Stratakos v. Nassau Cnty.

• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
• Writing for the Court: SPATT, District Judge
• Decision Date: 09 December 2019
• Docket Number: 2:15-cv-7244 (ADS) (ARL)
• Citation: Stratakos v. Nassau Cnty., 2:15-cv-7244 (ADS) (ARL) (E.D. N.Y. Dec 09, 2019)
• Parties: DEMITRIOS STRATAKOS Plaintiff, v. NASSAU COUNTY, POLICE OFFICER PRASHANT RANE, POLICE OFFICER KARL PADILLA, POLICE OFFICER "JOHN" CABEY, DETECTIVE "JOHN" DLUGINSKI, SERGEANT JAMES BROWN and POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOES NUMBERS 1-10 unknown and intended to be named later Nassau County Police Officers involved in the occurrences herein, individually and in their respective capacities as members of the Nassau County Police Department, Defendants.

DEMITRIOS STRATAKOS Plaintiff, v. NASSAU COUNTY, POLICE OFFICER PRASHANT RANE, POLICE OFFICER KARL PADILLA,POLICE OFFICER "JOHN" CABEY, DETECTIVE "JOHN" DLUGINSKI, SERGEANT JAMES BROWNand POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOES NUMBERS 1-10 unknown and intended to benamed later Nassau County Police Officers involved in the occurrences herein,individually and in their respective capacities as members of the Nassau County Police Department, Defendants.

2:15-cv-7244 (ADS) (ARL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

December 9, 2019

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER

APPEARANCES:

Raiser & Kenniff, P.C.

Attorneys for the Plaintiff

300 Old Country Road, Suite 351

Mineola, NY 11501

By: Ethan Daniel Irwin, Esq.,

James M. Ingoglia, Esq., Of Counsel.

Office of the Nassau County Attorney

Attorneys for the Defendant Nassau County

1 West Street

Mineola, NY 11787

By: John Alexander Genua, Assistant County Attorney,

Diane C. Petillo, Assistant County Attorney.

Devitt Spellman Barrett, LLP

Attorneys for the Defendants

50 Route 111, Suite 314

Smithtown, NY 11787

By: Scott J. Kreppein, Esq., Of Counsel.

Quatela Chimeri, PLLC

Attorneys for the Defendants

888 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 530

Hauppauge, NY 11788

By: Alexander Sendrowitz, Esq., Of Counsel.

SPATT, District Judge:

Plaintiff Demitrios Stratakos (the "Plaintiff") brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983, state law, and common law action against Nassau County (the "County"), the Nassau County District Attorney's Office, the Nassau County Police Department, and several police officers: Officer Prashant Rane; Officer Karl Padilla; Officer John Cabey; Detective John Dluginski; Sergeant James Brown; and, Officer John Does Numbers 1-10 (collectively, "the Defendants"). He brought the action following an incident outside a nightclub in Carle Place, New York. In November 2016, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint as to the Nassau County Police Department and the Nassau County District Attorney's Office.

The Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint against the remaining Defendants, raising the following claims: (1) several § 1983 claims against Rane and Padilla, alleging violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) a failure to intervene claim against Padilla; (3) a claim for supervisory liability against Dluginski, Brown, and the John Doe Officers; (4) a claim against the County under Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1978); (5) the same § 1983 claims from the first claim, but repurposed as New York State constitutional claims, against all Defendants; (6) a false arrest claim against Rane and Padilla; (7) a false imprisonment claim against Rane and Padilla; (8) an assault and battery claim against Rane; (9) a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against Rane; (10) a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress against Rane and Padilla; (11) a claim for negligence against the individual Defendants;(12) a respondeat superior claim against the County; and (13) a claim for malicious prosecution against the individual Defendants.

Presently before the Court are the Plaintiff's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FED. R. CIV. P.") 56 motion for summary judgment, and the Defendants' FED. R. CIV. P. 56 cross-motion for summary judgment. This opinion's background section recounts the events on the night of the incident outside the nightclub; summarizes the criminal proceedings that resulted from that incident; and, describes the procedural history of the present action, along with the pending motions. In the discussion section, this opinion addresses those motions, discussing the parties' allegations as to each claim in turn. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the Plaintiff's motion in its entirety, grants the Defendants' cross-motion in part, and denies the cross-motion in part.

I. BACKGROUND

Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are undisputed and drawn from the parties' Local Rule 56.1 statements.

On December 29, 2012, at approximately 3:00 am, police arrived at Club Sugar, a nightclub in Carle Place, New York, to investigate the pulling of a fire alarm and an altercation that took place inside the nightclub. ECF 49 at 1. The Plaintiff alleges that he was not involved in the altercation. Id. The Defendants claim that employees from Club Sugar believed that the Plaintiff was the aggressor in the altercation. ECF 60-1 at 1.

The following events culminated in the Plaintiff's arrest by Rane and Padilla, though the parties diverge in their description of those events. The Plaintiff alleges the following: (a) he was pacing on the sidewalk near Club Sugar, waiting for his friend to exit the nightclub, when he approached Rane and his squad car to ask him a question; (b) Rane told him to "get the fuckaway from the vehicle," and the Plaintiff complied by returning to the sidewalk; (c) he called 911 to request that a supervisor come to the nightclub, and he started recording his interactions with the police, using his cell phone; (d) Rane called the 911 dispatcher and told the dispatcher that there was no need to send a supervisor to the scene; (e) Rane approached the Plaintiff on the sidewalk and told him that if he did not leave the area, he would arrest him for trespassing; (f) the Plaintiff once again complied with Rane, leaving the area near Club Sugar; (g) while he was walking away from the club on a nearby street, he began calling the 911 dispatcher on his cell phone to ask why a supervisor was not sent, and he saw Rane and Padilla approaching him in their vehicles; (h) Rane struck the Plaintiff's hand that had been holding the cell phone with his baton, then used the baton to strike him in the head, without giving any prior warning, and even though the Plaintiff had made no effort to resist; and, (i) the attack rendered the Plaintiff unconscious; damaged his cell phone to the point that it was not recoverable; caused him to sustain several injuries, such as a laceration to his nose; and required him to go to the hospital. ECF 49 at 2-7.

The Defendants allege the following. The Plaintiff had attempted multiple times to re-enter Club Sugar. ECF 60-1 at 2. For nearly an hour between 3:15 am and 4:15 am, the police ordered the Plaintiff to leave the vicinity of the nightclub, but the Plaintiff did not leave, and instead, he repeatedly dialed 911. Id. at 3. They could not confirm that the Plaintiff had recorded them because he had failed to produce the cell phone used that night. Id. at 2. The Plaintiff was not walking away in order to comply with directions to leave, he was walking away from officers attempting to arrest him. Id. The officers had probable cause to believe that the Plaintiff was obstructing governmental administration under New York Penal Law § 195.05 by "refusing to comply with lawful directives, repeatedly dialing 911, and otherwise interfering withthe police completing their duties at the scene." Id. at 2. They also argue that the Plaintiff misrepresents the deposition testimony of several individuals, such as that of Rane, who testified that he was not sure if he had struck the Plaintiff. Id. at 3.

The following information is taken from the Plaintiff's amended complaint. After his arrest, the Plaintiff faced charges for assault in the second degree (N.Y. Penal Law § 120,05(3)), resisting arrest (N.Y. Penal Law § 205.30), and obstructing governmental administration ("OGA"). ECF 15 at 6. He pleaded not guilty. Id. at 10.

Criminal proceedings lasted for several years, forcing upon the Plaintiff "the loss of wages, the cost of hiring defense counsel, and [] severe psychological stress." Id. at 6, 11. He alleged that both Rane and Padilla made false statements to the court during those proceedings. Id. at 6, 11. After a jury trial, the Plaintiff was found not guilty on all counts. Id. at 6.

The Plaintiff brought this action against the Defendants in December 2015. ECF 1. In November 2016, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Nassau County Police Department and the Nassau County District Attorney's Office from the action. ECF 14. The Court further granted the Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. Id. In December 2016, the Plaintiff filed the amended complaint, raising the above-noted claims against the remaining Defendants. ECF 15. He asks for declaratory relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages against the individual Defendants, attorney's fees, and costs. Id.

Presently before the Court are the parties' FED. R. CIV. P. 56 cross-motions for summary judgment. ECF 57, 60.

II. DISCUSSION

The Plaintiff's seeks summary judgment as to all causes of action listed in the first amended complaint. ECF 57-1. In their cross-motion for summary judgment, the Defendantsask that the Court dismiss all claims against them, with the exception of the Plaintiff's first and eighth claims to the extent that they allege excessive force against Rane, and the Plaintiff's twelfth claim, for relief against the County under the common law theory of respondeat superior. ECF 60-3. They also ask that Defendants Cabey, Dluginski, and Brown be dismissed from the case because they did not "have any substantive involvement in the facts and circumstances surrounding Plaintiff's claims." Id,

In this section, the Court first provides the legal standard for a summary judgment motion. It then addresses both the Plaintiff's motion and the Defendants' cross-motion simultaneously, examining each cause of action in the amended complaint. The Court briefly describes the allegations raised as to each claim before proceeding to the analysis. The Court slightly departs from the order of the claims as the parties presented them: it first rules on the Plaintiff's federal claims, and then it rules on the Plaintiff's state law and common law claims. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the Plaintiff's motion in its entirety, grants the...