Jules v City of New York

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Jules v City of New York 2013 NY Slip Op 30586(U) March 19, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 101484/2012 Judge: Kathryn E. Freed Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. SCANNED ON 312712013 [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE 61t;ATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK C6UNTY JULES, PATRICK vs . CITY OF NEW YORK SEQUENCE NUMBER : 001 - DISMISS L&L INDEX NO. MOTION DATE MOTION SEQ.NO. $&3g The following papers, numbered Ito ,were read on this motion to/for Notice of MotionlOrder to Show Cause -Affidavits Answering Affidavits - Exhibits - Exhibits INOW INo(s). I Ws). Replying Affidavits Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion is FlL7ED I MAR 26 2013 Dated: 3-i g - I '3 HAR I r! j{;rCJ 1. CHECK ONE: ............................................. ........................................................... 0GRANTED nDENIED 0GRANTED IN PART 0OTHER 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ................................................ 0 SETTLE ORDER 0SUBMIT ORDER 0DO NOT POST FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: ........................... MOTION I : S I [* 2] Y SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW Y O N COUNTY OF NEW YORK: Part 5 PATRICK JULES, DECISION/ORDER Index No.: 1014&4/2012 Seq, No.: 001 Plaintiff, -against- THE CITY OF NEW YORK, and P.O. SEMIH SEZEN, PRESENT: Hon. Kathryn E. Freed J.S.C. FILED ! Defendants. RECITATION, AS REQUIRED BY CPLR §2219(a), OF THE PAPERS CONSIDERED IN THE REVIEW OF THIS MOTION. NUMBERED PAPERS NOTICE OF MOTION AND AFFIDAVITS ANNEXED.................. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND AFFIDAVITS ANNEXED......... ANSWERING AFFlDAVITS............................................................. REPLYING AFFIDAVITS. ................................................................ EXHIBITS........................................................................................... STIPULATIONS................................................................................. OTHER................................................................................................ ......1-3......... ..................... .........4... ....... ..................... ..................... ...................... ...................... UPON THE FOREGOING CITED PAPERS, THIS DECISION/ORDER ON THIS MOTION IS AS FOLLOWS: Defendants move for an Order pursuant to CPLR$ 321 1(a)(7), dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims or in the alternative, pursuant to CPLR $3212 granting them summary judgment, dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims. Plaintiff opposes. After a review of the papers presented, all relevant statutes and case law, the Court grants the motion. 1 [* 3] Factual and arocedural background: It is undisputed that the instant claim emanates from an incident occurring on March 23, 2009, when plaintiffwas driving on Second Avenue in New York, New York in a vehicle with tinted windows. He was stopped by P.O. Semih Sezen, who informed him that he had been stopped because the tint on his windows was too dark. According to plaintiff, P.O. Sezen then asked to see his license and registration. Upon receiving them, he proceeded to his patrol car. When P.O. Sezen emerged, he advised plaintiff that his license was suspended, that he was under arrest for driving with a suspended license and had to accompany him to the precinct. Plaintiff was then handcuffed and taken to the 17t precinct, placed in a holding cell, fingerprinted and photographed. He was held at the precinct for approximately three hours. While at the precinct, the officers made disparaging comments to him, such as why didn t you pay your child support? Plaintiff ultimately received a Desk Appearance Ticket and was then released. He subsequently contacted the Department of Motor Vehicles ( hereinafter, DMV ) regarding the status of his license, and was informed that his license had been suspended for an unpaid ticket he had received for cell phone use. Plaintiffpaid the $35.00 fine on March 24,2009. He then searched his files and found the cancelled check revealing that in 2007 he had paid $90.00 on July 241h and $35.00 on August 2gthfor this ticket. The DMV sent plaintiff a letter confirming all of the payments he had tendered for the cell phone ticket, A month later, plaintiff appeared on the designated date inNew York County Criminal Court regarding the suspended license charge. He showed the presiding Judge a copy of his cancelled checks and the Judge dismissed the charge at that time. 2 [* 4] Believing that P.O. Sezen did not have any probable cause for stopping him, and that his subsequent detention was thus, unlawful, plaintiff commenced the instant action via the filing of a summons and complaint on February 9,2012. Issue was joined on March 2,2012, when the City served its Verified Answer. On May 2, 2012, plaintiff personally served P.O. Sezen in Staten Island. On June 6 20 12, defendants served an Amended Answer adding an appearance on behalf of P.O. Sezen. Positions of the parties: Defendants argue that the causes of action alleging punitive damages in plaintiffs complaint should be dismissed because they are not recoverable against amunicipality. Defendants also argue that plaintiffs claim of a civil rights violation must also be dismissed due to the fact that plaintiff failed to articulate these violations with any specificity. They argue that any 42 USC 6 1983 claim against the City of New York warrants dismissal where a plaintiff has failed to allege any specific facts which show a particular policy leading to the alleged civil rights violation. Plaintiff argues that defendants summary judgment motion is premature, due to the fact that all necessary discovery remains outstanding. Depositions have not yet been held and bills of particulars have not yet been exchanged. Plaintiff also argues that summary judgment is not warranted where there are material facts in dispute concerning his claims of false arrest and imprisonment. Plaintiff further argues that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity when an individual s constitutional rights have been violated. Conclusions of law: The proponent of a summary judgment motion must demonstrate that there are no material issues of fact in dispute, and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law ( Dallas-Stephenson 3 [* 5] v. Waisman, 39 A.D.3d 303, 306 [lstDept. 20071, citing Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 85 1,853 [ 19851 ), Once the proponent has proffered evidence establishing a prima facie showing, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to present evidence in admissible form raising a triable issue of material fact ( see Zuckerman v. Citv of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557 [ 19891; People ex re1 Spitzer v. Grasso, 50 A.D.3d 535 [lstDept. 20083 ). Mere conclusory assertions, devoid of evidentiary facts, are insufficient for this purpose, as is reliance upon surmise, conjecture or speculation ( Morgan v. New York TeleDhone, 220 A.D.2d 728,729 [2d Dept. 19851 ). If there is any doubt as to the existence of a triable issue of fact, summaryjudgment must be denied ( Rotuba Extruders v, CeDpos, 46 N.Y.2d 223 [1978]; Grossman v. Amalgamated Hous. Coy., 298 A.D.2d 224 [lstDept. 20021 ). The Court has reviewed the contents of plaintiffs complaint. First, it notes that it is horn book law that punitive damages are not recoverable against a municipality ( Krohn v. New York City Police Department, 2 N.Y.3d 329 [2004] ). Therefore, plaintiffs fifth cause in his complaint seeking punitive damages must be dismissed. Moreover, plaintiff s first cause of action alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution, his second cause of action alleging a Monel1 claim, his third cause of action alleging egregious conduct and his fifthcause of action alleging failure to intervene to prevent the violation of [his] civil rights as against all defendants, also necessitate dismissal. The Court notes that pursuant to the facts as presented by both parties, the Motor Vehicles Bureau had suspended plaintiffs license, and therefore the actions of Officer Sezen were dictated according to that suspension. The only vehicle for an individual to seek a civil remedy for violations of constitutional rights committed under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of any State is 4 [* 6] a claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.g 1983 ( see Vreeburg v. Smith, 192 A.D.2d 41 [2d Dept. 19931 ). In order to assert a claim against a municipality for civil rights violations pursuant to 42 USCg 1983,based on alleged tortious actions of its employees, aplaintiff must allege and plead that the alleged actions resulted from an official municipal policy or custom ( see Monell v. Dept. of Social Sews. of City of New York, 436 US.658 [ 19781; Leftenant v. City of New York, 70 A.D.3d 596 [ 1st Dept. 20 IO]; Leung v. City of New York, 2 16 A.D.2d 10 [ 1St Dept. 19951; Chavez v. City ofNew York, 33 Misc.3d 1214(A), 939 N.Y.2d 739,201 1 N.Y. Slip Op. 5 193(U) (N.Y. Sup. 201 I), afd. 99 A.D.3d 6 14 [ 1St Dept. 20 12J ). There is no respondeat superior liability for a municipality under 42 USC $1983 and, accordingly, the violation of plaintiffs civil rights by municipal employees, without more, will not render the municipality liable for such violation(s) ( see Monell, 436 U.S. 658 at 694; see also Ramos v. City of New York, 285 A.D.2d 284,302 [ 1 Dept. 20011 ). The requirement of pleading an official policy or custom or a municipality through which a constitutional injury has been inflicted upon a plaintiff applies only to 42 USC 6 1983 claims against a local government, and not to such claims against individual defendants in their official capacities (Bonsone v. County of Suffolk, 274 A.D.2d 532,534 [2d Dept. 20001 ), However, [iln order to state a claim [against an individual defendant], under that statute, the plaintiff must allege, at a minimum, conduct by a person acting under color of law which deprived the injured party of a right, privilege or immunity guaranteed by the Constitution or the laws ofthe United States and said claim is subject to dismissal where no Federally protected right was clearly alleged ( DiPalma v. Phelan, 81 N.Y.2d 754,756 [1992] ), Moreover, to recover on a 42 USC $1983 claim against a municipality, a plaintiff must specifically plead and prove three elements: 1) an official policy or custom that 2) causes plaintiff 5 [* 7] to be subjected to and 3) a denial of a constitutional right ( Monell, 436 US.658 at 695 ). In the case at bar, the Court finds that defendants have established a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Indeed, plaintiffs civil rights claims contained in his complaint warrant dismissal, in that they are conclusory in nature, and fail to plead the aforementioned there elements. In relation to summary judgment, these conclusory statements are not evidence in admissible form, sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Therefore, plaintiff has also failed to defeat the instant summary judgment motion. Therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted and the complaint is dismissed, and the CIerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants; and it is fbrther ORDERED that defendant City shall serve a copy of this order on all other parties and the Trial Support Office, 60 Centre Street, Room 158. Any compliance conferences currently scheduled are hereby cancelled; and it is further ORDERED that this constitutes the decision and order of the Court. 4 m .y , DATED: March 19,2013 'HAR 1 9 2Q13 F 1L E D 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.