a campaign of harassment at the end that involved the filing a false charges against him by his ex wife's police officer boyfriend we asked the court to review these allegations as a whole and to ask yourself what was really going on here in this case we think by accepting these allegations as true and by drawing reasonable inferences from them the picture as to what was really going on here  becomes clear glens falls policeman ryan ash had a personal vendetta against david landing and he enlisted his fellow officers and his former partner to a system with this vendetta in may two thousand and twelve officer ash brought jamie landing the plaintiff appellants ex wife to the warren county sheriff's office and had her speak to his former partner investigator nine jamie lanning allegedly claimed that david landing had telephoned her and threatened her the alleged call occurred at seven pm on that evening as jamie lanning complained about the call to investigator calling nine at midnight some five hours later at three am co nine went to david lending his residence banged on his door without a warrant rousted him out of bed swore at him so worried his mother who was an elderly woman sixty eight years old if all of those things are true why isn't it the case with respect to investigate a coup nine we've focused on now why is it the case that he is  f officer ash and presumably knowing the situation between before you can gets a qualifying uni why why isn't there a problem because defense here i think probable cause is probably the seminal issue here in the central issue and while you didn't argue qualified you know he's getting enough to argue on probable cause i understand that thank you  our position is that officer ash was engaged in this campaign of harassment that there was nothing true about what officer ashe was was asserting that he was doing this all as his i think what you have to do is look at the whole course of conduct here so your answer is that there's not a specific allegation about that well we allege that the that these claims were false but so so but there as you know case law new york case law that says that the mere fact that an allegation for example of domestic violence is false claim i mean you're claiming a class of one protection right yes have we not in our own case law required a very high degree of similarity it's our position that no no no my question is where do you allege that very simple question i don't know that there's a specific allegation that you are so so in connection with the class of one claim where we require the plaintiff in the context of a complaint to show an extremely high degree of similarity between themselves and the person at and this was just the first incident it's there was a second instance in september where based on almost nothing mr lanning was again arrested and charged with with violating an order protection for staring from his car he was given three traffic tickets several months later the same officer ashe once again arrest of mr lanning charged him with three different traffic violations none of these charges were ever sustained all of them were dismissed all of them were either initiated or commenced or completed by officer ash and i think if the court looks at the entire situation here it becomes clear that what was going on here was that the officer ash was making things up about mr lanning to try to punish men arresting him at every turn all of these charges were dismissed and if we look back at what happened with officer calling nine and each of these arrests in the total context of what happened to landing it becomes clear that they never had probable cause and that this case should be allowed to go you do make an allegation with one can draw from these facts the reasonable inference that officer cullen i knew what was going on here in the beginning when he arrested ass in the landing in the way that he arrested him in the manner in which he went at three o'clock in the morning without a warrant banged on the door pulled him out of bed never went back and investigated these matters never went back and and corrected these matters would you mind me with respect to the ash related arrests that's a temper yes or no was the only basis for the district courts dismissal of that part of the claim the fact that it was not favorable ash on this appeal the first cause of action as it pertains officer ash was dismissed because there was no personal involvement alleged in the arrest or the prosecution  did was drive her ms lanning to the to the police station to give a report right and so we can i don't believe there's any dispute in the pleading about that and we have course agree with the court's decision as it pertains to probable cause with respect to the second cause of action other arguments were indeed made in support of the motion to dismiss the judge went with the argument that this was not  judges written decision the transcript of the decision makes it clear that he was making no finding of guilt or innocence and wanted to make it specifically clear that he was not making such a finding leaving the question of and then you assume that it is a favorable terminations if the disposition is not clearly inconsistent with innocence is that the same lesson that you draw from this case as opposed to consistent with innocence well i believe if you look at the fact that it was there also was an indictment in this case no no no no we're talking about the disposition the disposition was how is that the words they in which she  appeals says that it's got to be inconsistent with innocence in order for to be deemed an unfavorable terminations i believe that if you look at the entirety of the judge's decision coupled with the fact that we do have an indictment osu pointed to the rest of the decision that would disabuse me of what i just said the whole thing with respect to the city court decision i don't believe i can point to anything in particular about that ruling but he he also but he didn't say that he felt it would be unfair to allow a conviction forget about unfairness forget about everything else new yo us to look at whether the disposition would be inconsistent with terminations and what you should said is that there is nothing about the trial court's trial judge's disposition that's inconsistent with innocence and my question to you is why isn't that the end of the story why should we vacate just on that basis well i believe there's more to the arguments that were made before the court below as well i understand the judge did not rule on those but i believe the arguments are that this matter was supported by probable cause there was an indictment  why how do we draw from all of those allegations that there was probable cause for m did not arrest the plaintiff in the second arrest correct what happened he was he was in plain clothes he was in his own personal vehicle was personally involved in the arrest he was not personally with the police that performed the arrest he was present outside that night and arrested morning me please the court greg johnson on behalf of warren county and deputy cohen i'd just like to remind the court obviously there are two sets of defendants here and even as we look at the pleadings in this case it's very clear that neither warren county the warren county sheriff's office or officer cohen had any involvement whatsoever in the subsequent the second arrest as has been referred to in september or the traffic tickets so with respect to my clients the focus of course is on the problem because analysis at the analysis in cases like this is an objective one and not a subjective one it seems to me that plaintiff fails the recognize that you can have a legitimate arrest and criminal activity and probable cause and and still have personal motives innocent people some people who are not perfectly innocent sometimes are victims of crimes and so likewise if you flip flop this and a particular officer who makes arrest engage in the most earnest and dispassionate analysis of probable cause but they were dead wrong and did so in violation of clearly established law that wouldn't of course be a defense so likewise all of these arguments that plaintiff has fashioned and power page thirteen fourteen and fifteen of his brief probable cause analysis was done in bad faith that he was motivated to pretend that probable cause existed that he was not dispassionate in effectuating the arrest all of those arguments disregard the well the well said settled precedent that this is an objective determination and we look at the objective facts even those facts contained in the four corners of his complaint it's it's clear that judge d'agostino below was correct that there existed probable cause and a reasonable officer and an officer cohen's position would have reasonably come to that conclusion and just to review very quickly it is affirmatively alleged that prior to the may twenty four arrest that there was a contentious relationship arrest at in the reply brief plaintiff suggest that this distinction between objective and subjective analysis is somehow relevant of course i was respectfully submit that that's just simply dead wrong that the arguable the problem cause analysis is a legal determination that turns on the facts contained in the complaint and not an inquiry of conan's bias or his personal agenda assuming argue end of it that he had won with respect to the equal protection claim i think it's one page of argument is offered without any authority i think plaintiff at this point is affectively acknowledge that he has failed to plead the requisite for an equal protection claim there's no comparative group identified there's no active selective treatment specifically alleged and there's no allegations that point to an impermissible permissible motive while judged agassi you know did not dispose of the equal protection claim on the basis of statue limitations i would like to point out that that of course would be barred by the statue of limitations when you look at the four corners of this complaint there is no allegations of any conduct by officer co nine or anyone at warren county that occurred within the statute of limitations period this was filed on february fourth two thousand and sixteen and there is nothing alleged that my clients did or failed to do after february fourth two thousand and thirteen so i see my time is up unless the court has questions for me and i thank you for your time allegation is that that mr landing this is on page eighteen of the appendix starting with paragraph sixty eight that mr when he went to pick up his daughter when he went back to drop off his daughter at the grandmother's house he noticed an unmarked police cruiser he also noticed that jamie and landing in ryan ash the officer were sitting in ashes vehicle across the street from the point of drop off and that ash was dressed in plain clothes  driver's seat that mr lanning parked his car and told his daughter that something bad was about to happen and then immediately thereafter five police officers converged upon mr landing and arrested him pushing him up against the vehicle placing him in double have cuffs screaming then screaming at him and manhandling him and that he was then placed under arrest for a violation of the order of protection that had previously been issued so it's clear that  yash was well involved with this incident he was present and it doesn't appear to be a coincidence that the glens falls his fellow police officers were also present at that time and it should be noted too that one of the arresting officers mentioned at the time of this arrest that  referencing letters that mr lanning at previously sent to the glens falls police complaining about the way he was being treated one of those officers at the time in the of the september asked turned to mr landing and said we're all aware of your letters to the chief maybe this will slow you down and so it's clear that that officer ash and the glens falls police department are working together  violating mr landing civil rights and as to that arrest that is where your your adversary says that the district court dismissed the claim only on grounds of failure to show a favorable terminations i apologized as i have to look at the decision