Carty v. City of N.Y.

2 Citing cases

  1. Guo Hua Jin v. The City of New York

    No. 20-CV-3603 (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 13, 2023)

    Defendants cite Carty v. City of New York for the proposition that probable cause exists when arresting officers make their finding based on information that comes from an eyewitness or putative victim, “‘unless the circumstances raise doubt as to the person's veracity.'” No. 16-CV-1294, 2019 WL 1428368, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. March 29, 2019) (quoting Curly v. Vill. of Suffern, 268 F.3d 65, 70 (2d Cir. 2001)). In Carty, the probable cause determination was made based on information given to the arresting officer just after a food cart owner had been robbed by two men who told him that they were armed, followed by a positive identification of the purported assailants by the food cart owner. Under these circumstances, the arresting officer correctly determined that there was probable cause based on an eyewitness identification by the victim of a crime

  2. Brandon v. City of New York

    Civil Action 20 Civ. 7784 (LAK) (SLC) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 6, 2023)

    . As the Second Circuit held in Jaegly, “a claim for false arrest turns only on whether probable cause existed to arrest a defendant, and that it is not relevant whether probable cause existed with respect to each individual charge, or, indeed, any charge actually invoked by the arresting officer at the time of the arrest.” Id.; see Carty v. City of New York, No. 16 Civ. 1294 (FB) (RML), 2019 WL 1428368, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019) (in evaluating whether probable cause existed, “[a]ll that matters is that the facts known to [the officers] were sufficient for a person of reasonable caution . . . to believe that the defendants committed either crime-or, indeed, any other crime[]”); Raymond v. Bunch, 136 F.Supp.2d 71, 79 (N.D.N.Y. 2001) (dismissing false arrest claim on summary judgment based on “[t]he undisputed fact . . . that [the officer] relied upon the independent observations of . . . nonparty witnesses [] in deciding that he had probable cause to arrest [the plaintiff]” for driving while intoxicated). This statute provides that, except in certain enumerated circumstances, “[u]pon all roadways of sufficient width a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway[.]” N.Y. VTL § 1120(a).