Williams v. City of Buffalo

• Citation: 72 A.D.2d 952,422 N.Y.S.2d 241
• Parties: Robert O. WILLIAMS, Respondent, v. CITY OF BUFFALO, Joseph Deneke and Patrick Beltz, Appellants.
• Decision Date: 16 November 1979
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Page 241

422 N.Y.S.2d 241

72 A.D.2d 952

Robert O. WILLIAMS, Respondent, v. CITY OF BUFFALO, Joseph Deneke and Patrick Beltz, Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

Nov. 16, 1979.

Joseph P. McNamara, Corp. Counsel, Buffalo by James Quinlivan, Buffalo, for appellants.

Christopher T. W. Ross, Buffalo, for respondent.

Before SIMONS, J. P., and HANCOCK, CALLAHAN, DOERR and MOULE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

At about 4:30 a. m. on September 11, 1972 two police officers employed by the City of Buffalo were called to investigate a suspicious man at the door of a residence. The man, plaintiff in this action, appeared intoxicated and was detained at the scene while the officers radioed their dispatcher for a warrant check. They advised the dispatcher of plaintiff's full name, the month and year of his birth (7/43) and his current address. The dispatcher responded that there was a warrant for a Williams, address 204 Genesee Street, date of birth 7/9/43 and that he was wanted for charges involving a jail riot at the Erie County Penitentiary. Since the address differed from that which plaintiff had given the officers, they asked him whether he had ever lived at 204 Genesee Street. He responded that he had. The officers then arrested him and took him to precinct headquarters where he was booked and incarcerated. He was arraigned on September 12, 1972 and held until November 1, 1972 when it was discovered that although he had in fact been a prisoner in the Penitentiary on the date of the riot, he was in a different section from that in which the riot occurred. The Robert Williams charged in the warrant was another man.

Plaintiff brought this action asserting several causes of action, and the matter was submitted to the jury on the theory of false imprisonment based upon the negligence of the police wrongly in identifying plaintiff.

Generally, when there is an alleged unlawful arrest made pursuant to a valid warrant, the appropriate form of action is malicious prosecution, not false imprisonment (Broughton v. New York State, 37 N.Y.2d 451, 456-457, 373 N.Y.S.2d 87, 92-93, 335 N.E.2d 310, 313-314, cert. den. sub nom. Schanbarger v. Kellogg, 423 U.S. 929, 96 S.Ct. 277, 46 L.Ed.2d 257; Boose v. City of Rochester, App.Div., 421 N.Y.S.2d 740; Smith v. County of Livingston, 69 A.D.2d 993, 416 N.Y.S.2d 130; Lincoln First Bank of Rochester v. Siegel, 60 A.D.2d 270, 276, 400 N.Y.S.2d 627, 631). In such circumstances the action for false imprisonment is barred and the arrest privileged because the arresting officer is duty-bound to execute the warrant (Craner v. Corbett, 27 A.D.2d 796, 279 N.Y.S.2d 135; Natasi v. State of New York, 275 App.Div. 524, 90 N.Y.S.2d 377, affd. 300 N.Y. 473, 88 N.E.2d 658; Prosser, Torts (4th ed.), § 11, p. 49). This privilege is not absolute, however. When there are two or more persons to whom the name on the warrant applies with complete accuracy the officer is privileged to arrest the person whom he reasonably believes is the person intended only after using diligence to verify the defendant's identity (Craner v. Corbett, supra; Maracle v. State of New York, 50 Misc.2d 348, 270 N.Y.S.2d 439; Restatement, Torts 2d, § 125, Comment d). The determination of due diligence generally is a question of fact for the jury, and appellant here contends only that the jury's verdict on liability and damage is against the weight of the evidence.

We review the proof in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as we must (see Colegrove v. City of Corning, 54 A.D.2d 1093, 388 N.Y.S.2d 964). The name on the warrant was "Robert Williams", no middle initial or address specified. Apparently, identity had been a problem when the police tried to execute the warrant earlier, however, because there are several penciled notations on it: "try 204 Genesee St"; "Gene A. Williams (Bobby)"; "DOB 11-26-44"; "710 Swan"; and at another place "204 Genesee St". This confusion was never cleared up and the misinformation on the warrant was fed into the police computer and later retrieved by the dispatcher when the arresting officers called him September 11. The conversation recorded on the transcript readily indicates the dispatcher's uncertainty as to the proper defendant. This confusion could have been resolved by further investigation, for the jail records revealed that there were at least three prisoners named Williams in the Erie County Penitentiary at the time of...