From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cruz v. City of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 28, 2017
148 A.D.3d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

3554, 24850/14.

03-28-2017

Jose CRUZ, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants–Respondents.

Law Office of K.C. Okoli, P.C., New York (K.C. Okoli of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Ingrid R. Gustafson of counsel), for respondents.


Law Office of K.C. Okoli, P.C., New York (K.C. Okoli of counsel), for appellant.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Ingrid R. Gustafson of counsel), for respondents.

RICHTER, J.P., MAZZARELLI, KAHN, GESMER, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered August 17, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the branch of defendant City of New York's motion that sought dismissal of plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cause of action, and denied plaintiff's request for a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The three-year limitations period on a section 1983 claim based on false arrest begins to run "when the alleged false imprisonment ends"—that is, when the arrestee becomes subject to the legal process such as being "bound over by a magistrate or arraigned on charges" (Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 389, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 [2007] ). Here, because plaintiff was arraigned on July 16, 2011, the limitations period on his section 1983 claim based on false arrest ended on July 16, 2014, approximately three months before plaintiff filed this action. Accordingly, the claim is time-barred.

To the extent plaintiff's complaint alleges a section 1983 cause of action based on malicious prosecution, the claim is insufficient because it fails to state nonconclusory allegations of malice and lack of probable cause for plaintiff's arrest (see Savino v. City of New York, 331 F.3d 63, 72 [2d Cir.2003] ). Nor does it allege that the individual defendants acted pursuant to a municipal policy or custom (see Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 [1978] ).

We have considered the remaining contentions and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Cruz v. City of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 28, 2017
148 A.D.3d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Cruz v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:Jose Cruz, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. City of New York, et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 28, 2017

Citations

148 A.D.3d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
148 A.D.3d 617
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 2386

Citing Cases

Peralta v. City of New York

Plaintiff's claims against the City and the individual officers for malicious prosecution and false arrest…

McQueen v. The City of New York

Since those claims are subject to a three-year statute of limitations (see e.g.Higgins v. City of New York,…