State Complaint Taylor

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX -------------------------------------------------------------------X ROBERT TAYLOR, Plaintiff, COMPLAINT -againstIndex No. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, P.O. LAURENT MEDE, Shield No. 6673, Individually and in his Official Capacity, P.O. MARIO ALMONTE, Shield No. 3355, Individually and in his Official Capacity and P.O.’s “JOHN DOE” #110, Individually and in their Official Capacity (the name John Doe being fictitious, as the true names are presently unknown),

BASIS FOR VENUE: Location of Incident

Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------X

Plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR, by his attorneys, COHEN & FITCH LLP, complaining of the defendants, respectfully alleges as follows: FACTS 1.

Plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR is an African-American male and at all relevant

times a resident of the City and State of New York. 2.

Defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, was and is a municipal corporation duly

organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. 3.

Defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, maintains the New York City Police

Department, a duly authorized public authority and/or police department, authorized to perform all functions of a police department as per the applicable sections of the New York State

Criminal Procedure Law, acting under the direction and supervision of the aforementioned municipal corporation, The City of New York. 4.

That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the individually named defendants P.O.

LAURENT MEDE, P.O. MARIO ALMONTE, and P.O.s “JOHN DOE” #1-#10 were duly sworn police officers of said department and were acting under the supervision of said department and according to their official duties. 5.

That at all times hereinafter mentioned the defendants, either personally or

through their employees, were acting under color of state law and/or in compliance with the official rules, regulations, laws, statutes, customs, usages and/or practices of the State or City of New York. 6.

Each and all of the acts of the defendants alleged herein were done by said

defendants while acting within the scope of their employment by defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK. 7.

Each and all of the acts of the defendants alleged herein were done by said

defendants while acting in furtherance of their employment by defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK. 8.

On February 12, 2009, at approximately 5:00 p.m., plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR

was lawfully present on the southbound Freeman Street subway platform for the number 2 train in the County of Bronx, in the City and State of New York. 9.

At the aforesaid time and place, plaintiff was taking a photograph of an incoming

train he was waiting to board. 10.

As the train approached, plaintiff began walking toward the edge of the platform

as he waited for the train to stop so that he could board.

11.

Before he could board the train, one of the defendant police officers approached

plaintiff and stated to him in sum and substance “YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS IN THE TRAIN STATION.” 12.

Plaintiff immediately explained to the police officer that he was a Metropolitan

Transit Authority (“MTA”) station agent and he showed the police officer his employment identification. 13.

Plaintiff then explained to the defendant police officer that he was very familiar

with the MTA rules and that photography was not prohibited in the subway system. 14.

Another defendant police officer approached plaintiff and told him he had to

delete the photographs he had taken. 15.

Plaintiff refused and explained to the defendant police officers that they were

making a mistake. 16.

One of the defendant police officers then stated in sum and substance: “THE TA

RULES ARE DIFFERENT FROM OUR RULES. CUFF HIM.” 17.

Defendants then handcuffed plaintiffs’ arms tightly behind his back, took him

back to the precinct, and searched him. 18.

Defendants issued plaintiff three summonses charging him with two counts of

Disorderly Conduct and one violation of Transit Authority Rules of Conduct (Section 1050.9(c)). 19.

Notwithstanding that Section 1050.9(c) of the Transit Rules of Conduct explicitly

permits photography on the subway system and that plaintiff was not acting in a disorderly manner, defendants unlawfully arrested plaintiff anyway. 20. hours in jail.

As a result of his unlawful arrest, plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR spent several

21.

As a result of his unlawful arrest, plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR made two (2)

court appearances in connection with charges related to his false arrest. 22.

On or about February 19, 2009 the Transit Adjudication Bureau dismissed the

transit summons against plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR and on April 16, 2009 the disorderly conduct summonses against plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR were dismissed. 23.

On or about February 19, 2009, and within (90) days after the claim herein

accrued, the plaintiff duly served upon, presented to and filed with defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK, a Notice of Claim setting forth all facts and information required under the General Municipal Law § 50 (e). 24.

Defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK has wholly neglected or refused to make

an adjustment or payment thereof and more than thirty (30) days have elapsed since the presentation of such claim as aforesaid. 25.

Defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK conducted a hearing pursuant to General

Municipal Law § 50-h on March 31, 2009. 26.

Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent to maintaining the instant

27.

This action falls within one or more of the exceptions as outlined in C.P.L.R. §

action.

1602. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF DEPRIVATION OF FEDERAL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 28.

Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs numbered “1" through “27" with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

29.

All of the aforementioned acts of defendants, their agents, servants and

employees, were carried out under the color of state law. 30.

All of the aforementioned acts deprived plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR of the

rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed to citizens of the United States by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, and in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 31.

The acts complained of were carried out by the aforementioned individual

defendants in their capacities as police officers, with all the actual and/or apparent authority attendant thereto. 32.

The acts complained of were carried out by the aforementioned individual

defendants in their capacities as police officers, pursuant to the customs, usages, practices, procedures, and the rules of the City of New York and the New York City Police Department, all under the supervision of ranking officers of said department. 33.

Defendants, collectively and individually, while acting under color of state law,

engaged in conduct which constituted a custom, usage, practice, procedure or rule of the respective municipality/authority, which is forbidden by the Constitution of the United States. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF FALSE ARREST UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 34.

Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs numbered “1” through “33” with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 35.

As a result of the aforesaid conduct by defendants, plaintiff was subjected to

illegal, improper and false arrest by the defendants and taken into custody and caused to be falsely imprisoned, detained, and confined, without any probable cause, privilege or consent.

36.

As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff’s liberty was restricted for an extended

period of time, he was put in fear for his safety, and he was humiliated and subjected to handcuffing and other physical restraints, without probable cause. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 37.

Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs numbered “1" through “36" with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 38.

Defendants misrepresented and falsified evidence before the District Attorney.

39.

Defendants did not make a complete and full statement of facts to the District

Attorney. 40.

Defendants withheld exculpatory evidence from the District Attorney.

41.

Defendants were directly and actively involved in the initiation of criminal

proceedings against ROBERT TAYLOR. 42.

Defendants lacked probable cause to initiate criminal proceedings against

ROBERT TAYLOR. 43.

Defendants acted with malice in initiating criminal proceedings against ROBERT

TAYLOR. 44.

Defendants were directly and actively involved in the continuation of criminal

proceedings against ROBERT TAYLOR. 45.

Defendants lacked probable cause to continue criminal proceedings against

ROBERT TAYLOR. 46.

Defendants acted with malice in continuing criminal proceedings against

ROBERT TAYLOR. 47.

Defendants misrepresented and falsified evidence throughout all phases of the

criminal proceedings.

48.

Notwithstanding the perjurious and fraudulent conduct of defendants, the criminal

proceedings were terminated in ROBERT TAYLOR’s favor on or about April 16, 2009 when all charges against him were dismissed. 49.

As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff’s liberty was restricted for an extended

period of time, and he was put in fear for his safety, was humiliated and subjected to handcuffing, and other physical restraints, without probable cause. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF MALICIOUS ABUSE OF PROCESS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 50.

Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs “1" through “49" with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 51.

Defendants issued legal process to place plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR under

52.

Defendants arrested plaintiff in order to obtain a collateral objective outside the

arrest.

legitimate ends of the legal process. 53.

Defendants acted with intent to do harm to plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR, without

excuse or justification. 54.

As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff’s liberty was restricted for an extended

period of time, he was put in fear for his safety, and he was humiliated and subjected to handcuffing and other physical restraints, without probable cause. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 55.

Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs “1" through “54" as if the same were more fully set forth at length herein. 56.

Defendants created false evidence against plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR.

57.

Defendants forwarded false evidence and false information to prosecutors in the

District Attorney’s office. 58.

Defendants misled the prosecutors by creating false evidence against plaintiff

ROBERT TAYLOR and thereafter providing false testimony throughout the criminal proceedings. 59.

In creating false evidence against plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR in forwarding

false evidence and information to prosecutors, and in providing false and misleading sworn statements, defendants violated plaintiff’s constitutional right to a fair trial under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 60.

As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff’s liberty was restricted for an extended

period of time, he was put in fear for his safety, and he was humiliated and subjected to handcuffing and other physical restraints, without probable cause. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 61.

Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs “1" through “60" with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 62.

Plaintiff’s unjustified arrest and detention was not authorized by law but rather

was the defendant officers’ response to plaintiff’s verbal challenge to the officers understanding of the rules and plaintiff’s photography. 63.

Plaintiff’s verbal challenge is speech and plaintiff’s photography is expression

that is entirely protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. 64.

Defendants conduct was in direct violation of plaintiff’s right to freedom of

speech and expression as secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 65.

As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff’s liberty was restricted for an extended

period of time, and he was put in fear for his safety, was humiliated and subjected to handcuffing, and other physical restraints. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF MUNICIPAL LIABILITY UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 66.

Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs numbered “1” through “65” with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 67.

Defendants, collectively and individually, while acting under color of state law,

engaged in conduct that constituted a custom, usage, practice, procedure or rule of the respective municipality/authority, which is forbidden by the Constitution of the United States. 68.

The aforementioned customs, policies, usages, practices, procedures and rules of

the City of New York and the New York City Police Department included, but were not limited to, a) arresting individuals regardless of probable cause, b) utilizing excessive force in executing said arrests, c) falsifying evidence to cover up police misconduct, and d) arresting civilian witnesses whenever dispute arises between civilians and police officers. 69.

The foregoing customs, policies, usages, practices, procedures and rules of the

City of New York and the New York City Police Department constituted deliberate indifference to the safety, well-being and constitutional rights of plaintiff. 70.

The foregoing customs, policies, usages, practices, procedures and rules of the

City of New York and the New York City Police Department were the direct and proximate cause of the constitutional violations suffered by plaintiff as alleged herein. 71.

The foregoing customs, policies, usages, practices, procedures and rules of the

City of New York and the New York City Police Department were the moving force behind the constitutional violations suffered by plaintiff as alleged herein. 72. As a result of the foregoing customs, policies, usages, practices, procedures and rules of the City of New York and the New York City Police Department, plaintiff ROBERT

TAYLOR was subjected to unlawful and excessive force resulting in permanent and disabling injuries. 73.

Defendants, collectively and individually, while acting under color of state law,

were directly and actively involved in violating plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 74.

Defendants, collectively and individually, while acting under color of state law,

acquiesced in a pattern of unconstitutional conduct by subordinate police officers, and were directly responsible for the violation of plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR’s constitutional rights 75.

The acts complained of deprived plaintiff of their rights: A.

Not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law;

B.

To be free from seizure and arrest not based upon probable cause;

C.

To be free from malicious abuse of process;

D.

Not to have excessive force imposed upon them;

E.

To be free from unlawful search;

F.

Not to have summary punishment imposed upon them; and

G.

To receive equal protection under the law. EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOR ASSAULT

76.

Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs numbered “1" through “75" with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 77.

Defendants’ aforementioned actions placed plaintiff in apprehension of imminent

harmful and offensive bodily contact. 78.

As a result of defendants’ conduct, plaintiff has suffered physical pain and mental

anguish, together with shock, fright, apprehension, embarrassment and humiliation.

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOR BATTERY 79.

Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs numbered “1" through “78" with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 80.

Defendant police officers touched plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR in a harmful and

offensive manner. 81.

Defendant police officers did so without privilege or consent from plaintiff.

82.

As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR sustained, inter alia,

physical injuries. TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FALSE ARREST 83.

Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs numbered “1" through “82" with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 84.

Defendant police officers arrested plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR in the absence of

probable cause and without a warrant. 85.

As a result of the aforesaid conduct by defendants, plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR

was subjected to an illegal, improper and false arrest by the defendants and taken into custody and caused to be falsely imprisoned, detained, confined, incarcerated and prosecuted by the defendants in criminal proceedings. The aforesaid actions by the defendants constituted a deprivation of the plaintiff’s rights. ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT 86.

Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs numbered “1" through “85" with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

87.

As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR was falsely imprisoned,

his liberty was restricted for an extended period of time, was put in fear for his safety, was humiliated and subjected to handcuffing, and other physical restraints. 88.

Plaintiff was conscious of said confinement and did not consent to same.

89.

The confinement of plaintiff was without probable cause and was not otherwise

privileged. 90.

As a result of the aforementioned conduct, plaintiff has suffered physical and

mental injury, together with embarrassment, humiliation, shock, fright and loss of freedom. TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION 91.

Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs numbered “1" through “90" with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 92.

On February 12, 2009, defendants commenced a criminal proceeding against

plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR. 93.

Defendants lacked probable cause to commence said criminal proceeding against

plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR. 94.

Defendants were motivated by actual malice in commencing said criminal

proceeding against plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR. 95.

From February 12, 2009 through April 16, 2009, plaintiff was forced to

repeatedly make appearances in Criminal Court to defend himself against the unlawful prosecution initiated by defendants. 96.

On April 16, 2009, the criminal prosecution against plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR

was terminated in his favor when all charges against him were dismissed.

97.

As a result of the aforementioned conduct, plaintiff suffered physical and mental

injury, together with embarrassment, humiliation, shock, fright, and loss of freedom. THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 98.

Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs numbered “1" through “97" with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 99.

The aforementioned conduct was extreme and outrageous, and exceeded all

reasonable bounds of decency. 100.

The aforementioned conduct was committed by defendants while acting within

the scope of their employment by defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK. 101.

The aforementioned conduct was committed by defendants while acting in

furtherance of their employment by defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK. 102.

The aforementioned conduct was intentional and done for the sole purpose of

causing severe emotional distress to plaintiff. 103.

As a result of the aforementioned conduct, plaintiff suffered severe emotional

distress, physical and mental injury, together with embarrassment, humiliation, shock, fright and loss of freedom. FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING/TRAINING/SUPERVISION/RETENTION 104.

Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs numbered “1" through “103" with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

105.

Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK selected, hired, trained, retained, assigned and

supervised all members of said its Police Department, including the defendants individually named above. 106.

Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK was negligent and careless when it selected,

hired, trained, retained, assigned, and supervised all members of its Police Department including the defendants individually named above. 107.

Due to the negligence of the defendants as set forth above, plaintiff suffered

physical and mental injury, pain and trauma, together with embarrassment, humiliation shock, fright, and loss of freedom. 108.

By reason of the aforesaid conduct by defendants, plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR

requests the following relief: A. Compensatory damages in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000); B. Punitive damages in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000); C. An award of reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, as well as costs and disbursements; and D. Any further relief as the Court may find just and proper. 109.

As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages in the

sum of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) and is further entitled to punitive damages against the individual defendants in the sum of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00).

WHEREFORE, plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR demands judgment in the sum of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) in compensatory damages, one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) in punitive damages, plus attorney’s fees, costs, and disbursements of this action. Dated: New York, New York June 26, 2009 BY:________________________ GERALD COHEN COHEN & FITCH LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff 225 Broadway, Suite 2700 New York, N.Y. 10007 (212) 374-9115

ATTORNEY'S VERIFICATION GERALD COHEN, an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the Courts of the State of New York, shows: That he is a member of the law firm of COHEN & FITCH, LLP the attorneys for plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR in the within entitled action That your deponent has read the foregoing COMPLAINT and knows the contents thereof, and that the same is true to his own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, he believes it to be true. That the source of the deponent’s information are investigation and records in the file. That the reason why the verification is made by deponent and not by the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is not within the county wherein deponent maintains his office. Deponent affirms that the foregoing statements are true under the penalties of perjury. Dated:

New York, New York June 30, 2009

______________________________________ GERALD COHEN