Murphy v. Town of Greece

• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
• Writing for the Court: ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Docket Number: 6:25-CV-06041 EAW
• Decision Date: 23 December 2025
• Citation: Murphy v. Town of Greece, 6:25-CV-06041 EAW (W.D. N.Y. Dec 23, 2025)
• Parties: RYAN MURPHY, BETHANY MURPHY, INFANT ONE, and INFANT TWO, Plaintiffs, v. TOWN OF GREECE, MICHELLE MARINI, KARLEE BOLANOS, BOLANOS LOWE, PLLC, JENNIFER MORALES, TRACY CASS, and CASS & MORALES INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant.

1

RYAN MURPHY, BETHANY MURPHY, INFANT ONE, and INFANT TWO, Plaintiffs, v. TOWN OF GREECE, MICHELLE MARINI, KARLEE BOLANOS, BOLANOS LOWE, PLLC, JENNIFER MORALES, TRACY CASS, and CASS & MORALES INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant.

No. 6:25-CV-06041 EAW

United States District Court, W.D. New York

December 23, 2025

DECISION AND ORDER

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Ryan Murphy (“Mr. Murphy”), Bethany Murphy (“Mrs. Murphy”), and their minor children (Infant One and Infant Two) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) commenced an action against defendants Town of Greece (“Town”) and Michelle Marini (“Marini”) (collectively “Town Defendants”); Karlee Bolanos and Bolanos Lowe, PLLC (“Bolanos Lowe”) (collectively “Bolanos Lowe Defendants”); and Jennifer Morales, Tracy Cass and Cass & Morales Investigative Services, LLC (“Cass & Morales”) (collectively “Cass & Morales Defendants”), on January 17, 2025 asserting causes of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 § 1985(2), and § 1986.

Pending before the Court is the Town Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. 11), Bolanos Lowe Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. 15), and Cass & Morales Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. 10) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, the Town Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part, Bolanos Lowe Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part, and Cass & Morales Defendants' motion is denied.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background

The instant facts are taken from Plaintiffs' complaint. (Dkt. 1). As required at this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiffs' well-pleaded factual allegations are taken as true.

Mr. Murphy is “an activist, journalist and government watchdog” with a history of making social media posts about the Town. (Id. at ¶ 47). Beginning on June 1, 2023, Mr. Murphy made several posts on the community forum Nextdoor about misconduct in the Town government, including that elected officials, such as Town Supervisor William Reilich and Deputy Supervisor Marini, received fraudulently low tax assessments on their properties, causing them to owe fewer annual property taxes. (Id. at ¶¶ 17-24). A Nextdoor moderator removed the posts, suspended Mr. Murphy's ability to continue posting, and informed Mr. or Mrs. Murphy that the Town “exercised some control over the content of the forum and that content critiquing the Town's administration would not be allowed.” (Id. at ¶¶ 25-26). On June 8, 2023, Mr. Murphy received an unsigned email from “info@greeceny.gov” directing him to cease and desist posting about the Town on Nextdoor and that legal action may be taken against him if he did not comply. (Id. at ¶¶ 2829). A similar letter was sent to Mr. Murphy's home and signed by William Lowe, a Town attorney and member of Bolanos Lowe. (Id. at ¶¶ 33-34). On June 18, 2023, the Town circulated a post on Nextdoor denying Mr. Murphy's allegations. (Id. at ¶ 35). The Town's post also stated that the “Attorney for the Town had to step in” in response to Mr. Murphy's comments and that Mr. Murphy's messages to public officials were “under investigation.” (Id.) Mr. Murphy was then permanently banned from posting on the Nextdoor forum. (Id. at ¶ 37).

Mr. and Mrs. Murphy believed that the Town's communications were “intended to intimidate, harass, coerce, defame, discredit, and threaten” Mr. Murphy. (Id. at ¶ 36). They became fearful that Mr. and/or Mrs. Murphy would be arrested or subject to political violence, and they formed a family action plan to keep their children safe. (Id. at ¶¶ 38-45).

Mr. Murphy began posting about “matters of public interest” on the Town's official Facebook page. (Id. at ¶¶ 48-49). The Town then banned Mr. Murphy from its Facebook page and turned off comments so that others could not post on Mr. Murphy's behalf. (Id. at ¶¶ 50-51). Mr. Murphy began attending Town Board meetings, after which the Town increased the police presence at its meetings. (Id. at ¶¶ 52-55). At one Town Board meeting, Mr. Murphy heard Marini say that the “Ryan Murphy problem has been dealt with.” (Id. at ¶ 53).

On June 25, 2023, Mr. Murphy started a Facebook page titled “the Town of Greece Uncovered.” (Id. at ¶ 56). The page was “flooded with posts” about corruption and misconduct in the Town government, including critiques of Supervisor Reilich and Marini. (Id. at ¶¶ 58-59). Mr. Murphy posted about unfair tax assessments, the Town's violations of open meetings law, misconduct in the Greece Police Department (“GPD”), unlawful real property development deals, Town officials' improper use of Town employees and vendors for personal matters, lack of transparency about Town development projects, and “misleading” attempts to change Town law. (Id. at ¶ 60).

As Mr. Murphy continued to engage in criticism of the Town, there was an increased police presence in his neighborhood. (Id. at ¶ 61). On one occasion, a police vehicle stopped in front of his home in the middle of the night and shined a spotlight into the house. (Id. at ¶¶ 62, 90). In September 2023, GPD Deputy Chief Aaron Springer (“Springer”) questioned Mr. Murphy's neighbors about him. (Id. at ¶ 63). Springer also went to the Murphy home and tried to speak with Mrs. Murphy, which led one of the children to have a panic attack believing that Mr. Murphy was going to be arrested. (Id. at ¶¶ 65-66). Mr. Murphy called 911 but was told that “a Monroe County Sheriff would not be sent to his home” and that he needed to speak with Springer. (Id. at ¶¶ 68-70).

In January 2024, law enforcement agencies began investigating Town officials for misconduct. (Id. at ¶ 74). That same month, Marini and Karlee Bolanos, an attorney with Bolanos Lowe, conspired with Cass & Morales Defendants to place the Murphy family under 24-hour surveillance. (Id. at ¶ 75). The Town-through Karlee Bolanos-hired Cass & Morales to have a warrantless GPS tracker placed on the Murphy family vehicle in order to coerce Mr. Murphy into silence. (Id. at ¶¶ 76-81). The Town had an existing relationship with Cass & Morales after it employed them to have a warrantless GPS tracker installed on another citizen's vehicle. (Id. at ¶ 78). Mr. Murphy had been identified as a potential witness in another federal court case against the Town. (Id. at ¶ 85).

As a result of these actions, Mrs. Murphy has suffered severe emotional distress; she is under medical and psychiatric care for anxiety and depression, is hyper-vigilant about her children's safety, and compulsively cleans her home out of fear that a recording device has been placed in it. (Id. at ¶¶ 91-94). Infant One and Two have also experienced increased anxiety, stress, and panic attacks, and are in fear of leaving their home. (Id. at ¶ 95). Mr. Murphy has experienced a chilling of his speech and incurred financial damages. (Id. at ¶ 96).

II. Procedural Background

On January 17, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Town Defendants, Bolanos Lowe Defendants, and Cass & Morales Defendants. (Dkt. 1). Against Town Defendants and Bolanos Lowe Defendants, Plaintiffs asserted causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for: (1) violation of Plaintiffs' freedom of speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) retaliation under the First and Fourteenth Amendments; (3) unlawful search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment; (4) violations of due process under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; (5) conspiracy; and (6) violations of the Equal Protection Clause. Against all defendants, Plaintiffs asserted a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) for conspiracy to interfere with Plaintiffs' civil rights, and under 42 U.S.C. § 1986 for neglect to prevent violations of Plaintiffs' civil rights. Lastly, Plaintiffs asserted a state law trespass claim against Cass & Morales Defendants.

Cass & Morales Defendants and Town Defendants filed motions to dismiss on March 14, 2025 (Dkt. 10; Dkt. 11), and Bolanos Lowe Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 17, 2025 (Dkt. 15). Plaintiffs filed papers in opposition to all three motions (Dkt. 17; Dkt. 18; Dkt. 19), and the moving parties filed reply papers (Dkt. 20; Dkt. 21; Dkt. 22).

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standards

A. Rule 12(b)(1)

“A district court properly dismisses an action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it, such as when . . . the plaintiff lacks constitutional standing to bring the action.” Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v Hellas Telecomms., S.a.r.l, 790 F.3d 411, 416-17 (2d Cir. 2015) (quotation and citation omitted). “Standing is a federal jurisdictional question ‘determining the power of the court to entertain the suit.' ‘[A] plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim and form of relief sought.'” Carver v. City of New York, 621 F.3d 221, 225 (2d Cir. 2010) (alteration in original) (citations omitted).

When standing is challenged on the basis of the pleadings, a court must “accept as true all material allegations of the complaint, and must construe the complaint in favor of the complaining party.” Carver, 621 F.3d at 225 (quoting W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co. v. Deloitte &amp Touche LLP, 549 F.3d 100, 106 (2d Cir. 2008)). Thus, when a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is facial, i.e., based solely on the pleadings, a plaintiff has no evidentiary burden and the “task of the district court is to determine whether the Pleading ‘allege[s] facts that affirmatively and plausibly suggest that [the plaintiff] has standing to sue.'” Carter v. HealthPort Techs., LLC, 822 F.3d 47, 56 (2d Cir. 2016) (alterations in original) (citation omitted); see also Katz v. Donna Karan Co., L.L.C., 872 F.3d 114, 119 (2d Cir. 2017) (when a standing...