Vaca v City of New York

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Vaca v City of New York 2016 NY Slip Op 30636(U) March 10, 2016 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: 24496/2013 Judge: Ben R. Barbato Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] FILED Mar 14 2016 Bronx County Clerk SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX Present: Honorable Ben R. Barbato JUANA VACA, DECISION/ORDER Plaintiff, -against- Index No.: 24496/2013 THE CITY OF NEW YORK, DET. DANIEL BACA, TAX ID #934434 and SHIELD #02975, POLICE OFFICERS JOHN/JANE DOE 1-10, true identities unknown, sued in fictitious capacity individually and as police officers involved in arrest #B 1311280, and the BRONX COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Defendants. The following papers numbered 1 to 9 read on this motion for summary judgment and cross-motion for leave to amend noticed on August 4, 2015 and October 29, 2015 and duly transferred on December 24, 2015. Papers Submitted Notice of Motion, Affirmation & Exhibits Notice of Cross-Motion, Affirmation & Exhibits Memoranda of Law Affirmation in Opposition and in Reply Numbered 1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6 7, 8 9 Upon the foregoing cited papers and after reassignment of this matter from Justice Mitchell J. Danziger on December 24, 2015, Defendants, The City of New York and Detective Daniel Baca, seek an Order pursuant to CPLR §3212 granting summary judgment dismissing Plaintiffs causes of action sounding in false arrest, detainment and imprisonment and malicious prosecution, and/or, pursuant to CPLR §321 l(l)(a)(7), dismissing Plaintiffs cause of action for negligence and cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. By cross-motion, Plaintiff Juana Vaca seeks to amend the Complaint, substituting Robert Johnson, District Attorney Bronx County, for The Bronx County District Attorney's Office. This is an action to recover damages for civil rights violation and personal injuries allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff, Juana Vaca, when she was arrested on February 15, 2013 by [* 2] FILED Mar 14 2016 Bronx County Clerk members of the New York City Police Department at 1405 Townsend Avenue, Apt. 22, County of Bronx, City and State of New York. The Court notes that, in her Opposition papers, Plaintiff withdraws her causes of action against the City for negligence (hiring, retaining, supervising, promoting and training) and for intentional infliction of emotional distress since the Defendants admitted that the police officers were acting in the scope of their employment. Thus, Defendants' motion for an Order dismissing Plaintiffs cause of action for negligence and cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress is granted. Plaintiff then alleges that the merits of her remaining causes of action should not be summarily decided, but rather submitted to the trier of fact. To state a claim for malicious prosecution, the Plaintiff must prove the initiation or continuation of an action against him; the termination of the proceeding in his favor; the absence of probable cause to commence the proceeding; and actual malice as a motivation for Defendant's actions. See Colon v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 78 (1983). With regard to the Section 1983 action predicated on the tort of malicious prosecution, a Plaintiff must show sufficient restraint on liberty to implicate his Fourth Amendment rights, that the Defendant initiated or maintained the prosecution against the Plaintiff without probable cause, that the Defendant acted maliciously, and that the proceeding was terminated in the Plaintiffs favor. 42 U.S.C.A. §1983; U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. In this matter, Detective Daniel Baca based his arrest on his belief that Plaintiff committed Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree, under P .L. §220.16(1 ), Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree, under P .L. §220.03, Criminal Possession ofMarihuana in the Fifth Degree, under P.L. §221.10(2) and Unlawful Possession ofMarihuana, under P.L. §221.05, after: (i) Detective Baca received [* 3] FILED Mar 14 2016 Bronx County Clerk information obtained from a confidential informant ("Cl"), that he purchased marihuana from 1405 Townsend Avenue, Apt. 22 on three occasions; (ii) the CI conducted controlled buys and purchased marihuana three times from an individual located in the subject apartment, and (iii) during the arrest, while Detective Baca was executing a search warrant, Plaintiff was found in the apartment where twenty-eight bags of marihuana were found. Detective Baca also found a JC Penney bill with Plaintiffs name and the apartment's address on it. The involvement of all Defendants and all claims raised by the parties are determinative upon whether sufficient probable cause existed for Detective Baca to conduct a warrantless arrest of Plaintiff. On November 21, 2013, the charges against Plaintiff Juana Vaca, as a result of the subject arrest, were ultimately dismissed. First, it should be noted that a warrantless arrest is presumed unlawful. Veras v. Truth Verification Corp., 87 A.D.2d 381 (1st Dept. 1982). However, the existence of probable cause to arrest provides a complete defense to claims of false arrest, unlawful imprisonment and malicious prosecution. Lawson v. City of New York, 83 A.D.3d 609 (1st Dept. 2011); Marrero v. City of New York, 33 A.D.3d 556 (1st Dept. 2006). Therefore, sufficient probable cause must have existed that Plaintiff committed Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree, under P.L. §220.16(1), Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree, under P.L. §220.03, Criminal Possession ofMarihuana in the Fifth Degree, under P.L. §221.10(2) and Unlawful Possession ofMarihuana, under P.L. §221.05, at the time of the arrest, as these crimes were the basis of Detective Baca' s probable cause to arrest Plaintiff. The Court notes that "[t]he existence of [probable] cause does not require certitude that a crime was, or was being, committed by the person arrested," People v. Cunningham, 71 A.D.2d 559 (I5t Dept. 1979), aff'd, 52 N.Y.2d 927 (1981), nor does its existence need to be strong [* 4] FILED Mar 14 2016 Bronx County Clerk enough to warrant a conviction, People v. Miner, 42 N.Y.2d 937 (1977), "the issue of probable cause is a question of law to be decided by the court [only when] there is no real dispute as to the facts or the proper inferences to be drawn from such facts. Where there is conflicting evidence, from which reasonable persons might draw difference inferences, the question is for the jury". Parkin v. Cornell Univ., 78 N.Y.2d 523 (1991). Additionally, "[i]n determining whether a police officer had probable cause to effect an arrest, the emphasis should not be narrowly focused, but rather should consider all of the facts and circumstances together." Marrero, 33 A.D.3d at 556. To prevail on a summary judgment motion, the moving party must produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to warrant the direction of summary judgment in its favor. GTF Mktg., Inc. v. Colonial Aluminum Sales, Inc., 66 N.Y.2d 965 (1985). The burden then shifts to the opposing party, who must proffer evidence in admissible form establishing that an issue of fact exists warranting a trial. CPLR §3212(b); Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557 (1980); Singer v. Friedman, 220 A.D.2d 574 (2°d Dept. 1995). Further, issue finding rather than issue determination is the function of the court on motions for summary judgment. Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 N.Y.2d 305 (1957); Clearwater Realty Co. v. Hernandez, 256 A.D.2d 100 (1st Dept. 1998). The role of the court is not to resolve issues of credibility. Knepka v. Tallman, 278 A.D.2d 811 (4th Dept. 2000). Since summary judgment is a drastic remedy, it should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence of a triable issue of fact. Rotuba Extruders v. Ceppos, 46 N.Y.2d 223 (1978). Accordingly, because "reasonable persons might draw different inferences" based on the facts known to Defendants, the issue of probable cause cannot be resolved as a matter of law. Based upon the exhibits and extensive deposition testimony [* 5] FILED Mar 14 2016 Bronx County Clerk submitted, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to establish that no triable issues of fact exist as to whether there was probable cause for Plaintiffs arrest and subsequent prosecution. With regard to Plaintiffs cross-motion, Plaintiff claims that the District Attorney, acting as policy maker, is liable and suable for § 1983 violations. Under New York law, a District Attorney, in prosecuting crime, is performing a quasi-judicial function and as such is entitled to absolute immunity from civil claims arising out of the scope of that prosecution. See Hirschfeld v. City ofNew York, 253 A.D.2d 53 (1st Dept. 1999); Moore v. Dormin, 252 A.D.2d 421 (1st Dept. 1998). The absolute immunity arising from the prosecutor's exercise of his quasi-judicial discretion reflects a public interest in shielding public officials from retaliatory lawsuits so as to allow them to freely exercise their discretion within the scope of their duties. Id. Therefore it is ORDERED, that Defendants, The City of New York and Detective Daniel Baca's motion is granted to the extent that, Defendants' motion for an Order dismissing Plaintiffs causes of action for negligence and for intentional infliction of emotional distress is granted; and Defendants' motion for an Order pursuant to CPLR §3212 granting summary judgment dismissing Plaintiffs remaining causes of action is denied; and it is further ORDERED, that PlaintiffVaca's cross-motion to amend the Complaint, substituting Robert Johnson, District Attorney Bronx County, for The Bronx County District Attorney's Office, is denied. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. Dated: March It?, 2016

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.