Wilson v. Sessoms-Newton
| Decision Date | 17 August 2017 |
| Docket Number | 14-CV-00106 (PKC) |
| Parties | THEODORE O. WILSON, III, Plaintiff, v. ADA KELLY SESSOMS-NEWTON, D.I. JANET HELGESON, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Plaintiff Theodore Wilson ("Plaintiff" or "Wilson"), proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants Assistant District Attorney Kelly Sessoms-Newton ("Sessoms-Newton") and Detective Investigator Janet Helgeson ("Helgeson") unlawfully entered the property in which Plaintiff lived and that Defendants stole Plaintiff's belongings, in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants Defendants' motion and dismisses this action in its entirety.
From February 2010 to October 1, 2011, Plaintiff and his then girlfriend, Mildred Shinsel ("Shinsel"), lived in the first floor apartment of a two-family residential building located at 146-18 130th Avenue in Jamaica, New York ("130th Avenue building"). (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 6-7, 17; Aff. of Mildred Shinsel ("Shinsel Aff."), Ex. F, ¶ 1-2; Plaintiff's Dep., Ex. E at 17:14-23.) There was one other apartment in the building on the second floor. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 8; Aff. of Lisa Thomas ("Thomas Aff."), Ex. G, ¶ 2.) There was a common staircase in the building that was not part of either apartment. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 9; Thomas Aff., Ex. G, ¶¶ 3-4.) At all relevant times, Lisa Thomas was the legal owner of the property. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 10; Thomas Aff., Ex. G, ¶ 1; see also Thomas's Deed for 146-18 130th Ave., Jamaica, New York, 11436 ("Thomas Deed"), Ex. H.) As of 2009, the property was in foreclosure, and the last legal tenant of the first floor apartment was Karina Jones ("Jones"), who was Shinsel's friend and had vacated the unit in 2009. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 11-13; Thomas Aff., Ex. G, ¶¶ 6-9.)
The parties dispute whether Plaintiff had permission to live in the first floor apartment and whether any rent was paid for Plaintiff and Shinsel's occupancy of the apartment. The property owner, Thomas, states that neither Plaintiff nor Shinsel ever obtained permission to enter the premises. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 20; Thomas Aff., Ex. G, ¶ 11.) Thomas, in fact, states that she does not know Plaintiff or Shinsel, that no rental agreement was entered into with either of them, and that she never received any payment from them for the use of the first floor apartment. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 19-21; Thomas Aff., Ex. G, ¶ 10-12). In her affidavit, Thomas states that she has not received rent payments from anyone at the property since 2009. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 16; Thomas Aff.,Ex. G, ¶ 8.) Shinsel similarly admits that she and Plaintiff were squatters in the 130th Avenue building and that they never paid rent or obtained permission from anyone to reside there. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 17; Shinsel Aff., Ex. F, ¶ 3.) Rather, Shinsel initially stayed at the first floor apartment for one to two weeks in late 2009 with her friend Jones. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 12-14; Mapp Hr'g Tr. ("Mapp Hr'g"), Ex. J at 9:13-10:3.) Toward the end of Shinsel's visit, the apartment was rendered uninhabitable by water damage, and Jones moved out, leaving the apartment vacant. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 47; Mapp Hr'g, Ex. J at 9:24-10:10.) Shinsel and Plaintiff moved in shortly thereafter. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 17; Shinsel Aff., Ex. F, ¶¶ 2-3.) According to Shinsel, she and Plaintiff obtained a blank lease template to create a fake lease for the first floor apartment. (Det. 56.1 ¶¶ 23-25; Shinsel Aff., Ex. F, ¶¶ 4-5.)
In contrast to Shinsel's and Thomas' assertions, Plaintiff claims that "an associate of Ms. Thomas" gave him keys to the property, that a lease was signed, and that he and the associate agreed upon a monthly rent of $600. (March 4, 2013 Hr'g Tr. ("Suppression Hr'g."), Ex. L at 49:18-50:1.) Plaintiff alleges that he paid rent for eighteen of the twenty months he lived in the apartment. (Id. at 50:15-17.)2 Plaintiff and Shinsel's occupancy of the first floor apartment ended on October 1, 2011, when Plaintiff was arrested on suspicion of assaulting Shinsel. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 27; Arrest Report, Ex. M.)
It is undisputed that during the course of Plaintiff's criminal prosecution, Defendants entered the 130th Avenue building without a warrant on two separate occasions, and that on one of these occasions, they entered the first floor apartment.
On October 21, 2011, Sessoms-Newton, who was assigned to prosecute the case against Plaintiff, and Helgeson visited the 130th Avenue building to canvas the area and search for a possible witness who might have information about Shinsel's injuries. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 48; Decl. of Sessoms-Newton ("Sessoms-Newton Decl."), Ex. I, ¶ 13.) Prior to visiting the building, Sessoms-Newton visited the hospital, where Shinsel remained unresponsive, and learned that Shinsel's mother, Judith Workman ("Workman"), had the authority to make medical decisions on Shinsel's behalf. (Sessoms-Newton Decl., Ex. I, ¶¶ 2-3; Shinsel Aff., Ex. F, ¶¶ 6, 9; Aff. of Judith Workman ("Workman Aff."), Ex. O, ¶ 10.) After further communicating with hospital staff, as well as with Workman, Sessoms-Newton concluded that Workman considered herself to be responsible for all decisions made on behalf of Shinsel. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 42; Sessoms-Newton Decl., Ex I, ¶ 7.) Over the phone, Workman asked Sessoms-Newton to retrieve some of Shinsel's personal belongings from the apartment. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 41; Workman Aff., Ex. O, ¶ 5.) Before October 21, 2011, Sessoms-Newton also spoke to Jones, who informed Sessoms-Newton that the first floor apartment at the 130th Avenue building had been rendered uninhabitable due to water damage and that Plaintiff and Shinsel were not legal residents of the apartment. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 46-47; Sessoms-Newton Decl, Ex. I, ¶¶ 10-11.)
When Defendants arrived at the 130th Avenue building, they noted the unkempt nature of the curtilage and the mail slot bursting with unopened envelopes. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 50-51; Sessoms-Newton Decl., Ex. I, ¶¶ 15-16.) They also noticed the front door partially unhinged and unlocked.(Def. 56.1 ¶ 54-55). When no one answered their knocks, Defendants entered the building. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 53, 55; Sessoms-Newton Decl., Ex. I, ¶17.) They made their way to the second floor to look for a witness. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 56; Sessoms-Newton Decl., Ex. I, ¶ 17.) Following a brief survey of the second floor apartment, which was empty but for a few items strewn across the floor, they went downstairs to the first floor apartment. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 56-59; Sessoms-Newton Decl., Ex. I, ¶ 18.) Upon finding the first floor apartment similarly unlocked, and after no one answered their knocks, they entered the apartment. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 60-61; Mapp Hr'g, Ex. J at 14:22-15:3; Sessoms-Newton Decl., Ex. I, ¶ 21.) Defendants noticed furniture, grocery bags, and clothes in the apartment. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 62; Mapp Hr'g, Ex. J at 15:4-9.) Because Sessoms-Newton had previously been informed of Plaintiff's allegation that Shinsel injured herself by banging her head against the wall, Sessoms-Newton took three photographs of the apartment wall as evidence. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 65; Sessoms-Newton Decl., Ex. I, ¶ 22.)
Shortly after the October 2011 search, Plaintiff was indicted by a grand jury. (Grand Jury Indictment, Ex. Q.) Plaintiff testified in the grand jury that Shinsel had fallen down the stairs in the common stairwell of the building. (Trial Tr., People v. Theodore Wilson, Dec. 12, 2013, Ex. P at 688:12-688:25.) On November 23, 2011, Sessoms-Newton, who heard the testimony, again visited the 130th Avenue building with Helgeson to collect evidence and search for a potential witness who may have known Shinsel. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 70-71; Sessoms-Newton Decl., Ex. I, ¶ 26.) Once there, they again entered through the unlocked front door of the building and then took several photographs of the stairwell. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 72-73; Sessoms-Newton Decl., Ex. I, ¶ 27.) This time, they did not enter either of the apartments. (Sessoms-Newton Decl., Ex. I, ¶ 28.)
During the subsequent criminal proceedings, the Honorable Joseph Zayas of the New York Supreme Court found that Plaintiff had an expectation of privacy in the first floor apartment because Plaintiff "treated . . . the apartment[] as his own," and there was no indication that Thomas had any objection to Plaintiff's use of the property; still, the court did not credit Plaintiff's testimony that a lease agreement had been entered into and that Plaintiff had paid rent. (Suppression Hr.'g, Ex. L at 51:14-22, 52:18-19.) Accordingly, Judge Zayas granted Plaintiff's motion to suppress the photographs taken on October 21, 2011. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 76; Suppression Hr.'g, Ex. L at 52:18-53:6.) However, the court denied the motion as to the photographs taken of the common stairwell in November 2011. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 76; Suppression Hr.'g, Ex. L at 53:7-53:19.) Even though the prosecution was not allowed to introduce into evidence photographs of the first floor apartment wall, Plaintiff was ultimately convicted of assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 78; Certificate of Disposition, Ex. R.)
Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on January 2, 2014. (Dkt. 1.) On February 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Dkt. 6.) On March 26, 2014, the Honorable John Gleeson ordered that the Amended Complaint would proceed against Sessoms-Newton and Helgeson solely as to two of Plaintiff's claims: (1) unlawful entry, relating to Defendants' warrantless entries into the 130th Avenue building in October and November 2011; and (2) deprivation of personal property, relating to Plaintiff's claim that Defendants took a camera and two cell phones from the first floor...
To continue reading
Request your trial