Moritz v. Town of Warwick

LAURA MORITZ, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF WARWICK, TOWN OF GOSHEN, MATTHEW IMPERIO,individually and as an Employee of the Town of Goshen,BRETT M. LUKACH, individually and as an employee of the Town of Warwick,MICHELE LEA BIASO and JOY GORISH, Defendants.

No. 15-cv-5424 (NSR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

October 19, 2017

OPINION & ORDER

NELSON S. ROMÁN, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Laura Moritz ("Plaintiff" or "Moritz") brings this action against Defendants the Town of Goshen, Matthew Imperio ("Imperio"), individually and as an employee of the Town of Goshen, the Town of Warwick, Brett M. Lukach ("Lukach" or "Officer Lukach"), individually and as an employee of the Town of Warwick, Michele Lea Biaso ("Biaso"), and Joy Gorish ("Gorish"), (collectively, "Defendants"),¹ alleging claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for denial of civil rights and conspiracy to deny civil rights, as well as state law claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution, malicious abuse of power, and failure to supervise or train.² Before this Court are Gorish's and Biaso's motions for summary judgment, and Defendant/Counter-Claimant Imperio's motion to amend his counterclaims, and for summary judgment on those claims. Forthe following reasons, Defendants Gorish's and Imperio's motions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Defendant Biaso's motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are drawn from the parties' 56.1 submissions and the record, and are undisputed unless otherwise noted.

Imperio is a police officer for the Town of Goshen. (See Pl. 56.1 Reply Imperio Mot. Sum. Judgment, ¶ 1, ECF No. 182.) Plaintiff and Imperio were previously involved in a romantic relationship from September 2010 through January 16, 2014. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 3.)

Gorish meet Imperio in 1998 or 1999, they were friendly during subsequent years but soon "lost touch." (See Pl. 56.1 Reply Gorish Mot. Sum. Judgment, ¶ 4, ECF No. 192.) Gorish and Imperio never dated. (Id. ¶ 7.) Gorish contends that in December 2011, she and Imperio had a "chance encounter" during the time Imperio and Moritz were dating. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 10.) Gorish gave Imperio her phone number. (Id. ¶ 11.) Although Gorish and Imperio conversed in 2012, according to Imperio, the two had no conversations in either 2013 or 2014. (Id. ¶¶ 14, 15.)

In February 2012, Plaintiff began calling Gorish; Plaintiff's phone records reflect that she placed multiple calls to Gorish on both her cell and home phone on multiple occasions, at times blocking her number. (Id. ¶¶ 16, 26-29, 33.) Plaintiff contends she initially called Gorish's phone because she saw Imperio received a call to his cell phone during the night and called the number back to determine the identity of the caller. (Id. ¶ 16.)

Gorish received multiple calls on various occasions from Plaintiff's cell and home phone over the course of 2012 through at least mid-March 2014 (Id. ¶¶ 28, 29; Gorish 56.1 Supp., at 7; Haworth Decl. in Further Supp. Gorish Mot Dismiss, Ex. P, ECF No. 193). According to Officer Lukach and Imperio, in April 2012 Officer Lukach reached out to Imperio and asked (or left avoice mail requesting) that Imperio tell Plaintiff to stop calling Gorish. (Id. ¶ 36.) Later, in July 2012, Gorish reported two blocked calls to the Warwick Police Department which, according to phone records, originated from Moritz's phone. (Gorish Reply to Pl. 56.1 Statement and Supp. Facts ("Gorish 56.1 Supp."), ¶ 8, ECF No. 194.) In connection with an August 2012 criminal complaint, Officer Lukach informed Gorish that after she had made a complaint in April 2012, Officer Lukach reached out to Imperio, who was dating Moritz, to ask Plaintiff to stop calling Gorish. (Pl. 56.1 Reply to Gorish, ¶ 44.)

In December 2013, Gorish also received a call from Plaintiff's home phone number, though the parties dispute whether it was from Plaintiff or Imperio, who lived with Plaintiff and had access to her land lines at times. (Gorish 56.1 Supp. ¶¶ 12, 13.) Around this same time, Gorish reached out to Officer Lukach regarding the status of her complaint, to which Lukach responded that she could not bring a harassment charge on the basis Gorish had not reported a threat of harm. (Id. ¶¶ 17-19.) Officer Lukach told Gorish it might be possible to bring a charge of stalking in the fourth degree, but that Gorish would need to update her deposition to articulate the pattern of calls causing Gorish mental stress after the time Plaintiff had been asked to stop. (Id.) In January and February 2014, Gorish contacted the police to inquire as to the status of her complaints again, though it appears she had not received calls since December 2013. (Id. ¶¶ 26-30.) On March 4, 7 and 20, 2014, Plaintiff also called Gorish's cell phone. (Pl. 56.1 Reply to Gorish, ¶ 39.)

On June 5, 2014, Plaintiff was arrested on stalking charges based on Gorish's complaint, which were subsequently dropped by the district attorney's office. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 18, 24.) Plaintiff subsequently filed the instant action alleging, inter alia, Imperio and Gorish conspired to have her arrested, and that they provided and relied on false statements to bring about her arrest and prosecution "without probable cause." (Id. ¶¶ 19, 20.) Plaintiff's complaint also alleges thatImperio and Gorish filed false affidavits and provided several false statements to the police in connection with the stalking charge. (Id. ¶¶ 23, 24.)

Finally, as to Biaso, she and Imperio first met in October 2013, when she went to the Goshen Police Department to make a harassment complaint against her husband. (Pl. 56.1 Reply to Biaso Mot. for Sum. Judgment ("Pl. 56.1 Reply to Biaso"), ¶¶ 17-24, ECF No. 191.) A month later, Imperio and Biaso encountered one another at a bar, added each other on Facebook, and began speaking socially in November or December 2013. (Id. ¶¶ 28-34.) At some point thereafter, though the parties dispute the timeline, Imperio and Biaso began to date, and this relationship came to an end in the fall of 2014. (Id. ¶ 38.) On January 16, 2014, Plaintiff saw that Biaso had looked at her Linkedin page and confronted Imperio about Biaso. (Id. ¶¶ 40-43.) After this confrontation, Imperio reported to the Monroe Police that Plaintiff threw coffee on him and punched him in the back of the head. (Id. ¶ 47.) On January 20, 2014, he told the police he wanted to bring charges against Plaintiff. The following day, Plaintiff received a call informing her of the charges. (Id. ¶¶ 47-51.)

On January 16, 2014, the same day as the aforementioned confrontation between Plaintiff and Imperio, Plaintiff called Biaso at her place of employment. (Id. ¶ 57.) That afternoon, Plaintiff began to text Biaso on her cell phone, though the parties dispute whether this contact was welcomed. (Id. ¶¶ 63, 65.) Plaintiff texted Biaso lewd messages she contends she received from Imperio, and sent at Biaso's request. (Id. ¶¶ 66-69.) A review of the text messages also indicate that Biaso informed Plaintiff that she would bring charges against her if Plaintiff continued to contact her. (Id. ¶ 72.) On January 17, 2017, Biaso also told Plaintiff to stop contacting her. (Id. ¶ 80.) Despite this, Plaintiff contends that the parties continued to exchange text messages. (Id. ¶81.) On February 11, 2014, Plaintiff called Biaso's cell phone. (Id. ¶ 115.) The parties stopped communicating after this date. (Id. ¶ 132.)

At a later date in 2014, Plaintiff called Biaso, blocked her phone number and presumably hung up before Biaso answered. (Id. ¶ 133.) On April 15, 2014, Biaso went to the Town of Goshen Police Department to report receiving "hang up" calls. (Id. ¶ 143.) Imperio was the only officer in the station and took Biaso's report about the unknown calls; she did not make a written complaint at this time. (Id. ¶¶ 147, 151.) Imperio prepared a phone record request indicating Biaso thought the calls were coming from her ex-husband. (Id. ¶¶ 152-156.) When Imperio subsequently received and reviewed the records, he discovered the "hang-up" calls were from Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 163.) Thereafter, Biaso's complaint was handled by another officer. (Id. ¶ 166.) Biaso did not recall or know the name of the officer. (Id. ¶ 173.) The new officer prepared her supporting deposition, criminal complaint and other accompanying documents for the purpose of pursuing the criminal charge against Plaintiff. (Id. ¶¶ 180-182.) On April 25, 2014 an arrest warrant was issued for Plaintiff, who was arrested and "processed" on May 5, 2014 but did not spend time in jail. (Id. ¶¶ 202-207.) Imperio did not speak with anyone at the District Attorney's Office about Biaso's complaint. (Id. ¶ 209.)

STANDARD ON A SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Motions for summary judgment are governed by Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The rule states in pertinent part:

A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense—or the part of each claim or defense—on which summary judgment is sought. The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence ofany genuine dispute or issue of material fact by pointing to evidence in the record, "including depositions, documents . . . [and] affidavits or declarations," Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A), "which it believes demonstrate[s] the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the moving party has fulfilled its preliminary burden, the onus shifts to the nonmoving party to raise the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). Courts must "constru[e] the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw[] all reasonable inferences in its favor." Fincher v. Depository Trust...