Summary
holding that arresting officer had probable cause to arrest plaintiff for criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree and noting that it was "not necessary for the police to show that plaintiff had the intent necessary" to secure a conviction
Summary of this case from Medina v. City of New YorkOpinion
6149 Index 303003/13
03-29-2018
Lawrence THOMPSON, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Eric Lee of counsel), for appellants. Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for respondent.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Eric Lee of counsel), for appellants.
Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for respondent.
Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet–Daniels, Kahn, Kern, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered January 13, 2016, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint.
Plaintiff alleges that he was unlawfully arrested and charged with criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree ( Penal Law § 170.20 ) due to the erroneous conclusion that the temporary license plate on his vehicle was forged. Plaintiff cannot prevail on his false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution claims because the police officer's observations, based on his training and experience with similar license plates, provided a reasonable basis for him to conclude that plaintiff's temporary plate was forged, granting him probable cause to arrest plaintiff (see Walker v. City of New York, 148 A.D.3d 469, 470, 50 N.Y.S.3d 320 [1st Dept. 2017] ; Leftenant v. City of New York, 70 A.D.3d 596, 895 N.Y.S.2d 88 [1st Dept. 2010] ). To establish probable cause, it was not necessary for the police to show that plaintiff had the intent necessary to secure a conviction of third-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument (see Jenks v. State of New York, 213 A.D.2d 513, 514, 623 N.Y.S.2d 916 [2d Dept. 1995], lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 702, 631 N.Y.S.2d 606, 655 N.E.2d 703 [1995] ).
The claim brought under 42 USC § 1983 must be dismissed because plaintiff failed to adequately allege that the challenged acts of the police were the result of an official municipal policy or custom (see Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690–691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 [1978] ; Leftenant at 597, 895 N.Y.S.2d 88 ). Furthermore, because the police were acting within the scope of their employment, plaintiff's claim for negligent hiring, training, and supervision must be dismissed ( Boyd v. City of New York, 143 A.D.3d 609, 39 N.Y.S.3d 757 [1st Dept. 2016] ; Leftenant at 597, 895 N.Y.S.2d 88 ), and there is no claim in New York for general negligence (see Medina v. City of New York, 102 A.D.3d 101, 108, 953 N.Y.S.2d 43 [1st Dept. 2012] ).