Delgado v. City of New York

PETER DELGADO, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants.

No. 19 Civ. 6320 (JPC)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

June 17, 2021

OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN P. CRONAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Peter Delgado was arrested three times in 2018 and charged with a No. of criminal offenses related to the illegal sale of New York City subway rides. In early 2019, Delgado accepted an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (“ACD”) for each of his charges, which ultimately terminated the criminal proceedings against him. Later that year, he brought this action against the City of New York and several officers of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) alleging violations of the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986, and various New York state laws. Specifically, Delgado claims that Defendants, among other things, falsely arrested him without probable cause, maliciously caused proceedings to be initiated against him, intentionally and negligently inflicted emotional distress, denied him the right to a fair trial through the use of fabricated evidence, and violated his right to equal protection.

Before the Court is Defendants' partial motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the below reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants' motion.

I. Background

A. Documents Considered

Before delving into the factual background, the Court must address a threshold issue: which materials may it consider to decide this motion? As discussed further below, “[t]he standard for addressing a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as that for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” Hogan v. Fischer, 738 F.3d 509, 514-15 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Cleveland v. Caplaw Enters., 448 F.3d 518, 521 (2d Cir. 2006)). In considering a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 12(c), “a district court may consider the facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached to the complaint as exhibits, and documents incorporated by reference in the complaint.” DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C., 622 F.3d 104, 111 (2d Cir. 2010). If a document is not incorporated by reference, a court still may consider it if the complaint “‘relies heavily upon its terms and effect,' thereby rending the document ‘integral' to the complaint.” Id. (quoting Mangiafico v. Blumenthal, 471 F.3d 391, 398 (2d Cir. 2006)). That is so long as “no dispute exists regarding the authenticity or accuracy of the document.” Id. (quoting Faulkner v. Beer, 463 F.3d 130, 134 (2d Cir. 2006)). The only other materials a court may consider in this posture are “matters of which judicial notice may be taken.” Leonard F. v. Isr. Disc. Bank of N.Y., 199 F.3d 99, 107 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting Allen v. WestPoint-Pepperell, Inc., 945 F.2d 40, 44 (2d Cir. 1991)).

In support of their motion, Defendants filed a declaration from Nicholas L. Collins, attorney for Defendants. Dkt. 31 (“Collins Declaration” or “Collins Decl.”). Attached to the Collins Declaration are several types of exhibits: (1) NYPD arrest reports (one for each of Delgado's three arrests); (2) criminal complaints (one for each incident); (3) certificates of disposition (one for each incident) showing that all proceedings were resolved by an ACD; and (4) video footage from officers' body worn cameras on two of the incident dates: April 23, 2018, and May 4, 2018. Collins Decl., Exhs. B-L. Defendants ask the Court to consider these four categories in deciding the Rule 12(c) motion. Dkt. 32 (“Motion”) at 3-4. Defendants do not argue that any of these documents were incorporated by reference in the First Amended Complaint, Dkt. 14 (the “Amended Complaint” or “Am. Compl.”), or that they were integral to it, but rather claim that the Court can take judicial notice of them. Motion at 3-4.

The Court may take judicial notice of “a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed.R.Evid. 201(b). “A court may take judicial notice of a document filed in another court not for the truth of the matters asserted in the other litigation, but rather to establish the fact of such litigation and related filings.” Glob. Network Commc'ns, Inc. v. City of New York, 458 F.3d 150, 157 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Int'l Star Class Yacht Racing Ass'n v. Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 146 F.3d 66, 70 (2d Cir. 1998)).

The three certificates of disposition show that Delgado's underlying criminal cases were resolved when he accepted an ACD for each of his charges. Collins Decl., Exhs. H-J. Courts routinely take judicial notice of certificates of disposition. See, e.g., Mercano v. City of New York, No. 15 Civ. 3544 (LGS), 2017 WL 1969676, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2017); Forbes v. City of New York, No. 15 Civ. 3458 (GHW), 2016 WL 6269602, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2016). Nothing suggests that these documents are inaccurate, and Delgado in fact acknowledges that “it is undisputed that the underlying criminal proceedings associated with [his] arrest[s] . . . were all terminated via ACD.” Dkt. 40 (“Opposition”) at 17 (citing Collins Decl., Exhs. H-J). Thus the three certificates of disposition fit within the requirements of Rule 201(b), and the Court will take judicial notice of them. See Fed.R.Evid. 201(b).

The arrest reports and criminal complaints, Collins Decl., Exhs. B-G, are different than the certificates of disposition because they include statements from the arresting officers describing what they claim they observed Delgado doing. Although “several courts have taken judicial notice of incident reports, arrest reports, police reports, and similar matters on a motion to dismiss, ” they have done so “not for the truth of their contents, but rather to establish their existence.” Alvarez v. Cnty. of Orange, N.Y., 95 F.Supp.3d 385, 397 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (collecting cases); see also Glob. Network Commc'ns, Inc., 458 F.3d at 157; Awelewa v. New York City, No. 11 Civ. 778 (NRB), 2012 WL 601119, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2012) (“Where a court takes judicial notice, it does so in order to determine what statements [the public records] contained . . . not for the truth of the matters asserted.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations in original)). The cases that Defendants cite, see Motion at 4, confirm this. See Bejaoui v. City of New York, No. 13 Civ. 5667 (NGG), 2015 WL 1529633, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2015) (taking judicial notice of a state court indictment “not for the truth of the matters asserted, but to establish [its] existence and legal effect”); Garnett v. City of New York, No. 13 Civ. 7083 (JSR), 2014 WL 1383255, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2014) (taking judicial notice of an underlying criminal complaint “not for the truth of the matters asserted” but instead only “to establish the fact of such ligation and related filings”) (quoting Glob. Network Commc'ns, Inc., 458 F.3d at 157)); Liang v. City of New York, No. 10 Civ. 3089 (ENV), 2013 WL 5366394, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2013) (taking judicial notice of arrest reports and similar documents “only to establish their existence and legal effect, or to determine what statements [they] contained” but “not for the truth of the matters asserted”), aff'd sub nom. Liang v. Zee, 764 Fed.Appx. 103 (2d Cir. 2019). And at oral argument on their motion, Defendants agreed that the Court may not consider the truth of the matters asserted in these documents. 5/26/21 Tr. at 11. Accordingly, the Court will take judicial notice of the arrest reports and criminal complaints, Collins Decl., Exhs. B-G, to establish their existence and take note of the statements that they contain, but not for the truth of their contents.

Finally, at oral argument, Defendants acknowledged that the Court cannot take judicial notice of the body worn camera footage in the present posture. 5/26/2021 Tr. at 14. Courts in this District have emphasized that “extraneous videos documenting the events in question are not properly considered on a motion to dismiss unless the plaintiff relied upon the videos when drafting the complaint.” Ashley v. Gonzalez, No. 19 Civ. 6282 (AJN), 2020 WL 7027501, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2020) (collecting cases); see also Lurch v. City of New York, No. 19 Civ. 11254 (VEC) (OTW), 2021 WL 842616, at *4 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 1172506 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2021); cf. Hershey v. Goldstein, 938 F.Supp.2d 491, 498 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (considering security camera footage of events described in the amended complaint because the plaintiff “reference[d] this video footage in the Amended Complaint” and “attached some of this footage to it”). Because Delgado does not rely on the body worn camera footage in the Amended Complaint, the Court declines to take judicial notice of these videos, Collins Decl., Exhs. K-L, for purposes of Defendants' Rule 12(c) motion.

B. Factual Background

Having determined which materials it may consider at this stage, the Court now turns to the factual allegations at issue. The following facts are taken primarily from the Amended Complaint. For purposes of resolving Defendants' Rule 12(c) motion only, the Court accepts the Amended Complaint's factual allegations as true and “draw[s] all inferences in the plaintiff's favor.” Biro v. Condé Nast, 807 F.3d 541, 544 (2d Cir. 2015). As discussed above, the Court also considers the arrest reports, criminal complaints, and ACDs that Defendants submitted in support of their motion, Collins Decl., Exhs. B-J, but does not...