Jeanty v. City of Utica

VLADIMIR JEANTY, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF UTICA; THE COUNTY OF ONEIDA; MARK WILLIAMS, Chief of Police, Utica Police Dept.;Police Officer MICHAEL F. CERMINARO, badge #1301; Investigator PETER PALADINO, badge #6290;Lieutenant SEAN DOUGHERTY, badge #2553; and Honorable SCOTT D. MCNAMARA,Oneida County District Attorney, Defendants.

6:16-cv-00966 (BKS/TWD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

January 14, 2021

Appearances:

Vladimir Jeanty

Uniondale, NY 11553

Plaintiff, pro se

Zachary C. Oren

First Assistant Corporation Counsel

One Kennedy Plaza

Utica, NY 13502

Attorneys for Defendants City of Utica, Michael Cerminaro, Peter Paladino, and Mark Williams (the "City Defendants")

William P. Schmitt

Schmitt & Lascurettes, LLC

1508 Genesee Street, Suite 3

Utica, NY 13502

Attorneys for Defendants Honorable Scott D. McNamara and County of Oneida (the "County Defendants")

David A. Bagley

Kernan Professional Group, LLP

1310 Utica Street

Oriskany, NY 13424

Attorney for Defendant Sean Dougherty Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, United States District Judge:

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff pro se Vladimir Jeanty brings this action against Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York law for alleged constitutional and tort injuries resulting from his arrest on October 15, 2009 and subsequent prosecution, as well as a related news report. (Dkt. No. 33). Following this Court's dismissal of certain claims and Defendants at the pleading stage, (Dkt. No. 99), and Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of his claims against several other Defendants, (Dkt. No. 340), Plaintiff's remaining claims are: (1) two separate causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for denial of a fair trial against Defendants Cerminaro, Paladino and Dougherty, the first arising from his criminal proceedings, and the second arising from his post-conviction proceedings; (2) two separate causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York law for malicious prosecution against Defendants Cerminaro, Paladino and Dougherty, the first arising from his criminal proceedings, and the second arising from his post-conviction proceedings; (3) a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to intervene against Defendants Paladino and Dougherty; (4) a Monell cause of action against the City of Utica; (5) two separate defamation causes of action under New York law against Defendants McNamara and the County of Oneida, the first arising from an August 2015 article by the Utica Observer-Dispatch (the "Observer-Dispatch"), and the second arising from a May 2016 affidavit by Defendant McNamara; and (6) a defamation cause of action under New York law against Defendants Cerminaro and the City of Utica arising from Defendant Cerminaro's October 15, 2009 deposition supporting criminal charges against Plaintiff (the "Supporting Deposition"). (Dkt. No. 33, at ¶¶ 630-790).

Currently before the Court are three separate motions for summary judgment brought by the City Defendants, Defendant Dougherty, and the County Defendants, collectively seekingdismissal of all of Plaintiff's remaining claims. (Dkt. Nos. 300, 307, 308).¹ Plaintiff has responded to all three motions, (Dkt. Nos. 317, 319, 325), and all Defendants have submitted replies, (Dkt. Nos. 343, 344, 346). Also before the Court are the following additional motions: (1) a motion by the City Defendants for an adverse inference due to Plaintiff's alleged spoliation of evidence, (Dkt. No. 310); (2) a motion by Plaintiff to disqualify counsel for the City Defendants, (Dkt. No. 334); and (3) a request by Plaintiff, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d), to delay resolution of the summary judgment motions and allow him to take the depositions of several additional witnesses, (Dkt. Nos. 317-3, 319-3, 325-3). For the following reasons, the motions for summary judgment by Defendant Dougherty and the County Defendants are granted in their entirety; the City Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to all of Plaintiff's claims against them except for his fabrication of evidence claims against Defendant Cerminaro (first and second causes of action) and his defamation claim against Defendants Cerminaro and the City of Utica (eleventh cause of action); and the other pending motions are denied.

II. FACTS²

A. Plaintiff's Arrest

On October 15, 2009, Plaintiff was parked in a rental vehicle by himself on Elm Street in Utica, New York. (Dkt. No. 300-38, at ¶ 1; Dkt. No. 325-1, at ¶ 1). Defendant Cerminaro, a police officer of the Utica Police Department who was patrolling the area in his vehicle, slowlypassed Plaintiff's parked vehicle and made eye contact with Plaintiff, then turned left onto Hobart Street. (Dkt. No. 300-38, at ¶¶ 2-3; Dkt. No. 325-1, at ¶¶ 2-3; Dkt. No. 300-2, at 54). Plaintiff then approached the intersection of Hobart and Elm Street facing south and observed Defendant Cerminaro, who had made a U-turn or a 3-point turn and was now at the same intersection facing west. (Dkt. No. 300-38, at ¶ 4; Dkt. No. 325-1, at ¶ 4). Plaintiff made a right turn onto Hobart Street with Defendant Cerminaro following behind him. (Dkt. No. 300-38, at ¶ 6; Dkt. No. 325-1, at ¶ 6). Plaintiff proceeded through a green light at the next intersection, which was the intersection of Hobart and Kemble Street. (Dkt. No. 300-38, at ¶¶ 7-8; Dkt. No. 325-1, at ¶¶ 7-8). As Plaintiff approached the next intersection, Oneida Square, Defendant Cerminaro activated his overhead lights, and Plaintiff made a right turn onto Oneida Street and stopped at approximately 1321 Oneida Street. (Dkt. No. 300-38, at ¶¶ 8-10; Dkt. No. 325-1, at ¶¶ 8-10). Plaintiff maintains that, up until this point, he had not violated any traffic regulations, and believes that Defendant Cerminaro profiled him based on his race. (Dkt. No. 325-1, at ¶¶ 2, 4, 6, 7; Dkt. No. 300-2, at 53-58, 69).

Defendant Cerminaro parked his patrol car behind the vehicle Plaintiff was driving, exited his car and approached Plaintiff's vehicle. (Dkt. No. 300-38, at ¶¶ 11-12; Dkt. No. 325-1, at ¶¶ 11-12). Defendant Cerminaro asked Plaintiff for his license and registration, at which point Plaintiff told him that the car was a rental and provided his driver's license and rental agreement. (Dkt. No. 300-38, at ¶¶ 13-14; Dkt. No. 325-1, at ¶¶ 13-14). Defendant Cerminaro observed several cell phones in the vehicle Plaintiff was operating; Plaintiff acknowledges that there were five cell phones in his car at the time, but contends that only two were on the passenger seat and visible to Defendant Cerminaro. (Dkt. No. 300-38, at ¶ 15 & n.5; Dkt. No. 325-1, at ¶ 15; Dkt. No. 308-5, at ¶ 2; Dkt. No. 317-1, at ¶ 2). As Defendant Cerminaro continued to question Plaintiff, including about whether there were illegal drugs in the vehicle, Plaintiff left the traffic stop withoutDefendant Cerminaro's consent by putting his car in drive and driving away, leaving Defendant Cerminaro with Plaintiff's driver's license and rental agreement. (Dkt. No. 300-38, at ¶ 16; Dkt. No. 325-1, at ¶ 16; Dkt. No. 308-5, at ¶ 3; Dkt. No. 317-1, at ¶ 3). Plaintiff testified that he left the traffic stop because he believed that he had not violated any laws, that the traffic stop was illegal, and that Defendant Cerminaro was racially profiling him, all of which made him "very angry." (Dkt. No. 300-2, at 69; Dkt. No. 325-1, at ¶ 16).

Defendant Cerminaro radioed dispatch that Plaintiff had fled the stop, then returned to his patrol car and, with the lights activated on the patrol car, began to chase Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 300-38, at ¶¶ 17-18; Dkt. No. 325-1, at ¶¶ 17-18; Dkt. No. 308-5, at ¶ 4; Dkt. No. 317-1, at ¶ 4). Seeing Defendant Cerminaro chasing him, Plaintiff drove through Oneida Square, tumed right onto Park Avenue, and drove approximately 200 feet before putting the vehicle in park and exiting the vehicle near Joel's Spanish Food Restaurant. (Dkt. No. 300-38, at ¶¶ 18-20; Dkt. No. 325-1, at ¶¶ 18-20; Dkt. No. 308-5, at ¶ 4; Dkt. No. 317-1, at ¶ 4). Defendant Cerminaro exited his patrol car and followed Plaintiff on foot. (Dkt. No. 300-38, at ¶ 21; Dkt. No. 325-1, at ¶ 21; Dkt. No. 308-5, at ¶ 4; Dkt. No. 317-1, at ¶ 4). Plaintiff ran behind Joel's Spanish Food Restaurant and used a chain link fence gate to access the roof. (Dkt. No. 300-38, at ¶ 22; Dkt. No. 325-1, at ¶ 22). Defendant Cerminaro chased Plaintiff across several rooftops spanning a distance of approximately 250 feet. (Dkt. No. 300-38, at ¶¶ 23-25; Dkt. No. 325-1, at ¶¶ 23-25). Throughout the chase, Defendant Cerminaro was approximately 15 feet behind Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 308-5, at ¶ 4; Dkt. No. 317-1, at ¶ 4).

Defendant Cerminaro contends that, during the course of the foot chase, he saw Plaintiff pull a large plastic bag from his waist band, rip the bag open with his teeth, and begin to eat and shake out an off-white substance from the bag, before jumping to the ground and discarding the bag. (Dkt. No. 300-38, at ¶¶ 25, 32; Dkt. No. 307-15, at ¶ 15; Dkt. No. 308-5, at ¶ 5). Plaintiffmaintains that this never happened, and that he never had such a bag in his possession. (Dkt. No. 325-1, at ¶ 32; Dkt. No. 319-1, at ¶ 15; Dkt. No. 317-1, at ¶ 5). Contemporaneous police radio communications reflect that Defendant Cerminaro did not report Plaintiff pulling out, tearing open or discarding a bag while the chase was occurring, but that after the chase was over, Defendant Cerminaro requested a ladder because Plaintiff "threw several items on the roof." (Dkt. Nos. 319-8, 325-8).

After jumping to the ground and (according to Defendant Cerminaro) discarding the bag, Plaintiff ran down an approximately 200-foot driveway leading to Kemble Street, with Defendant Cerminaro still chasing him. (Dkt. No. 300-38, at ¶ 25; Dkt. No. 325-1, at ¶ 25). Seeing police officers coming up Kemble Street from Hobart Street and coming down Kemble Street from Eagle Street, Plaintiff ran behind the back of the home located at 1223 or 1224 Kemble Street, where he was apprehended...