaintiff to stay. [Dkt. # 63, Pl. Rule 56 Stmt. ¶ 51]. Paris's girlfriend and member of the LLC that owned the Savoy, Jennifer Viglione, then arrived at the scene. Id. at ¶ 27. Plaintiff contends that the officers did not formally interview Ms. Viglione at the scene, but that she provided a statement to Lt. Viadero three days later representing that her boyfriend, Paris, had called her to tell her that he had noticed that several items were missing from the basement, including the two circus posters. Id.

Paris continued to threaten Plaintiff while Paris, Santora, Honis, Viadero and other officers who had arrived at the scene gathered on the corner and Plaintiff waited across the street. [Dkt. # 63, Ex.# 1c. Dep. of Martinsky at 284:16–20]. Lt. Viadero and the other officers at the scene were aware that Plaintiff was disputing ownership of the items, but felt that there was an element of deception in Plaintiff's actions in visiting the building, removing items from the basement, placing them in a locked compartment, covering them to avoid detection, and planning to return for the items at a later time. [Dkt. # 44, Defs. Rule 56 Stmt. ¶ 54]. Lt. Viadero returned and told Plaintiff, as Santora had done previously, that he was being arrested. [Dkt. # 63, Pl. Rule 56 Stmt. ¶ 55].

Once Lt. Santora issued Plaintiff a misdemeanor summons for larceny in the fifth degree, he was permitted to leave. Id. at ¶¶ 57–58. However, later that evening, Lt. Santora contacted Plaintiff and demanded that the Plaintiff return to sign the summons, which Lt. Santora neglected to have him do earlier. Id. at ¶ 58. Lt. Santora told Plaintiff that unless...