Weiner v. McKeefery
| Decision Date | 11 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 11–CV–2254 JFBAKT.,11–CV–2254 JFBAKT. |
| Citation | 90 F.Supp.3d 17 |
| Parties | Don A. WEINER, Plaintiff, v. Dennis McKEEFERY, Raffaele Maietta, Maryann Weiner, The County of Suffolk, and Thomas Spota, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Arther V. Graseck, Jr., Oakdale, NY, Frank J. Blangiardo, Cutchogue, NY, for Plaintiff.
Brian C. Mitchell, Suffolk County Department of Law, Hauppague, NY, for Defendants.
Mary Ann Weiner, pro se.
Plaintiff Don A. Weiner (“D. Weiner” or “plaintiff”) brings this action against the County of Suffolk (“the County”), Police Officer Dennis McKeefery (“Officer McKeefery”), Police Sergeant Raffaele Maietta (“Sergeant Maietta”), District Attorney Thomas Spota (“Spota”), and Maryann Weiner (“M. Weiner”) (collectively, “defendants”). This case stems from plaintiff's April 2, 2009 arrest by Suffolk County Police for allegedly endangering the welfare of a minor in violation of New York State Penal Law Section 260.10.1, and for alleged harassment in the second degree in violation of New York State Penal Law Section 240.26.1. Plaintiff contends that the police lacked probable cause to arrest and prosecute him, and asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and malicious prosecution against defendants Officer McKeefery and Sergeant Maietta. Plaintiff brings a pendent claim for malicious prosecution under New York State Law against pro se defendant M. Weiner. Plaintiff also asserts a Monell claim against the County and a claim against defendant Spota seeking declaratory relief for allegedly failing to properly act upon potentially exculpatory evidence. Suffolk County defendants (Officer McKeefery, Sergeant Maietta, the County, and Spota) and pro se defendant, M. Weiner, have separately moved for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. As set forth in detail below, the Court grants the Suffolk County defendants' motion in part and denies it in part, and grants M. Weiner's motion in its entirety.
First, the Court grants the Suffolk County defendants' motion for summary judgment on the false arrest claim. Specifically, the Court concludes that Officer McKeefery and Sergeant Maietta had probable cause to arrest plaintiff as a matter of law, based on the information available to them at the time of arrest, including the sworn statement of Jake Weiner, and the interviews of Logan Weiner. In connection with that determination, the Court concludes that no rational jury could find that the circumstances surrounding the incident—including the ages of the child witnesses, and the fact that they were part of an acrimonious divorce between plaintiff and their mother—were sufficient to raise doubt as to the veracity of the statements by the children at the time of the plaintiff's arrest. Similarly, the officers were under no obligation, prior to the arrest, to investigate plaintiff's version of the events, including a recording of the incident that he had made. Even assuming arguendo that there was not probable cause to arrest plaintiff, the Court concludes that defendants Officer McKeefery and Sergeant Maietta are entitled to qualified immunity because, under plaintiff's version of the information available to the police on that date and drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor, officers of reasonable competence could disagree over whether there was probable cause to arrest.
Second, the Court denies the Suffolk County defendants' motion for summary judgment on the malicious prosecution claim against Officer McKeefery. The Court finds that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether or not the Officer McKeefery had probable cause to commence and continue the prosecution of plaintiff. In connection with a malicious prosecution claim, police officers may not disregard exculpatory evidence that would void probable cause, and a failure to make reasonable inquiry in such situations may be evidence of a lack of probable cause. In this case, the recording of the incident supplied by plaintiff to police at the time of arrest certainly undermined the version of events provided to the police by the two children. There is a triable issue of fact as to whether a failure to review that recording and conduct further inquiry dissipated the probable cause between the arrest and the initiation of the prosecution. In addition, it is unclear whether Officer McKeefery was aware of a May 2009 finding by Child Protective Services that the children's claims against the plaintiff were unfounded. These factual disputes (and gaps in the record regarding Officer McKeefery's level of ongoing involvement in the prosecution) also preclude summary judgment at this stage on the issue of whether the officer is entitled to qualified immunity for commencing and continuing the prosecution of plaintiff. However, Sergeant Maietta is entitled to summary judgment on this claim because there is no evidence that he initiated or participated in the continuation of the prosecution.
Third, the Court grants the Suffolk County defendants' motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff's Monell claim, finding the Suffolk County's “Pro–Arrest Policy” constitutional, because the policy requires probable cause for any arrest arising from a domestic dispute.
Fourth, the Court finds that the plaintiff's claim for declaratory judgment against defendant Spota cannot survive summary judgment, as it does not meet the actual case or controversy requirement.
Finally, the Court grants defendant M. Weiner's motion for summary judgment on the pendent New York state law malicious prosecution claim, because plaintiff's allegations against defendant M. Weiner are conclusory and not supported by sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could find that M. Weiner engaged in an active role in the prosecution, as required under New York state law.
The Court takes the following facts from the parties' affidavits, depositions, exhibits, and respective Local Rule 56.1 Statements of Fact.1 Upon consideration of a motion for summary judgment, the Court construes the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Capobianco v. City of New York, 422 F.3d 47, 50 (2d Cir.2005).
On April 2, 2009 around 8:19 p.m., plaintiff's twelve-year-old son, Jake Weiner, called 911 requesting police assistance at his mother's (M. Weiner's) residence relating to an incident that occurred between his father (plaintiff) and his brother Logan Weiner, who was eight years old, while plaintiff was driving both sons from the library to M. Weiner's home. (Suffolk County Defs.' Rule 56.1 Statement, ¶¶ 1, 2.) In the call, Jake Weiner told the operator that plaintiff, “[who is] not allowed to touch [Logan], ... grabbed him and threw him against the wall of the car.” (Id. ¶ 1.) Plaintiff also called 911. (Id. ) Suffolk County Police Officers Brandi McGloughlin and David Montemurro, Officer McKeefery, and Sergeant Maietta responded to the call. Upon arrival at M. Weiner's home, Officer Montemurro, Officer McKeefery, and Sergeant Maietta all interviewed Logan and Jake. (Id. ¶ 4.) Officer Montemurro interviewed Logan alone and then interviewed Jake alone. (Id. ¶ 5.) Officer McKeefery interviewed Jake alone and then interviewed Logan with Officer Montemurro. (Id. ¶ 6.)
Jake Weiner provided Officers McKeefery and Montemurro with sworn written statements attesting that, while driving, plaintiff became angry, turned around in the vehicle, grabbed Logan by the front of his shirt, shook him, and threw him across the back seat hitting the door. ) Jake Weiner executed a sworn Violation Information to that effect and a Suffolk County Police Department Civilian Arrest Form demanding that his father be arrested for the charge of Harassment in the Second Degree. )
Based on the sworn statements of Jake Weiner and the interviews with Logan Weiner, Officer McKeefery executed a misdemeanor information charging plaintiff with endangering the welfare of a child, in violation of New York State Penal Law Section 260.10.01, and arrested him. (Suffolk County Defs.' Rule 56.1 Statement ¶ 17.) Suffolk County defendants allege that M. Weiner provided no information that led to the arrest of plaintiff, (id. ¶ 18), while plaintiff asserts that the Suffolk County defendants “did not rely exclusively on the interviews of [Logan] and Jake in deciding to arrest and commence the malicious prosecution of plaintiff,” but instead relied on information provided by M. Weiner,
While at the scene of the arrest, plaintiff informed Officer McKeefery that he had recorded the incident in the car and repeatedly asked the officer to listen to the tape. (Suffolk County Defs.' Rule 56.1 Statement ¶ 19.) Plaintiff and Suffolk County defendants dispute whether or not Officer McKeefery asked plaintiff if he could authenticate the recording. (Id.; Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Statement in Response to Suffolk County Defs.' Statement ¶ 19.) Despite plaintiff's repeated requests, Officer McKeefery and Sergeant Maietta did not listen to the recording. (Suffolk County Defs.' Rule 56.1 Statement ¶ 19; Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Statement in Response to Suffolk County Defs.' Statement ¶ 19.) Plaintiff asserts that the content of the tape revealed that Logan attempted to exit the moving vehicle while plaintiff was driving and that plaintiff grabbed him to protect him from injury. (Compl. ¶ 14; Pl.'s Mem. in Opp'n to Suffolk County Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 7.)
On April 3, 2009, the day after his arrest, plaintiff was arraigned in state court and the court imposed a five day order of protection directing him to stay away from Jake and Logan Weiner. (Pl.'s Aff. in Opp'n to Suffolk County Defs.' Mot., ¶ 22.) The order of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hulett v. City of Fowler, 5:14-CV-152.
...cause, like the one in this case, will preclude a summary determination on the issue of malice as well. See, e.g., Weiner v. McKeefery, 90 F.Supp.3d 17, 38 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) ("Here, because the existence of probable cause to prosecute remains in question, the existence of actual malice does a......
-
Fiedler v. Incandela
...active role in the prosecution, such as giving advice and encouragement or importuning the authorities to act.’ " Weiner v. McKeefery , 90 F.Supp.3d 17, 45 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting Barrett v. Watkins , 82 A.D.3d 1569, 1572, 919 N.Y.S.2d 569 (3d Dep't 2011) ) (internal alteration omitted); s......
-
Soto v. City of N.Y.
...v. City of New York, 581 F.Supp.2d 420, 432 (E.D.N.Y.2008) (citing Panetta, 460 F.3d at 396–98 ). See Weiner v. McKeefery, 90 F.Supp.3d 17, 32, 2015 WL 1055890, at *9 (E.D.N.Y.2015) (rejecting argument that officer's failure to review tape recording of underlying incident eliminated probabl......
-
Simpson v. Town of Warwick Police Dep't
...information, so long as the arresting officer acted reasonably and in good faith in relying on that information.”); Weiner v. McKeefery , 90 F.Supp.3d 17, 33 (E.D.N.Y.2015) (officers had no reason to doubt witness's reliability, “as it was established through his sworn statements and by the......