Gutierrez v. City of N.Y.

BRANDON GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, POLICE OFFICER DERICK RUSS, POLICE OFFICER DANIEL TRIONE,DETECTIVE JONATHAN BULZOMI, SERGEANT JOHN DIAZ, POLICE OFFICER CHARLES SCHWARTZ,SERGEANT TIMOTHY CECCHINI, POLICE OFFICER JUSTIN PUCCIA, SERGEANT HILLMAN,SERGEANT TIMOTHY EVANS, and JOHN DOE and JANE DOE 1-5, Defendants.

18-CV-3621 (MKB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

February 22, 2021

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Brandon Gutierrez, proceeding pro se, commenced the above-captioned action on June 21, 2018, against Defendants the City of New York (the "City"), New York City Police Department ("NYPD") Officers Derick Russ, Daniel Trione, Charles Schwartz, and Justin Puccia, Detective Jonathan Bulzomi, Sergeants John Diaz, Timothy Cecchini, Stephen Hillman,¹ and Timothy Evans, and John Doe and Jane Doe 1-5. (Compl., Docket Entry No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that on July 18, 2015, Defendants wrongfully arrested him for crimes they were aware he did not commit (the "Incident"). (Id. ¶¶ 22, 57.) Plaintiff asserts claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, excessive use of force, failure to intervene, unreasonable detention, denialof the right to a fair trial,² unlawful stop and frisk, unreasonable search and seizure, malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and Monell liability. (Id. at 7-16.) Plaintiff also asserts several state law claims for false arrest and imprisonment, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, unreasonable search and seizure, negligence, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress and several claims under Article I, §§ 5, 6, 8, 11, and 12 of the New York State Constitution. (Id. at 16-21.) Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages as well as the costs of suit including reasonable attorneys' fees and any other relief that the Court deems proper. (Id. at 21.)

Defendants move for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. ("Defs.' Mot."), Docket Entry No. 42; Defs.' Mem. in Supp. of Defs.' Mot. ("Defs.' Mem."), Docket Entry No. 44.) Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants the motion.

I. Background

The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted.

a. The Incident

On July 18, 2015, at approximately 4:00 PM, Jesus Pujols was at his barbershop and cellular telephone repair business located at 3324 Fulton Street on the corner of Pine Street and Fulton Street in Brooklyn, New York (the "Shop").³ Dane Tyndall, who knew Pujols from priorinteractions, had contacted Pujols to "arrange a meetup" that day. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 13; NYPD Compl. Follow-Up Report ("NYPD Follow-Up Report"), annexed to Spears Decl. as Ex. D, Docket Entry No. 43-4; Pujols Trial Tr. 45:1-45:7.)⁴ At approximately 4:00 PM, Tyndall entered the Shop, and within the next hour at least two other individuals entered the Shop, "one of whom was brandishing a black semi-automatic handgun." (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 16; NYPD Follow-Up Report 2; Pujols Trial Tr. 45:1-45:7.) Tyndall and the two other individuals (the "Assailants") directed Pujols to his apartment, located below the Shop. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 17; Pujols Trial Tr. 45:23-46:14.) Anamaria Agosto, Pujols' then-girlfriend, was inside Pujols' apartment when the Assailants went downstairs. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 18; NYPD Follow-Up Report 14.) The Assailants struck Pujols in the face with the handgun and kicked Agosto in the back and stomach. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 20, 22; NYPD Follow-Up Report 14; Pujols Trial Tr. 51:12-52:24.) The Assailants took Pujols' Connecticut state driver's license, Pujols' New York state driver's license, a religious ring, a necklace, a crucifix, a 30 gigabyte Apple iPod, a black Samsung cellular telephone, a Samsung cellular telephone battery, a black LG cellular telephone, a black Kyocera cellular telephone, a white Apple iPhone charging case, two Bic lighters, and $670 before fleeing the scene.⁵ The Assailants left the apartment with the stolen property and fled on foot southbound on Pine Street. (NYPD Follow-Up Report 14; Pujols Trial Tr. 59:3-6.)

Defendants contend that Plaintiff was one of the Assailants. (Defs.' Mem. 2.) Plaintiff contends that he was not one of the Assailants. (Dep. of Brandon Gutierrez ("Pl.'s Dep.") 57:3-7, annexed to Spears Decl. as Ex. A, Docket Entry No. 43-1; Compl. ¶ 23.)

At approximately 4:37 PM, after the Assailants left Pujols' apartment, Officers Russ and Trione were sitting in their police car near the corner of Fulton and Pine Street and were approached by Pujols and Agosto.⁶ Pujols and Agosto told the officers that they had just been robbed at gunpoint. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 26; Russ Trial Tr. 413:16-414:4.) Pujols entered Officers Russ and Trione's car and drove around with them while Agosto remained at the scene. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 27; Russ Trial Tr. 415:19-416:17.) While riding with Officers Russ and Trione, Pujols "positively identified [Plaintiff] to the officers as one of the individuals involved in the robbery earlier that afternoon." (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 28; Russ Trial Tr. 420:23-421:8; Pujols Trial Tr. 52:1-53:11.) Pujols was between seven and eight feet away from Plaintiff when Pujols identified him. (Pl.'s Dep. 61:5-15.) Pujols could "clearly identify" Plaintiff and Plaintiff stated that he was able to "clearly see [Pujols'] face." (Id. at 61:16-18.)

b. Plaintiff's arrest and trial

Following the identification, at approximately 4:50 PM, Plaintiff was apprehended by Detective Bulzomi and was arrested by an unspecified officer.⁷ (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 31; Pl.'s Dep. 60:3-22.)

The parties dispute the nature and location of Plaintiff's apprehension. Plaintiff contends that he was apprehended by the officers at a Foot Locker store on Liberty Avenue. (Pl.'s Dep. 46:25-47:2, 49:21-50:6.) Plaintiff testified that two officers approached him inside the store and told him to "come here," in reference to going outside. (Id. at 52:3-4.) When Plaintiff went outside, Pujols, sitting in one of the police cars, identified him as one of the Assailants. (Id. at 52:3-17.) The officers attempted to handcuff him, but Plaintiff resisted by "slapping [the officers'] hands away" and "brushing" the officers off while they attempted to restrain him.⁸ (Pl.'s Dep. 61:22-25.) Plaintiff also stated that the officers "tackled [him] to the ground and then . . . handcuffed and put [him]. . . in the cop car." (Id. at 60:21-22.) Defendants assert that Plaintiff was apprehended at Glen Street and Euclid Avenue.⁹ Defendants contend that Plaintiff was spotted by Detective Bulzomi "after being pointed out by a civilian livery driver," (Defs.' Mem. 2; Bulzomi Trial Tr. 306:11-307:7), and Plaintiff was "chased, apprehended, and placed in handcuffs without resistance" (Defs.' Mem. 2-3; Bulzomi Trial Tr. 307:16-307:21, 309:12-310:14). Detective Bulzomi testified at Plaintiff's state trial that Plaintiff was placed in handcuffs while "[h]e was on the ground." (Bulzomi Trial Tr. 311:8-11.) The parties do not dispute that Plaintiff was not injured while in NYPD custody,¹⁰ that Plaintiff did not complain of an injury during his arrest and detention, and that Plaintiff did not request medical attention during his arrest and detention. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 33-36; Pl.'s Dep. 71:1-9.)

During Plaintiff's arrest, Detective Bulzomi searched Plaintiff and found several cellular telephones and a wallet. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 37-38; Pl.'s Dep. 58:23-59:23.) Defendants contend that Detective Bulzomi also found Pujols' Connecticut state license on Plaintiff's person, (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 38; NYPD Compl. Report 6), although Plaintiff testified that he did not have Pujols' license when he was arrested, (Pl.'s Dep. 120:10-13).¹¹ NYPD officers transported Plaintiff to the 75th Precinct, where he remained overnight. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 40; Pl.'s Dep. at 64:17-19, 71:20-24; Bulzomi Trial Tr. 313:13-23.) The same day, Detective Puccia apprehended Dillon Patterson as one of the Assailants and created a list of items recovered from Patterson.¹² Pujols and Agosto each signed a stolen property report. (Pujols Stolen Property Report; Agosto Stolen Property Report.) Pujols reported as stolen a Connecticut state identification, a New York state driver's license, a leather wallet, a silver and gold crucifix with a chain, a Yankee hat, a 30 gigabyte Apple iPod and case, "assorted cell phones," one white iPhone 5 charging case, one Samsung cellular telephone battery, and $660 in cash. (Pujols Stolen Property Report.) Agosto reported as stolen a religious ring, two Bic lighters, one Samsung T-Mobile cellular telephone, one LG cellular telephone, one Kyocera cellular telephone, and $10 in cash. (Agosto Stolen Property Report.) At the 75th Precinct following Plaintiff's arrest, photographs were taken of the property recovered from Plaintiff and from Patterson. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 45, 47; Photographs of Property Recovered from Plaintiff annexed to Spears Decl. as Ex. M, Docket Entry No. 43-13;Photographs of Property Recovered from Patterson.) On July 18, 2015, Officer Russ returned to Pujols and Agosto the property recovered and identified as stolen. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 48; Russ Trial Tr. 428:17-21.) Plaintiff contends that he owns all the property recovered from his person and that none of the property recovered belongs to Pujols or Agosto. (Pl.'s Dep. 54:8-54:17, 114:12-114:14.)

On July 19, 2015, at approximately 10:10 AM, Plaintiff was transported to Central Booking and "was able to confer with an attorney." (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 50; Pl.'s Dep. 73:10-14.) On July 20, 2015, at approximately 1:19 AM, Plaintiff was arraigned on charges stemming from the robbery at the shop including robbery in the first degree, burglary in the first degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 51; ...