Mutinsky v. Town of Clarkstown, Mun. Corp.
| Decision Date | 22 October 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 14-cv-7803 (NSR)(PED),14-cv-7803 (NSR)(PED) |
| Parties | JUSTINE MUTINSKY, as Administrator of the Estate of JAMES A. MUTINSKY, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN, a public municipal corporation of the State of New York, POLICE OFFICER TARA PURCELL, POLICE OFFICER JOHN MULLINS, and JOHN/JANE DOES 1-15, being presently unknown persons who were Town of Clarkstown police officers, law enforcement personnel, or Town officials in their individual capacities; jointly and severally, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Plaintiff Justine Mutinksy, as administrator of the estate of James Mutinsky, brings this action against Defendants Town of Clarkstown ("Clarkstown"), Tara Purcell, and John Mullins alleging violations of state and federal law arising out of Plaintiff's1 arrest on June 28, 2013 during which Plaintiff was subdued by a Conducted Electrical Weapon, commonly referred to as a Taser. Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), 12(c), 12(d), 12(h)(3), and 56. (Defs.' Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss and/or for Summ. J. ( ), ECF No. 49.) For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Plaintiff owned and resided at 65 North Grant Avenue, Congers, New York and owned and rented out 65A North Grant Avenue, Congers, New York. (Pl.'s Rule 5.1 Response to Defs.' Rule 56.1 Statement ("Pl.'s 56.1") ¶ 1, ECF No. 64.) This property was a two story free-standing building with a three car garage on the ground floor, used by both the tenant and Plaintiff, and a residential living area on the second floor at the top of a flight of stairs. (Id. ¶ 10.) The residential area is accessible through an entrance, secured by a lock, which leads to a stairway up to the apartment. (Lubitz Decl. Ex. 2, ECF No. 66.) The garage portion of the building was not part of the rental property. (Lubitz Decl. Ex. 2.) On June 27, 2013, the tenant,2 who had been occupying the rental property under a written lease but was in the process of moving out, appeared at Plaintiff's residence and demanded a return of her security deposit, but the deposit was not repaid at that time. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 12); (Lubitz Decl. Ex. 3.) On June 28, 2013, the tenant called Clarkstown police and requested police assistance at 65 North Grant Avenue, Congers, New York, reporting that she had been pushed by Plaintiff. (Lubitz Decl. Ex. 3) (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 13.) Defendants Purcell and Mullins were the police officers dispatched to respond to the call. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 15.)
Defendants Purcell and Mullins met the tenant in a common driveway on the property owned by Plaintiff which was used both by Plaintiff and his tenants. (Id. ¶ 16.) The tenant showed a written lease to Defendants Purcell and Mullins which stated that the lease ended October 9, 2013 and, among other terms, specified that the landlord agreed that, so long as the tenant was not in default, the tenant could "peaceably and quietly have, hold and enjoy thepremises for the term of the lease." (Purcell Decl. Ex. A, ECF No. 51.) While Defendants Purcell and Mullins were in the driveway with the tenant, Plaintiff left his residence and approached the group to join the discussion. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 19.)
At some point, while the dispute was still unresolved, Plaintiff left the driveway area and proceeded into the garage and up to the apartment. (Id. ¶ 24.) Defendants Purcell and Mullins followed Plaintiff to the stairway leading up to the apartment and continued speaking with Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 26); (Purcell Decl. p. 5); (Mullins Decl. p. 4, ECF No. 52.) As Defendants ascended the staircase, which was very steep and without handrails, Plaintiff stood at the top of the stairway on a landing. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 28, 33.) When Defendant Purcell was at the first step down from the landing where Plaintiff stood, Plaintiff's right foot "went up." (Id. ¶ 29.) According to Defendants, and documented in the misdemeanor information filed against Plaintiff, Plaintiff attempted to kick Defendant Purcell in the face. (Mullins Decl. p. 4); (Purcell Decl. p. 10); (Lubitz Decl. Ex. 9.) Plaintiff disputes this account of events. (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 29.) The parties also dispute the sequence of events leading to Plaintiff being shot with a Taser. Plaintiff contends that there were drop cloths for painters on the stairs leading up to the apartment and Plaintiff lost his balance, causing his foot to go up, when Defendants pulled a drop cloth on which he was standing. (Lubitz Decl. Ex. 4 (Pl. Dep. Tr. 61:8 - 25, 62:1 - 22 ).) According to Plaintiff, Defendant Mullins shot him with the Taser "instantly," while he was still off balance. (Lubitz Decl. Ex. 4 (Pl. Dep. Tr. 62:23 - 25, 63:1 - 13).) In contrast, Defendants, as noted in the misdemeanor information, saw that Plaintiff was "highly agitated and physically aggressive towards [Defendant Purcell]." (Lubitz Decl. Ex. 9.) Defendant Mullins observed Plaintiff's raised foot, drew and displayed the Taser, and instructed Plaintiff that he was under arrest. (Lubitz. Decl. Ex. 10 (Mullins Dep. Tr. 40: 15 - 22).) Plaintiff assumed a "fighting stance withhis fists up" and Defendant Mullins then deployed the Taser. (Id.) Plaintiff fell to the landing and Defendants observed that he sustained a laceration to his forehead "but otherwise appeared to be uninjured." (Pl.'s Decl. ¶ 34); (Purcell Decl. p. 7.) Plaintiff contends that he also sustained injuries to his wrists after Defendants handcuffed him during his arrest. (Lubitz Decl. Ex. 4 (Mutinski Dep. Tr. 70:2 - 5; 75:16 - 18).) After Defendants handcuffed Plaintiff, they called an EMS, and Plaintiff was taken to a local hospital for further evaluation. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 37.)
Plaintiff was subsequently issued an appearance ticket, requiring him to appear in Clarkstown Justice Court to answer the charges on the offenses of harassment in the second degree and resisting arrest, filed by Defendant Purcell. (Id. ¶ 39.) Plaintiff voluntarily appeared for arraignment on July 15, 2013 and was released on his own recognizance with no travel restrictions. (Id. ¶ 40.) Judge Thorsen dismissed the charges on July 17, 2014. (Id. ¶ 42.)
Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants on September 26, 2014 ("Complaint," ECF No. 1) alleging that he is entitled to recovery under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Defendants' violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff also brings state law claims for battery and excessive force, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, trespass to land, invasion of privacy, negligence, and violations of the New York Constitution. Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment currently before the Court on September 25, 2016.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), "[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings."3 Fed. R. Civ. P.12(c). "To survive a Rule 12(c) motion, the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' " Graziano v. Pataki, 689 F.3d 110, 114 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The standard for analyzing a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is identical to the standard for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Cleveland v. Caplaw Enters., 448 F.3d 518, 521 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
In ruling on a motion to dismiss, a "court may consider the facts as asserted within the four corners of the complaint together with the documents attached to the complaint as exhibits, and any documents incorporated in the complaint by reference." Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Dev. Corp., 602 F.3d 57, 64 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Courts may also consider "matters of which judicial notice may be taken" and "documents either in plaintiffs' possession or of which plaintiffs had knowledge and relied on in bringing suit." Brass v. Am. Film Techs., Inc., 987 F.2d 142, 150 (2d Cir. 1993).
Conversely, when "matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, [a motion to dismiss] must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56." Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(d). Rule 12(d) further provides that "all parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion." Id. Accordingly, a district court acts properly in converting a motion for judgment on the pleadings into a motion for summary judgment when the motion presents matters outside the pleadings, as long as the Court gives "sufficient notice to an opposing party and an opportunity for that party to respond." Groden v. Random House, Inc., 61 F.3d 1045, 1052 (2d Cir. 1995). Ordinarily, formal notice is not required where a party "should reasonably have recognized the possibility that the motion might be converted into one for summary judgment [and] was [neither] taken by surprise [nor]deprived of a reasonable opportunity to meet facts outside the pleadings." Villante v. Dep't of Corr. of City of N.Y., 786 F.2d 516, 521 (2d Cir. 1986) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re G. & A. Books, Inc., 770 F.2d 288, 295 (2d Cir. 1985)). Hernandez v. Coffey, 582 F.3d 303, 307 (2d Cir. 2009).
As Defendants have presented matters outside the pleadings, which the Court does not exclude, and because Plaintiff was timely apprised of the possibility that this motion could be treated as a motion for summary judgment and has...
To continue reading
Request your trial