Hogan v. Lewis Cnty.

MARK HOGAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LEWIS COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

7:16-CV-1325 (LEK/ATB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

June 1, 2020

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

This is the latest round in a long-running feud between plaintiffs Mark Hogan and Elizabeth Hogan and several of their neighbors on Hiawatha Lake in the Town of Greig, New York. The feud has principally involved disputes about property lines and rights, but has sprawled to include allegations of harassment and other tortious conduct and has enmeshed various local officials in its sprawl. In this particular lawsuit, Plaintiffs have sued both their neighbors and local officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York law. Dkt. No. 1 ("Complaint").

Presently before the Court are two separate summary judgment motions seeking dismissal of the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The first has been filed by defendant Wilbur L. Stanford, Jr., one of Plaintiffs' neighbors. Dkt. Nos. 82 ("Stanford Motion"); 82-1 ("Stanford Statement of Material Facts" or "Stanford SMF"); 82-13 ("Stanford Memorandum"). The second has been filed by defendants Michael Fayle and Ricky Craft, both employed by the New York State Police (together, the "NYSP Defendants"). Dkt. Nos. 83 ("NYSP Motion"); 83-14 ("NYSP Memorandum"); 83-15 ("NYSP Statement of Material Facts" or "NYSP SMF"). Plaintiffs oppose both these motions. Dkt. Nos. 89-7 ("Response to NYSP SMF"); 89-8 ("Response to Stanford SMF"); 89-9 ("Opposition to NYSP Motion"); 89-10 ("Opposition to Stanford Motion"). Both Stanford and the NYSP Defendants have filed a reply. Dkt. Nos. 91 ("NYSP Reply"); 92-1 ("Stanford Reply").

For the following reasons, the Court grants the NYSP Defendants' motion in its entirety, and grants in part and denies in part Stanford's motion.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

The following facts are relevant to the instant motions. Where necessary, the Court provides additional details in its analysis.

1. The Prior State Court Action

Both Plaintiffs and Stanford own property around Hiawatha Lake, in Grieg, New York. Stanford SMF ¶ 1; Resp. to Stanford SMF ¶ 1. Though the details of the parties' various property rights and obligations is much in dispute in this lawsuit (and others), it appears beyond dispute that an access road to several lakefront properties, including Stanford's, crosses Plaintiffs' property. Hogan Dep. at 326-28, 332-34; Stanford Aff. ¶ 3-4; Stanford SMF ¶ 5. Stanford claims he has a deeded right-of-way to use this road, see Stanford SMF ¶ 5; Plaintiffs' assert that Stanford holds no such right-of-way, see Resp. to Stanford SMF ¶ 5.

Back in 2008, Plaintiffs brought a lawsuit in state court against several of their neighbors, including Stanford, in which they sought, amongst other relief, clarification regarding the existence, nature, and extent of the right-of-way across Plaintiffs' property. Stanford SMF ¶ 4; Dkt. No. 82-5 ("2008 Decision"). In that lawsuit, the Stanford and Plaintiffs "agree[d] that there exists [at least some] right of way," and the state court issued a preliminary injunction orderingthe parties to "maintain the status quo of the right of way," including no "widen[ing] or narrow[ing]." 2008 Decision at 3, 5-6. The State Court matter was eventually resolved in 2013, when the state court granted Stanford's summary judgment motion in that case. See Stanford SMF ¶ 4; Resp. to Stanford SMF ¶ 4; Dkt. No. 82-6 ("2013 Decision").

2. The September 1, 2016 Incident

On September 1, 2016, Stanford was driving home to his cabin along the access road. Stanford SMF ¶ 6; Resp. to Stanford SMF ¶ 6. At a Y-intersection, Stanford encountered Mark Hogan,¹ who was digging a hole on the side of the roadway. Stanford SMF ¶ 6; Resp. to Stanford SMF ¶ 6; Dkt. No. 82-3 9 ("Stanford Affidavit") ¶ 6. Hogan insists he was doing repair work to fix electrical lines that Stanford had damaged. Resp. to Stanford SMF ¶ 6. Stanford, however, believed that Hogan was altering the road in violation of the preliminary injunction issued in the 2008 Decision. Stanford Aff. ¶¶ 7-8; Dkt. No. 82-8 ("Stanford Deposition") at 14.

To document Hogan's actions, Stanford stopped his car and began recording Hogan with a cellphone camera. Stanford SMF ¶ 6; Resp. to Stanford SMF ¶ 6; Dkt. Nos. 89-1 ("Hogan Deposition") at 347; 81-10 ("First Video"). Observing this, Hogan became agitated. He approached Stanford with a golf club, told him repeatedly to go and "get out of here," and called him a "little fucker." First Video. Hogan then used the handle of the golf club to knock Stanford's phone out of his hand. Id.²

Crucially, the parties dispute where exactly this altercation took place. Hogan attests that the event took place wholly on "Lake lot 29 on Hiawatha Lake I" ("Lot 29"), which he insists is purely his private property, subject to no easement by Stanford. Dkt. Nos. 89-5 ("Hogan Affirmation") ¶ 2; 89-6, Ex. A ("Hogan Deed"). In contrast, Stanford asserts that the incident took place on "Great Lot 24," over which his deeded right-of-way runs. Dkt. No. 92-7 ("Response to Hogan's SMF") ¶ 13; Dkt. No. 82-9 ("Stanford Deed").³

In any event, at this point, Stanford picked up his phone, drove to a second location, and began filming Hogan again. Stanford SMF ¶ 7; Resp. to Stanford SMF ¶ 7; Dkt. No. 89-6, Ex. C ("Second Video" and "Third Video"). After a brief period, Stanford left. Stanford SMF ¶ 7; Resp. to Stanford SMF ¶ 7.

Stanford then made a call to the New York State Police about Hogan's actions. Stanford SMF ¶ 8; Resp. to Stanford SMF ¶ 8. Defendant Fayle and Trooper Emerson Lyndaker, who is not a party to this action, both responded to Stanford's call, with Fayle arriving first. NYSP SMF ¶¶ 4-8; Resp. to NYSP SMF ¶¶ 4-8.

Stanford described to the troopers the incident between him and Hogan and showed them at least the First Video he had taken with his phone. NYSP SMF ¶ 10; Resp. to NYSP SMF ¶ 10. Fayle also took a sworn deposition statement from Stanford in which Stanford described the incident. NYSP SMF ¶ 9; Resp. to NYSP SMF ¶ 9; Dkt. No. 82-11 ("Criminal Complaint and Deposition"). Stanford then told the troopers he wanted a restraining order against Hogan. NYSP SMF ¶ 17; Resp. to NYSP SMF ¶ 17. Lyndaker spoke with their sergeant and then told Stanford that they could charge Hogan with harassment in the second degree, a violation of N.Y. PenalLaw § 240.26, and that Stanford could perform a "citizen's arrest" of Hogan. NYSP SMF ¶ 18; Resp. to NYSP SMF ¶ 18. Stanford agreed, and proceeded to file a criminal complaint against Hogan for harassment in the second degree. Stanford Aff. ¶ 14.

The troopers then followed Stanford back to where Hogan was working on the access road. NYSP SMF ¶ 20; Resp. to NYSP SMF ¶ 20. There, Stanford told Hogan that he was under arrest for harassment. Stanford SMF ¶ 9; Resp. to Stanford SMF ¶ 9. Lyndaker then placed handcuffs on Hogan and placed him in a police cruiser to transport him to court. NYSP SMF ¶ 22; Resp. to NYSP SMF ¶ 22; Dkt. No. 89-3 ("Fayle Deposition") at 40. Hogan remained in custody approximately three hours. Hogan Aff. ¶ 15.

In the aftermath of this incident, Stanford received a six-month order of protection against Hogan. Stanford SMF ¶ 10; Resp. to Stanford SMF ¶ 10. Additionally, on July 25, 2017, after a bench trial (the "Criminal Trial") in the Watson Town Court, Hogan was convicted of harassment in the second degree. NYSP SMF ¶ 25; Resp. to NYSP SMF ¶ 25; Dkt. No. 82-12 ("Certificate of Disposition"). He did not appeal the conviction. Stanford SMF ¶ 10; Resp. to Stanford SMF ¶ 10. Finally, Plaintiffs assert that the Second Video and Third Video taken by Stanford were exculpatory and were illegally withheld from them by the district attorney's office during the course of the Criminal Trial. Hogan Aff. ¶ 11.

3. The September 3, 2016 Incident

Two days after his arrest over his altercation with Stanford, Hogan had another run-in with state police.

David Vandewater, one of Hogan's neighbors and a defendant in this action, placed a call to state police in which he reported observing Hogan remove several orange traffic cones from their position around a dirt pile. NYSP SMF ¶ 30; Resp. to NYSP SMF ¶ 30; Dkt. No. 83-4("Craft Declaration") ¶ 6. Vandewater was unsure who owned the cones but thought that it was possible Hogan had stolen them. Craft Decl. ¶ 6; Dkt. No. 83-6 ("Craft Deposition") at 25-27.

As the unit closest to Vandewater's location, defendant Craft was assigned to respond to Vandewater's call. Craft Decl. ¶ 4. Craft drove to Vandewater's house and parked his car on the right side of the narrow roadway. NYSP SMF ¶ 29; Resp. to NYSP SMF ¶ 29. Vandewater then explained to Craft what he had seen Hogan do with the cones. NYSP SMF ¶ 30; Resp. to NYSP SMF ¶ 30.

While Craft was speaking with Vandewater, Hogan happened to drive by. NYSP SMF ¶ 31; Resp. to NYSP SMF ¶ 31. He drove around Craft's patrol car—still parked on the right side of the road—and onto Vandewater's lawn before continuing on his way. NYSP SMF ¶ 31; Resp. to NYSP SMF ¶ 31.⁴

Observing this, Craft believed that Hogan had violated several provisions of New York's Vehicle and Traffic Law, as well as Penal Law § 145.00 for criminal mischief, and that he had potentially committed larceny of the traffic cones as well. Craft Decl. ¶¶ 8-9. Craft turned on his emergency lighting and pulled Hogan over. NYSP SMF ¶ 32; Resp. to NYSP SMF ¶ 32. Craft told Hogan that he had seen him drive off the roadway onto Vandewater's lawn and that he wasalso investigating a potential larceny of traffic cones. NYSP SMF ¶ 34; Resp. to NYSP SMF ¶ 34. Hogan assured Craft that the cones were his, and to prove it he showed Craft where he had written his initials and address on the cones. NYSP SMF ¶¶ 35-37; Resp. to NYSP SMF ¶¶ 35-37. At this, Craft apparently no longer suspected Hogan of stealing the cones. Craft Dep. at 38.

By this point, however, Hogan and...