Maldonado v. City of N.Y

2 Citing cases

  1. Ellison v. City of New Rochelle

    62 A.D.3d 830 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 54 times

    The defendants established the lawfulness of the stop and seizure of the plaintiff ( see People v Vega, 56 AD3d 578, 579). As there was a legal justification for the seizure of the plaintiff, the defendants also established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the seventh cause of action, which alleged false imprisonment, and so much of the first and fourth causes of action as alleged unlawful seizure of the plaintiff ( see Maldonado v City of New York, 60 AD3d 822; cf. Lynn v State of New York, 33 AD3d 673, 674). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

  2. Scott v. City of New Rochelle

    44 Misc. 3d 366 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014)   Cited 12 times
    Recognizing split among New York courts and citing cases

    arrest of the plaintiff. The defendants have met their prima facie burden of proving justification for the detention and/or arrest of the plaintiff by submitting evidence that the plaintiff consented to the search of her apartment, and thus, pursuant to the lawful search they were authorized to detain her while the search was conducted ( seeCriminal Procedure Law § 120.80(4); Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 125 S.Ct. 1465, 1466, 161 L.Ed.2d 299, [2005] [“[The plaintiff's] detention in handcuffs for the length of the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment”]; Flynn v. James, 513 Fed.Appx. 37, 39 [2d Cir.2013][“[A] warrantless search of a home is unreasonable unless an exception applies, such as a search conducted pursuant to consent”]; Linson v. City of New York, 98 A.D.3d 1002, 1003, 951 N.Y.S.2d 167 [2d Dept.2012] [“Authorization to detain an occupant of the place to be searched is the authority to use reasonable force to effectuate the detention” (internal quotations omitted) ]; Maldonado v. City of New York, 60 A.D.3d 822, 823, 875 N.Y.S.2d 549 [2d Dept.2009] [“[A]s the officers' entry into the home was lawful, any initial detention of the plaintiffs was privileged, and the plaintiffs did not submit any evidence that they were detained beyond the officers' initial lawful entry”]; People v. Barnhill, 34 A.D.3d 933, 934, 823 N.Y.S.2d 301 [3d Dept.2006] [“It is now well established that consent to enter an apartment may be established by conduct, as well as words”] ). In opposition, the plaintiff focuses her attention solely on the third element of her false arrest claim, specifically, whether the confinement was privileged, that is, whether the arrest and detention were lawful.