Palmer v. City of New York

• Decision Date: 30 September 2021
• Docket Number: 19-CV-5542 (RPK) (CLP)
• Citation: 564 F.Supp.3d 221
• Parties: Kingsley PALMER and Sharon Palmer, Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK ; Inspector Elliot Colon; E 40 Buyers IG, LLC; Stephen Samuel Weintraub; Reggie a/k/a Frank Singh ; Police Officer Ramos; Adam Giaclaone, Shield No. 13860; and Nicholas Cardieri, Shield No. 11420, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

564 F.Supp.3d 221

Kingsley PALMER and Sharon Palmer, Plaintiffs,

v.The CITY OF NEW YORK ; Inspector Elliot Colon; E 40 Buyers IG, LLC; Stephen Samuel Weintraub; Reggie a/k/a Frank Singh ; Police Officer Ramos; Adam Giaclaone, Shield No. 13860; and Nicholas Cardieri, Shield No. 11420, Defendants.

19-CV-5542 (RPK) (CLP)

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

Signed September 30, 2021

Karamvir Dahiya, Dahiya Law Offices LLC, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.

James Murray, New York City Law Department, New York, NY, for Defendants The City of New York, Inspector Elliot Colon, Police Officer Ramos.

Rachel Aghassi, Samantha Panny, Furman Kornfeld & Brennan LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant Stephen Samuel Weintraub.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RACHEL P. KOVNER, United States District Judge:

Plaintiffs Kingsley Palmer and Sharon Palmer bring this action against the City of New York, several officers of the New York City Police Department, E 40 Buyers, IG, LLC, and two private individuals, alleging that defendants unlawfully removed them from their home and seized their belongings. Plaintiffs seek to hold defendants liable under the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and various New York laws. Specifically, plaintiffs claim that defendants violated an automatic bankruptcy stay, deprived plaintiffs of their property without due process of law, unlawfully converted their personal belongings, intentionally inflicted emotional distress on them, and subjected Mr. Palmer to false arrest, malicious prosecution, and assault and battery. See Am. Compl. (Dkt. #32).

The City of New York, Inspector Elliot Colon, and Officer Ramos ("the City Defendants") have moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ bankruptcy-stay claim based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and plaintiffs’ remaining claims based on failure to state a claim. See Mem. of L. in Supp. of. City Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss ("City Br.") (Dkt. #40); City Defs.’ Reply Br. ("City Reply") (Dkt. #47). Defendant Stephen Samuel Weintraub has moved to dismiss the claims against him based on failure to state a claim. See Mem. of L. in Supp. of Weintraub's Mot. to Dismiss ("Weintraub Br.") (Dkt. #37). For the reasons below, plaintiffs’ claim of a violation of an automatic bankruptcy stay is dismissed as to all defendants based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ claims for malicious prosecution, for state constitutional torts, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress are dismissed as to Weintraub, the City of New York, Inspector Colon, and Officer Ramos. Plaintiffs’ remaining claims against Weintraub and against the City of New York are dismissed in their entirety. Plaintiffs’ claims for the deprivation of property without due process and for conspiracy under Section 1983 are dismissed. Plaintiffs’ claims for false arrest, for assault and battery, and for conversion based on the loss of personal property may proceed. Plaintiffs’ surviving state-law claims may also proceed against Inspector Colon for now under a theory of respondeat superior.

BACKGROUND

Records from the Office of the City Register of the City of New York reflect that in 2008 plaintiff Kingsley Palmer obtained a mortgage from CitiMortgage, Inc. to finance the purchase of a property located at 891 East 40th Street in Brooklyn, New York ("the Premises"). Am. Compl. ¶ 14; see City Br. Ex. C (Dkt. #40-3). In 2013, CitiMortgage, Inc. initiated a foreclosure action against plaintiffs in the Supreme Court of New York, Kings County. Am. Compl. ¶ 15; see City Br. Ex. D (Dkt. #40-4). The mortgage and note were later assigned to MTGLQ Investors, L.P. See Am. Compl. ¶ 15; City Br. Ex. E at 2 (Dkt. #40-5). In 2018, the Supreme Court entered a judgment of foreclosure and sale against plaintiffs as to the Premises ("the Foreclosure Proceeding"). Am. Compl. ¶ 15; see City Br. Ex. E.

Later that year, a report of sale was filed with the state court, see City Br. Ex. F (Dkt. #40-6), and a deed was recorded with the City Register reflecting that the Premises had been purchased by E 40 Buyers IG, LLC ("E 40 Buyers"), see City Br. Ex. G (Dkt. #40-7). E 40 Buyers instituted a holdover proceeding against plaintiffs ("the Holdover Proceeding"), and in February 2019, the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County issued an order stating, "[p]ursuant to the testimony and evidence adduced at trial, [E 40 Buyers] is awarded a final judgment of possession, warrant to issue forthwith, execution stayed through March 31, 2019." City Br. Ex. J at 1 (Dkt. #40-10).

On May 17, 2019, the Civil Court extended the stay of execution of the judgment of possession through June 5, 2019. See City Br. Ex. K (Dkt. #40-11). On May 30, 2019, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause in the Foreclosure Proceeding. Am. Compl. Ex. (Dkt. #33). The order scheduled a hearing for June 26, 2019 and ordered that "[p]ending a hearing, all proceedings in the eviction action are stayed (Index No. 82907/2018)." Ibid. The index number specified is the index number for the Holdover Proceeding. See City Br. Ex. J. Plaintiffs allege that a copy of the stay order was sent to Weintraub, who was an attorney for E 40 Buyers, pursuant to the state court's direction. Am. Compl. ¶ 16.

Plaintiffs allege that on June 11, 2019, three people from the Office of the New York City Marshals came to the Premises while Mr. Palmer was not there. Id. ¶ 17. Ms. Palmer answered the door, and a marshal instructed her to leave the Premises, claiming that he had orders of eviction from the Civil Court. Ibid. Ms. Palmer told the marshal that Mr. Palmer had a "stay from the Supreme Court," but feared that she would be arrested and left the Premises. Ibid. Ms. Palmer called Mr. Palmer, who left work to retrieve a copy of the stay order from the Supreme Court, which he then "rushed" to the city marshals’ office. Ibid. When Mr. Palmer arrived, the city marshals’ office was closing for the day, and someone there asked Mr. Palmer to return the next day. Ibid.

Plaintiffs returned to the marshals’ office the next day with a copy of the stay order. Ibid. A "woman attendant" at the marshals’ office reached out to Frank Singh, also known as "Reggie," ibid. , whom plaintiffs allege is affiliated with E 40 Buyers, id. ¶ 12. The attendant told Singh "that he had to open the door because Mr. Palmer and his family had a right to be" at the Premises, but Singh refused. Id. ¶ 17. Plaintiffs then contacted their current counsel, who informed the marshals’ office of the Supreme Court's stay order. Ibid. Plaintiffs allege that the marshals’ office "agreed and further stated that plaintiffs ... could move back to their house." Ibid.

Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Palmer tried to reach Singh, but that Singh ignored Mr. Palmer's calls and "changed the locks of the house," so that plaintiffs "were forced to break the lock" to enter it. Id. ¶ 18.

On June 20, 2019, Mr. Palmer filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Id. ¶ 19.

On June 26, 2019, plaintiffs went to the Supreme Court for the hearing in the Foreclosure Proceeding. Id. ¶ 20; see id. Ex. Plaintiffs allege that Weintraub appeared at the hearing as counsel for E 40 Buyers, along with Singh, an attorney for MTGLQ Investors, and a "state court attorney." Id. ¶ 20. Mr. Palmer gave the state court attorney "papers showing that he ha[d] filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection." Ibid. Mr. Palmer was told that because he had sought bankruptcy protection, the hearing would have to be adjourned to July 24, 2019, during which time "the status quo had to be maintained." Ibid.

According to plaintiffs, Weintraub then "got angry and started saying they are going to get[ ] cops and get [plaintiffs] thrown out." Ibid. Weintraub said that he would not use the marshals’ office anymore, and that plaintiffs’ bankruptcy papers were fake. Ibid. As he left the courtroom, Weintraub said, "I don't give a rat a** to those papers." Ibid.

Plaintiffs allege that the following evening, six police cars arrived at their home. Id. ¶ 21. Singh arrived with them. Ibid. Around four officers entered the house and told Mr. Palmer that he had to leave. Ibid. Mr. Palmer showed the police officers bankruptcy papers and a copy of the Supreme Court's stay order, and asked the officers to call their sergeant. Ibid. A sergeant came to the house and asked Mr. Palmer to leave. Ibid. When Mr. Palmer tried to reason further with the police, he was "pushed and manhandled with his hands forcibly pulled back for handcuffing" and "arrested in his home." Ibid. The police handcuffed Mr. Palmer and took him outside to a police car as his neighbors watched. Ibid.

According to the amended complaint, a police officer took Mr. Palmer to the precinct in Brooklyn, where an officer told Mr. Palmer that if he did not tell his wife to leave the house, they would arrest her as well. Ibid.

Plaintiffs further allege that around 9 p.m. that night, Mr. Palmer called Ms. Palmer while she was at work and asked her to come home immediately because he was being arrested. Id. ¶ 22. Ms. Palmer left work and came to the house, where she saw Singh changing the locks of the house. Ibid. Singh told Ms. Palmer to immediately leave the house and "kept shouting at her telling her that he will have to call police on her." Ibid. Ms. Palmer went into the house, locked it from the inside, and tried to reach Mr. Palmer. Ibid. Ms. Palmer then received a call from Mr. Palmer, who was at the police precinct, and who told Ms. Palmer that she had to leave the house or she would be arrested. Id. ¶¶ 21-22. A police officer told Ms. Palmer on the phone that if she opened the door, they would not arrest her. Id. ¶ 22. She opened the door, and two police officers at the door told her to vacate the house immediately. Ibid. Ms. Palmer left the house and stayed with relatives. Ibid.

Mr. Palmer was detained at the police precinct until 1 a.m. and then was taken to central...