Young v. Suffolk County
| Decision Date | 09 April 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 09-CV-3325 (JFB)(ARL).,09-CV-3325 (JFB)(ARL). |
| Citation | 705 F.Supp.2d 183 |
| Parties | Deborah YOUNG, Individually and as The Parent and Natural Guardian of Melissa Young, Emmalee Young, and Cecelia Young, Plaintiff,v.SUFFOLK COUNTY, Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Suffolk County Police Department, Michael Delgado, Joseph Quatela, Edmund Coppa, Individually, Edmund J. Coppa Photography, Raymond L. Young, Raymond M. Young, News 12, Newsday, New York Post, New York Daily News, Wcbstv.com, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Thomas F. Liotti of Law Offices of Thomas F. Liotti, Garden City, NY, for Plaintiff.
Arlene S. Zwilling, Suffolk County Attorney, Hauppauge, NY, for the County Defendants.
Scott E. Kossove of L'abbate, Balkan, Colavita & Contin, Garden City, NY, for Defendant Joseph Quatela.
Michael H. Joseph of Law Office of Michael H. Joseph PLLC, White Plains, NY, for the Young Defendants.
Edward J. Davis, Laura R. Handman, and Victor Day Hendrickson of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, New York, NY, Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, for the media Defendants.
On July 30, 2009, plaintiff Deborah Young (hereinafter “plaintiff” or “Ms. Young”), individually and as the parent and guardian of Melissa Young, Emmalee Young, and Cecelia Young, brought this action against defendants Suffolk County, Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Suffolk County Police Department, Michael Delgado, (collectively the “County defendants”), Edmund Coppa, Edmund J. Coppa Photography, News 12, Newsday, New York Post, New York Daily News, WCBSTV.COM (collectively the “media defendants”), Raymond L. Young and Raymond M. Young (together “Young defendants”), and Joseph Quatela, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“ § 1983”) alleging inter alia, that defendants violated plaintiff's rights under the Fourth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, and participated in a conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of her constitutional rights. Plaintiff also brings claims for constitutional violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1982 (“ § 1982”), 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (“ § 1985”), and 42 U.S.C. § 1986 (“ § 1986”). Plaintiff further alleges state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation.1
The claims in this lawsuit arise from an incident on February 21, 2007, in which plaintiff's former husband, defendant Raymond L. Young, allegedly: (1) trashed plaintiff's residence in Lindenhurst, New York, to create the appearance of an unsafe and unsanitary home; (2) contacted the police and entered the residence with the police without plaintiff's consent or authorization; and (3) invited the media to film the inside of the home. Plaintiff asserts that the police actions on that day-which were allegedly part of a conspiracy among the County employees, Mr. Young and his father (defendant Raymond M. Young), Joseph Quatela (who was Mr. Young's attorney and also allegedly present at the time of entry into the residence on that date), and the media defendants-violated her constitutional rights and resulted in her losing custody of her three children in Family Court. On May 4, 2007, in Suffolk County Family Court, plaintiff pled guilty to neglect of her three children, acknowledging that she suffers from a mental health condition that negatively impacted her ability to care for them. On January 27, 2010, Raymond L. Young was awarded sole custody of the children. According to plaintiff's counsel, plaintiff is appealing that state court decision.
Presently before the Court are two motions to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, filed by the Young defendants and the media defendants, and a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), filed by defendant Joseph Quatela. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants these motions in part and denies these motions in part. First, the Court denies the motions to dismiss plaintiff's § 1983 claims for violation of the Fourth Amendment and conspiracy as against the Young defendants and defendant Quatela but grants the media defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's § 1983 claims against them in entirety. In particular, assuming the allegations in the amended complaint to be true, plaintiff has asserted a plausible § 1983 claim that the Young defendants and Quatela, acting jointly with the police, entered and searched plaintiff's residence on February 21, 2007 without authorization in violation of the Fourth Amendment. On the issue of the requisite state action, plaintiff alleges far more than that the Young defendants and Quatela simply furnished information to the police; rather, plaintiff alleges fabrication of evidence, furnishing information to the police regarding the fabricated evidence, summoning the police to the residence, providing the police with an unauthorized consent to search, and then unlawfully entering the residence with the police. This series of allegations against the Young defendants and Quatela is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss, including on the issue of state action. Although Raymond L. Young argues he provided valid consent to enter and search, that issue cannot be resolved at the motion to dismiss stage in this case. However, with respect to the media defendants, plaintiff has only alleged a conclusory allegation of a “media ride-along,” without a single specific allegation to support the claim that the media was acting jointly with the police. In fact, the amended complaint alleges that the media defendants were invited by the Young defendants, not the police, thus further eviscerating any plausible theory of conspiracy or joint state action between the media and the County defendants. Thus, given the absence of any non-conclusory allegation supporting a plausible claim of state action involving the media defendants, the § 1983 claims against them must be dismissed. Second, as to all the moving defendants, the Court also grants the motions to dismiss plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and condemnation claims under § 1983. Third, the Court grants the moving defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiff's claims for violations of §§ 1982, 1985, and 1986. Fourth, the Court further dismisses plaintiff's state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation against all moving defendants. Finally, the Young defendants have also filed a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 against plaintiff and her counsel. The Court concludes that sanctions are not warranted, and, thus, that motion is denied.
In sum, with the exception of the media defendants, the lawsuit will proceed to discovery under the direction of Magistrate Judge Lindsay as to the § 1983 claim involving the alleged Fourth Amendment violation and the § 1983 conspiracy claim. The Court emphasizes that, although the parties continue to reference (including during oral argument) and argue about the merits of the custody litigation in state court, those issues are not before this Court and are not going to be litigated in the instant lawsuit. Instead, the issue here is a much narrower one-namely, whether there was a conspiracy to commit, and/or the effectuation of, an unconstitutional intrusion into the plaintiff's home without consent on February 23, 2007, and, if so, whether any of the remaining defendants are liable for that conduct. Therefore, this issue should be the focus of discovery, rather than an effort to improperly re-litigate the custody issue in this Court.
For purposes of these motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings, the Court has taken the facts described below from the plaintiff's amended complaint (“Am. Compl.”), filed with the Court on October 2, 2009. These facts are not findings of fact by the Court but rather are assumed to be true for the purpose of deciding this motion and are construed in a light most favorable to plaintiff, the non-moving party. See LaFaro v. N.Y. Cardiothoracic Group, 570 F.3d 471, 475 (2d Cir.2009).
In or around February 2007, plaintiff and her children were residents of a home located at 239 Nevada Street, Lindenhurst, New York. (Am. Compl. ¶ 4.) At all relevant times herein, plaintiff and her children possessed exclusive use and occupancy of that home. ( Id.) This home was owned by defendant Raymond L. Young, plaintiff's husband and the father of plaintiff's three children, and Raymond L. Young's father, Raymond M. Young. ( Id. ¶ 38.) The Young defendants were responsible for the home's condition. ( Id.)
On October 31, 2006, defendant Raymond L. Young consented and stipulated to sole custody of the infant children with the plaintiff. ( Id. ¶ 16.) According to the complaint, Raymond L. Young was estranged from his wife and children for many years and failed to pay child support, maintenance, and other household expenses ordered by the court. ( Id. ¶ 38.) Due to Raymond L. Young's failure to make such payments to plaintiff, the water and phone services at 239 Nevada Street were often discontinued. ( Id.)
Plaintiff alleges that, on or about February 19, 2007, plaintiff and her children left their home for Windham, New York, for a vacation. ( Id. ¶ 18.) At the time, plaintiff was considering moving away from 239 Nevada Street permanently to move in with plaintiff's parents, who reside in Windham. ( Id.)
Plaintiff further alleges that on February 21, 2007, during the late afternoon or early evening, the defendants, without plaintiff's presence, permission, consent, authority, or knowledge, wrongfully entered the home at 239 Nevada Street and invaded the privacy of plaintiff and her children by “looking, peering, viewing and peeping into their home, searching, seizing, trespassing, and ransacking said premises.” ( Id. ¶ 17.) Specifically, plaintiff alleges that Raymond L....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Savarese v. City of N.Y.
...to constitute joint action with state actors for purposes of § 1983," Defeo, 2018 WL 5777023, at *4 (quoting Young v. Suffolk Cnty. , 705 F. Supp. 2d 183, 196 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) ), as the statute "does not impose civil liability on persons who merely stand to benefit from an assertion of autho......
-
Young v. Suffolk Cnty.
...approximately 10:15 a.m., his father placed a call to the CPS hotline regarding the living conditions of the Nevada Street house. (Mr. Young Dep. at 70–71.) According to Mr. Young, his brother, Michael Young, also made a complaint to CPS on that same date, out of concern for the well-being ......
-
John D. Justice v. King, Case # 08-CV-6417-FPG
...private party who 'conspires with a state official to violate the plaintiff's constitutional rights . . . .'" Young v. Suffolk County, 705 F. Supp. 2d 183, 195-96 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Fisk v. Letterman, 401 F. Supp. 2d 362, 378 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)).To demonstrate that a private party defenda......
-
Trombley v. O'Neill
...(see U.S. Const. Am. Xiv, § 1), “requires the government to treat all similarly situated individuals alike.” Young v. Suffolk Cnty., 705 F.Supp.2d 183, 204 (E.D.N.Y.2010) (citing City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985)). Ordin......