Telsaint v. Takdir-2 Inc.

• Decision Date: 22 November 2022
• Docket Number: 525895/2018,Mo. Seq. 002,003,004
• Citation: 2022 NY Slip Op 33959 (U)
• Parties: YOUSELINE TELSAINT, Plaintiff, v. TAKDIR-2 INC., THE CITY OF NEW YORK and NYPD OFFICER DANIEL SANDBERG, Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

2022 NY Slip Op 33959(U)

YOUSELINE TELSAINT, Plaintiff,
v.
TAKDIR-2 INC., THE CITY OF NEW YORK and NYPD OFFICER DANIEL SANDBERG, Defendants.

No. 525895/2018, Mo. Seq. 002, 003, 004

Supreme Court, Kings County

November 22, 2022

Unpublished Opinion

DECISION AND ORDER

HON. CONSUELO MALLAFRE MELENDEZ, J.S.C.

Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219 [a], of the papers considered in the review:

NYSCEF #s:

SEQUENCE 2: Defendant Takdir-2 Inc.'s motion for summary judgment 76-87; 131(reply)- 88; 89; 118, 119; 120; 121; 125; 126; 128, 129, 131

SEQUENCE 3: City Defendants' motion for summary judgement 90-117; 118; 119; 120; 121; 125; 126; 128

SEQUENCE 4 Plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment 122-124; 126, 125; 128, 129; 130

Defendant Takdir-2 Inc. moves pursuant to §3212 for summary judgment in their favor dismissing all claims and cross claims as against them.

Defendants The City of New York and NYPD Officer Daniel Sandberg (City Defendants) move pursuant to CPLR § 3212 granting the defendants summary judgment as to: state and federal law false arrest and false imprisonment; 42 U.S.C § 1983 claim of excessive force and state law claim of assault and battery; state and federal malicious prosecution claims; 42 U.S.C § 1983 failure to intervene claim; 42 U.S.C § 1983 denial of right to fair trial claim;

1

state and federal law negligent hiring, training, and retention claims; and 42 U.S. C § 1983 ("Monell") claim. Plaintiff submitted opposition to the following claims:

Cause of action against the City Defendants for state and federal false arrest;

Cause of action against the City Defendants for malicious prosecution;

Cause of action against the City Defendants for assault and battery; and

Cause of action against Defendant Sandberg pursuant for excessive force. Accordingly, the unopposed portions of the City Defendants' motions are Granted.

Under New York Law, in order to establish a claim for false arrest and false imprisonment, a plaintiff must prove the following four elements: (1) the defendant intended to confine him/her; (2) the plaintiff was conscious of the confinement; (3) the plaintiff did not consent to the confinement; and (4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged. Broughton v. State of New York, 37 N.Y.2d 451, 456 (1975). Thus, a plaintiff asserting a claim for false imprisonment must establish that the defendant intended to confine the plaintiff, that the plaintiff was conscious of the confinement and did not consent to the confinement, and that the confinement was not otherwise privileged. Martinez v. City of Schenectady, 97 N.Y.2d 78, 85 (2001). The elements of a claim of false arrest under §1983 "are substantially the same as the elements of a false arrest claim under New York law." Singer v. Fulton County Sheriff, 63 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 1995); Weyant v. Okst, 101 F.3d 845, 852 (2d Cir. 1996).

Probable cause constitutes a complete defense to a claim of false arrest under both § 1983 and New York law. Weyant v. Okst, 101 F.3d at 852. The existence of probable cause serves as a legal justification for the arrest and an affirmative defense to the claim. Broughton v State of New York, 37 N.Y.2d, at 458. "If an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence, he may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender." Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354 (2001); see also Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164, 176 (2008).

Here, probable cause to arrest plaintiff for trespass and disorderly conduct was established by the City defendants. It is undisputed that employees or agents of Takdir-2 called the police complaining that plaintiff remained seated in the eating establishment without ordering

2

food which is prohibited by its...