Weimer v. City of Johnstown

• Decision Date: 02 April 1998
• Parties: , 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 3044 Ronald M. WEIMER, Respondent, v. CITY OF JOHNSTOWN, Appellant, et al., Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 624

670 N.Y.S.2d 624

249 A.D.2d 608, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 3044

Ronald M. WEIMER, Respondent, v. CITY OF JOHNSTOWN, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Third Department.

April 2, 1998.

Carter, Conboy, Case, Blackmore, Napierski & Maloney (James A. Resila, of counsel), Albany, for appellant.

Robert J. Krzys, Amsterdam, for respondent.

Before CARDONA, P.J., and MERCURE, WHITE, SPAIN and CARPINELLO, JJ.

CARDONA, Presiding Justice.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Ferradino, J.), entered March 13, 1997 in Fulton County, which, inter alia, denied that part of defendants' cross motion seeking to dismiss certain claims against defendant City of Johnstown.

This action arises out of a physical altercation in March 1994 which ensued between plaintiff and defendant Steven Lake, a police officer formerly employed by defendant City of Johnstown, when Lake stopped plaintiff's vehicle during a routine traffic stop. Plaintiff served a notice of claim upon defendants in May 1994. Thereafter, in January 1996, plaintiff commenced this action by service of a summons with notice and simultaneously served upon the City a notice of discovery and inspection. Defendants timely responded with a notice of appearance and a demand for a complaint but did not comply with the discovery demand. Subsequently, plaintiff served a complaint alleging a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (first cause of action), a cause of action under N.Y. Constitution, article I, §§ 6 and 12 (second cause of action), and a cause of action for unlawful seizure under the 4th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution as well as N.Y. Constitution, article I, §§ 6 and 12 (third cause of action).

Following joinder of issue, plaintiff moved for an order compelling the City to respond to the notice of discovery and inspection. Defendants, in turn, cross-moved for dismissal of the various claims or, alternatively, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion; however, it granted the cross motion to the extent of dismissing all claims against Lake and all New York constitutional claims alleged against the City in the second and part of the third causes of action. The court declined to dismiss the first cause of action as well as that part of the third cause of action alleging Federal constitutional claims. The City appeals.

Turning to plaintiff's first cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, it is well settled that in order to prevail under this statute, a plaintiff must plead and prove "(1) an official policy or custom that (2) causes [the plaintiff] to be subjected to (3) a denial of a [Federal] constitutional right" (Howe v. Village of Trumansburg, 199 A.D.2d 749, 751, 605 N.Y.S.2d 466, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 753, 612 N.Y.S.2d 107, 634 N.E.2d 603; see, Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2035-2036, 56 L.Ed.2d 611; Di Palma v. Phelan, 81 N.Y.2d 754, 756, 593 N.Y.S.2d 778, 609 N.E.2d 131). Moreover, where liability is sought against a municipality based upon the actions of one of its officers or employees, the plaintiff must demonstrate that his or her injury arose from the acts of the officer or employee in the course of executing a municipal policy or custom (see, City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 810, 105 S.Ct. 2427, 2429, 85 L.Ed.2d 791; Town of Orangetown v. Magee, 88 N.Y.2d 41, 49, 643 N.Y.S.2d 21, 665 N.E.2d 1061). Such custom or policy, however, "need not be contained in an explicitly adopted rule or regulation" or have received formal approval by official decisionmakers (Sorlucco v. New York City Police Dept., 971 F.2d 864, 870-871; see, Illiano v. Clay Township, 892 F.Supp. 117, 121).

Plaintiff's first cause of action is premised upon allegations that defendants, through Lake's actions, deprived him of his rights under the 4th, 5th, 8th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution "to be secure from an unauthorized/unprovoked assault & battery, or free from governmental intrusion without a reasonable or justifiable basis". Plaintiff further alleges that Lake's actions were done "under the color and pretense of the statutes, Ordinances, regulations, customs, usages and authority of his * * * position as a police officer with the City of Johnstown". Although plaintiff has failed to cite to the specific custom, practice or policy under which Lake purportedly acted, he alludes to prior similar misconduct by Lake in his affidavit in opposition to defendants' cross motion in which he avers:

* * * it is noted that shortly after this incident defendant City of Johnstown declined to keep [Lake] in their employ. At this point in time the true reason therefor is not precisely known, except that the conduct which he subjected deponent to on March 3, 1994 was not an isolated or first-time instance. Deponent would fully like to develop that theory of liability against [the City].

We acknowledge that on a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7), "the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction, its allegations are accepted as true, plaintiffs are accorded the benefit of every possible favorable inference and [the court] determine[s] only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" (Corvetti v. Town of Lake Pleasant, 227 A.D.2d 821, 822, 642 N.Y.S.2d...