Kidd v. City of New York et al, No. 1:2013cv00097 - Document 44 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER granting 37 Motion for Summary Judgment. Ordered by Judge I. Leo Glasser on 8/20/2015. (Russell, Alexandra)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Kidd v. City of New York et al Doc. 44 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------x LLOYD KIDD, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff, 13 Civ. 0 0 97 (ILG) (CLP) - against CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------x GLASSER, Senior United States District J udge: Plaintiff Lloyd Kidd brings this action against the City of New York (“City”); New York City Police Departm ent (“NYPD”) Lieutenant Edward Babington and retired Detective Gregory J ean-Baptiste, in their official and individual capacities, alleging claim s for illegal search and seizure, false arrest, m alicious prosecution, abuse of process, and deprivation of property in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Am endm ents of the Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Defendants’ unopposed m otion for sum m ary judgm ent, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. For the following reasons, the m otion is GRANTED. BACKGROU N D The undisputed facts are as follows.1 In early May 20 12, Det. J ean-Baptiste received reports from a registered confidential inform ant that Plaintiff was in possession of a loaded revolver and had been observed with it on three occasions inside his residence located at 332 East 28th Street in Brooklyn. Defendants’ Statem ent of Facts (“SOF”) ¶ 4. A subsequent investigation revealed that Plaintiff had not been 1 Plaintiff did not subm it a statem ent countering Defendants’ Local Rule 56.1 Statem ent, as required by subpart (b) of the local rule. The Court deem s the facts in Defendants’ 56.1 Statem ent supported by the record and adm itted. See T.Y. v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Educ., 584 F.3d 412, 417-18 (2d Cir. 20 0 9). 1 Dockets.Justia.com issued a firearm license. Id. ¶ 5. On May 9, 20 12, this evidence was presented by Det. J ean-Baptiste to the New York Suprem e Court for Kings County in an application to obtain a search warrant for Plaintiff’s residence. Id. ¶ 6. A “no-knock” warrant was issued that sam e day by the court, authorizing the im m ediate search of the residence and Plaintiff’s person for the suspected firearm . Id. ¶ 7. At 6:35 a.m . on May 11, 20 12, Lt. Babington, Det. J ean-Baptiste, several other unidentified NYPD officers, and an Em ergency Services Unit (“ESU”) arrived at Plaintiff’s residence to execute the warrant. Id. ¶ 8. The ESU first gained entry to the residence and conducted a security sweep of the prem ises. Id. Plaintiff was found alone inside and im m ediately placed in handcuffs. Id. At 6:45 a.m ., the ESU deem ed the prem ises secure, at which point Plaintiff was escorted by an unidentified officer to a police van in front of the residence, where he was detained while Lt. Babington and Det. J ean-Baptiste executed the search. Id. ¶¶ 8-9; 10 ; 15; Defendants’ Ex. H. An illegal air pistol2 was recovered by the officers from an unlocked safe in the living room . SOF ¶¶ 11-12. On a com puter desk in the sam e room , a sm all zip-lock bag containing what appeared to be m arijuana was observed by Det. J ean-Baptiste and seized.3 Id. ¶ 14. The search ended at around 8:15 a.m ., at which tim e Plaintiff was escorted back inside his house and the handcuffs were rem oved. Id. ¶ 16. Det. J ean-Baptiste then issued him sum m onses for the unlawful possession of m arijuana and an air pistol, requiring him to appear in court on August 8, 20 12. Id. ¶ 17. The officers departed the 2 New York law prohibits the possession of “any air pistol or air rifle or sim ilar instrum ent” without a license. See N.Y. Adm in. Code § 10 -131(b). A violation of this provision is punishable “by a fine of not less than $ 50 , or by im prisonm ent not exceeding 30 days, or by such fine and im prisonm ent.” Id. § 10 -131 (f). 3 Upon returning to the Precinct, Det. J ean-Baptiste conducted a field test which confirm ed the contents of the bag to be m arijuana. SOF ¶ 14. 2 residence at 9 a.m . Defendants’ Ex. H. On J une 7, 20 12, Plaintiff reported to the Civilian Com plaint Review Board that his furniture was dam aged and cash and other valuables were stolen from his residence during the search. SOF ¶ 21. Prior to the sum m ons date,4 he received a letter from the Kings County District Attorney’s Office notifying him that the sum m onses had been dism issed. Id. ¶ 19. Plaintiff com m enced this action on J anuary 7, 20 13. See Dkt. No. 1. On Novem ber 26, 20 14, Defendants m oved for sum m ary judgm ent on all claim s. Dkt No. 37. Plaintiff did not oppose the m otion.5 LEGAL STAN D ARD Sum m ary judgm ent is appropriate “if the m ovant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any m aterial fact and the m ovant is entitled to judgm ent as a m atter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “An issue of fact is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonm oving party. . . . A fact is m aterial if it m ight affect the outcom e of the suit under the governing law.” Fincher v. Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., 60 4 F.3d 712, 720 (2d Cir. 20 10 ) (internal quotations and citations om itted). The m oving party bears the burden of establishing the absence of any genuine issue of m aterial fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). In deciding a m otion for sum m ary judgm ent, the court m ust “construe the facts in the light m ost favorable to the nonm oving party and m ust resolve all am biguities and draw all reasonable inferences against the m ovant.” Brod v. Om ya, Inc., 653 F.3d 156, 164 (2d Cir. 20 11) (quotation om itted). Where, as here, “the non-m oving party chooses the 4 Plaintiff testified that he could not recall when he received the letter from the Kings County District Attorney’s Office. See Kidd Deposition Tr. at 48:11-17 (Defendants’ Ex. C). 5 Plaintiff’s Opposition was due on J anuary 2, 20 15, pursuant to the am ended briefing schedule endorsed by Magistrate J udge Pollak. Dkt. No. 42. He did not file an Opposition or request an extension of tim e to do so. See Defendants’ Letter dated J an. 30 , 20 15, Dkt. No. 43. 3 perilous path of failing to subm it a response to a sum m ary judgm ent m otion, the district court m ay not grant the m otion without first exam ining the m oving party’s subm ission to determ ine if it has m et its burden of dem onstrating that no m aterial issue of fact rem ains for trial.” Vt. Teddy Bear Co. v. 1-80 0 Beargram Co., 373 F.3d 241, 244 (2d Cir. 20 0 4) (internal citation om itted). D ISCU SSION Plaintiff asserts Section 1983 claim s for illegal search and seizure, false arrest, m alicious prosecution, abuse of process, and deprivation of property in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Am endm ents. The Court finds that Defendants have m et their burden of dem onstrating that no m aterial dispute of fact exists for trial and sum m ary judgm ent is warranted as to each claim , addressed in turn below. I. Ille gal Se arch an d Se izu re Plaintiff asserts that the search and seizure of contraband from his residence and his detention in handcuffs during the search violated his Fourth Am endm ent rights. There is no evidence to support this claim . The undisputed record reflects that the search was executed pursuant to a valid warrant issued by a neutral m agistrate, and both the air pistol and m arijuana were seized lawfully by Det. J ean-Baptiste and Lt. Babington during the course of their search. In addition, Plaintiff was not seized unlawfully when officers detained him in handcuffs during the search. The Suprem e Court has held that “for Fourth Am endm ent purposes, a warrant to search for contraband founded on probable cause im plicitly carries with it the lim ited authority to detain the occupants at the prem ises while a proper search is conducted.” Michigan v. Sum m ers, 452 U.S. 692, 70 5 (1981). Furtherm ore, “the safety risk inherent in executing a search warrant for weapons [is] sufficient to justify the use of handcuffs” to detain 4 occupants found on the prem ises. See Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 10 0 (20 0 5). There is no evidence that Plaintiff’s detention in handcuffs exceeded the duration of the search or was otherwise unduly prolonged. Accordingly, sum m ary judgm ent is granted in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff’s illegal search and seizure claim. II. Fals e Arre s t, Malicio u s Pro s e cu tio n , a n d Abu s e o f Pro ce s s It is undisputed that the officers had probable cause to issue Plaintiff sum m onses for the possession of contraband found inside his hom e, which is a com plete defense to his claim s for false arrest, m alicious prosecution, and abuse of process. See Savino v. City of New York, 331 F.3d 63, 68 (2d Cir. 20 0 3); Sforza v. City of New York, No. 0 7 Civ. 6122, 20 0 9 WL 857496, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 20 0 9). Sum m ary judgm ent is therefore granted as to these claim s.6 III. D e p rivatio n o f Pro p e rty Finally, there is no record evidence, other than Plaintiff’s unfounded assertions, that officers dam aged or rem oved anything other than contraband from his residence during the search. Thus, because Plaintiff has failed to allege a single violation of a federal right, he cannot m aintain an action under Section 1983, and sum m ary judgm ent is granted to Defendants on all claim s. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ unopposed m otion for sum m ary judgm ent is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgm ent in favor of Defendants and close this case. SO ORDERED. 6 Even if probable cause existed, the m alicious prosecution and abuse of process claim s would fail because Plaintiff was not prosecuted. See Rohman v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 215 F.3d 20 8, 215 (2d Cir. 20 0 4). 5 Dated: Brooklyn, New York August 20 , 20 15 / s/ _ I. Leo Glasser Senior United States District J udge 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
