Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 8 Filed 08/07/13 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 83

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------)(

SPIRIDON ARGYROS, TIFFANY IVEY, JONATHAN PEIRCE individually and on behalf of a class and sub-class of all others similarly situated

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
13 Civ. No. 2946

Plaintiffs, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

-against-

ECFCASE

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, POLICE OFFICER DANIEL FODY, shield no. 08352, POLICE OFFICERS JOHN DOE and JANE ROE and other unidentified members of the New York City Police Department

Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------- )(

Plaintiffs Spiridon Argyros, Tiffany Ivey and Jonathan Peirce individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, by their attorneys Siegel Teitelbaum & Evans, LLP, Cutler & Parlatore, PLLC, and McLaughlin & Stern, LLP, as and for their Complaint allege as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is a civil rights class action that challenges the constitutionality of a widespread and ongoing New York City Police Department ("NYPD") operation known as "Operation Lucky Bag," which entraps its victims, presumes their guilt and results in their unlawful arrest and detention. Operation Lucky Bag is a policy and practice of the NYPD in which police officers intentionally place a bag that contains a valuable item such as a wallet or laptop computer in a public place, and lay in wait, often out of sight, until someone picks up the
1

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 8 Filed 08/07/13 Page 2 of 28 PageID #: 84
bag and/or removes or attempts to remove the valuable. The police then arrest the person, presuming s/he intends to retain the valuable that was allegedly lost or mislaid, rather than return the property to the rightful owner or turn it in to the proper authority. Though the policy and practice is purportedly intended to catch thieves and deter crime, it is overbroad and treats honest individuals acting as good Samaritans as criminals. The policy and practice also violates wellsettled state and city statutes, as set forth herein, which permit a person to retain lost or mislaid property for ten days prior to returning it to the rightful owner or the police.
2. On May 29, 2012 Plaintiff Spiridon Argyros noticed an unattended backpack on a sidewalk. He picked up the bag, saw a wallet sticking out of its pocket, and placed the wallet in a plastic bag-all with the intent of bringing the items back to his apartment and identifying their rightful owner. He was falsely arrested under Operation Lucky Bag, charged with petit larceny, and held in police custody for approximately four hours. Plaintiff Argyros brings this suit on his own behalf and on behalf of a class, as defined herein, of similarly situated individuals who have picked up a bag and/or removed or attempted to remove the valuable item inside the bag and then been falsely arrested and falsely imprisoned under the NYPD's Operation Lucky Bag.
3. On or about January 3,2012, Plaintiff Tiffany Ivey noticed an unattended Victoria Secrets bag on a counter at her local post office. After looking around for several minutes to see if anyone had left it there by mistake, Plaintiff Ivey picked up the bag, which had an Ipad sticking out of it. She looked for an employee to whom to hand the bag, but at the time all employees were busy. Due to the long customer line, she went outside with the bag to place more money in the meter where her automobile was parked, with the intention of returning with the bag and completing her business at the post office. However, while standing by her
2

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 8 Filed 08/07/13 Page 3 of 28 PageID #: 85
automobile holding the bag, she was arrested under Operation Lucky Bag, charged with petit larceny, and held in police custody for approximately twenty-four hours. Plaintiff Ivey brings this suit on her own behalf, on behalf of a class, as defined herein, of similarly situated individuals who have picked up a bag and/or removed or attempted to remove the valuable item inside the bag and then been falsely arrested and falsely imprisoned under the NYPD's Operation Lucky Bag, and also on behalf of a sub-class, as defined herein, of similarly situated individuals who have picked up a bag without removing or attempting to remove the valuable item inside the bag and then were falsely arrested and falsely imprisoned under the NYPD's Operation Lucky Bag.
4. On November 20,2010, Plaintiff Jonathan Peirce sat down on a Central Park bench while walking a dog and noticed an unattended handbag to the side of the bench. After waiting on the bench for approximately twenty minutes for the owner to return, he picked up the bag and began walking towards a nearby Visitor Center with the intent of returning the bag. He was handcuffed, falsely arrested under Operation Lucky Bag, held for approximately ten minutes, and then released by the commanding officer. Plaintiff Peirce brings this suit on his own behalf, on behalf of a class, as defined herein, of similarly situated individuals who have picked up a bag and/or removed or attempted to remove the valuable item inside the bag and then been falsely arrested and falsely imprisoned under the NYPD's Operation Lucky Bag, and also on behalf of a sub-class, as defined herein, of similarly situated individuals who have picked up a bag without removing or attempting to remove the valuable item inside the bag and then been falsely arrested and falsely imprisoned under the NYPD's Operation Lucky Bag.
S. Defendants' policy and practice violated Plaintiffs', class members' and sub-class members' rights as secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
3

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 8 Filed 08/07/13 Page 4 of 28 PageID #: 86
Constitution of the United States, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the New York State Constitution; it also violated Plaintiffs Argyros, Ivey and Peirce's rights as secured by laws of the State of New York. Plaintiffs seek class certification, monetary damages, a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C §§ 1983 and 1988, and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. This Court has jurisdiction of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3), and 1343(a)(4) as this is a civil action arising under the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the United States. This Court has jurisdiction to declare the rights of the parties and to grant all further relief deemed necessary and proper pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§ 2201 and 2202. This Court has jurisdiction over the supplemental claims arising under New York State law pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1367(a). 7. Venue is proper for the United Stated District Court for the Eastern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1391 (a), (b), and (c) because claims arose within this district.
PARTIES 8. Spiridon Argyros is a citizen of the United States and was at all relevant times a resident of the Queens County, State of New York. 9. Plaintiff Tiffany Ivey is a citizen of the United States and was at all relevant times a resident of the Queens County, State of New York. 10. Plaintiff Jonathan Peirce is a citizen of Canada and the United Kingdom working in New York under the H-1B visa program, and was at all relevant times a resident of
4

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 8 Filed 08/07/13 Page 5 of 28 PageID #: 87
the New York County, State of New York. 11. Defendant City of New York ("City") is a municipal entity created and
authorized under the laws of the State of New York. It is authorized by law to maintain a police department, which acts as its agent in the area of law enforcement and for which it is ultimately responsible. The City assumes the risks incidental to the maintenance of a police force and the employment of police officers.
12. Police Officer Daniel Fody, shield no. 08352, is and was at all relevant times an employee and agent of the NYPD. On the date Mr. Argyros was arrested Officer Fody was assigned to the 109th precinct. Officer Fody is being sued in his official and individual capacities.
13. The identities of the arresting officers of Ms. Ivey and Mr. Peirce are presently unknown.
14. Defendants John Doe and Jane Roe et at., whose identities and number are presently unknown to Plaintiffs, are and were at all relevant times officers, employees and/or agents of the NYPD. They are sued in their official and individual capacities.
15. At all relevant times, the individual defendants Officer Fody, and John Doe and Jane Roe et ai. acted under color of state law in the course and scope of their duties and functions as officers, employees, servants and/or agents of the NYPD, and otherwise performed and engaged in conduct incidental to the performance of their lawful functions in the course of their duties.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 16. Plaintiffs brings this class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of a class (the
5

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 8 Filed 08/07/13 Page 6 of 28 PageID #: 88
"Class") of all individuals who have picked up a bag and/or removed or attempted to remove the valuable item inside the bag and then been falsely arrested and falsely imprisoned under the NYPD's Operation Lucky Bag between May 16, 2010 and the date on which the City is enjoined from or otherwise ceases enforcing it's unconstitutional policy and practice. Plaintiffs also bring this class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of a sub-class (the "Sub-class") of all individuals who have picked up a bag without removing or attempting to remove the valuable item inside the bag and then been falsely arrested and falsely imprisoned under the NYPD's Operation Lucky Bag between May 16, 2010 and the date on which the City is enjoined from or otherwise ceases enforcing it's unconstitutional policy and practice. Plaintiffs also brings this class action on behalf of the Class and Sub-class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) or (c)(4) seeking monetary damages and other make-whole relief.
17. The members of the Class and Sub-class are so numerous as to render joinder impracticable. Upon information and belief, based on news articles, the challenged policy and practice resulted in at least 34 arrests within Central Park alone between March and June of 2011. There have also been arrests pursuant to the policy and practice in other locations in New York City, including streets in Manhattan and Queens. Upon information and belief, at least 220 arrests were made between February 2006 and November 2007 under a prior iteration of the policy and practice.
18. Upon information and belief, joinder is also impracticable because many potential Class and Sub-class members are not aware that the City'S policy and practice violates their constitutional rights. Further, putative Class and Sub-class members are unknown and, therefore, cannot practically be joined individually. There is no appropriate avenue for the
6

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 8 Filed 08/07/13 Page 7 of 28 PageID #: 89
protection of these potential Class and Sub-class members' constitutional rights other than a class action.
19. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class and Sub-class. They include (a) whether the NYPD has a policy and practice of leaving an unattended bag that contains valuables in a public place and then arresting the person that picks up the bag and/or removes or attempts to remove the valuable item in the bag, (b) whether this policy and practice violates Class and Sub-class members' rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Section 12 of the New York State Constitution, and (c) whether the City has failed to adequately train, supervise, and/or discipline NYPD officers in connection with Operation Lucky Bag.
20. The claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the Class and Sub-class they seek to represent, as they allege violations related to the existence and implementation of Operation Lucky Bag, the City's unlawful policy and practice.
21. The named plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Class and Subclass. The violations of law that the named plaintiffs allege stem from the same course of conduct by Defendants that violated and continues to violate the rights of the Class and Sub-class members; the legal theory under which the named plaintiffs seek relief is the same or similar to that on which the Class and Sub-class will rely. In addition, the harm suffered by the named plaintiffs is typical of the harm suffered by absent Class and Sub-class members.
22. The named plaintiffs have the requisite personal interest in the outcome of this action and will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class and Sub-class. Counsel for Plaintiffs knows of no conflicts among members of the Class or Sub-class.
23. Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
7

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 8 Filed 08/07/13 Page 8 of 28 PageID #: 90
Procedure 23(b)(2) because the City has acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class and Sub-class by, inter alia, falsely arresting and falsely imprisoning Class and Sub-class members pursuant to Operation Lucky Bag and by failing to adequately train, supervise, and/or discipline NYPD officers in connection with Operation Lucky Bag, thereby making appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the named plaintiffs and the Class as a whole. The Class and Sub-class members are entitled to injunctive relief to end the City's unconstitutional policy and practice.
24. Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) because common questions of fact and law predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class and Sub-class and because a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation.
25. The common questions of fact and law that predominate over any individual questions include those identified in paragraph 19 above.
26. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy because (a) the prosecution of hundreds of separate actions would be inefficient and a waste of legal and judicial resources; (b) the members of the Class and Sub-class may be scattered throughout New York City and are not likely to be able to vindicate their constitutional rights unless this action is maintained as a class; (c) the issues raised can be more fairly and efficiently resolved in the context of a single class action than piecemeal through many separate actions; (d) the resolution of litigation in a single forum will avoid the danger and resultant confusion of possible inconsistent determinations; (e) the prosecution of separate actions would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individuals pursuing claims against the defendants which would establish
8

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 8 Filed 08/07/13 Page 9 of 28 PageID #: 91
incompatible standards of conduct for defendants; (f) the City has acted and continues to act on grounds applicable to all Class and Sub-class members, making final declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of all members necessary and appropriate; and (g) questions of law and/or fact common to members of the Class and Sub-class, especially on issues of liability, predominate over any questions that affect individual members.
27. Alternatively, the named plaintiffs seek to maintain this action as a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4), seeking partial certification of the common questions of law and fact.
28. Counsel for Plaintiffs have been involved in numerous federal court cases brought pursuant to 42 U.S.c. 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and have experience with class actions.
STATEMENT OF FACTS Operation Lucky Bag
29. Operation Lucky Bag is a policy and practice of the NYPD of leaving an unattended bag that contains a valuable item-such as a wallet, cash, cell phone, or credit cardin a public place, and arresting persons who pick up the bag and/or remove or attempt to remove the valuable.
30. Operation Lucky Bag is overly broad and results in the arrest and detention of persons who intend to return the property to the rightful owner. In operation, the program presumes, without basis, that anyone who picks up the bag and/ or removes or attempts to remove its contents intends to steal the valuable item, rather than return it.
31. Upon information and belief, the public locations where the NYPD has left the bags with valuables pursuant to Operation Lucky Bag include subway platforms,
9

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 8 Filed 08/07/13 Page 10 of 28 PageID #: 92
department stores, sidewalks, and Central Park. 32. According to the New York Times, in 2007 an earlier version of the
program was "effectively shut down by prosecutors and judges" who were concerned that the program was ensnaring good Samaritans in addition to those who intended to commit a crime or misdemeanor .
33. Upon information and belief, the policy and practice resulted in 34 arrests within Central Park alone between March and June of 2011. Also, upon information and belief, under a prior iteration of the program, there were at least 220 arrests between February 2006 and November 2007.
34. Personal Property Law § 252 requires that any person who finds or comes into possession of lost property that has a value of $20 or more must either return the property to the owner, or report the finding and deposit the property with the proper authority within 10 days.
35. New York City Administrative Code § 1O-106(a) states that "Any person who finds any lost money or property of or exceeding the value of ten dollars shall report such finding to and deposit such money or property in a police station within ten days after the finding thereof."
36. Operation Lucky Bag conflicts with Personal Property Law § 252 and New York City Administrative Code § 1O-106(a), since the policy requires that police officers arrest and detain the person soon after slhe picks up the bag andl or removes or attempts to remove the valuable, rather than provide the person with the 10 day grace period that the law permits.
37. In the only two reported cases, courts dismissed the charges against those
10

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 8 Filed 08/07/13 Page 11 of 28 PageID #: 93
arrested pursuant to Operation Lucky Bag.
38. One of the courts stated that Operation Lucky Bag "may ... be in
conflict" with Personal Property Law § 252. The other stated that prosecuting a person pursuant
to this policy is "inconsistent" with Personal Property Law § 252 and New York City
Administrative Code § 1O-106(a).
39. Both courts also characterized the program as "an unfair enticement to
commit crime."
40. A memorandum from S. Andrew Schaffer, the NYPD's Deputy
Commissioner, Legal Matters to the Chief of Patrol (the "Deputy Commissioner's
Memorandum"), dated January 30, 2012-after the proposed class period has begun- stated
that the way the NYPD conducted Operation Lucky Bag was illegal. A true and correct copy of
the Deputy Commissioner's Memorandum is attached as Exhibit A. This memorandum stated:
In the past, Operation Lucky Bag has often been conducted in such a way that a wallet, or a bag with an expensive item, such as a laptop, was left in a public place. Officers in a marked police car or uniformed officers on foot were posted nearby. If an individual picked up the item and walked past the police without turning the item over to the officers, the individual would be arrested and charged with petit larceny under the theory that the individual committed larceny by acquiring lost property. A review of existing law shows that this method of conducing Lucky Bag operations is no t. suffi cie nt to establi. h lh alt.he perpet.rator actuall y had the intent to commit a larceny.
(emphasis added). The Deputy Commissioner's Memorandum later reiterated that:
Simply leaving property in a public place and arresting a person who picks it up if they do not immediately notify the police is in contravention of New York State law and does not establish that the person had the intent to commit a larceny. The Department should not conduct Lucky Bag operations of this nature.
41. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner's Memorandum proposed certain
11

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 8 Filed 08/07/13 Page 12 of 28 PageID #: 94
changes to the program. For example, the memorandum recommended that the NYPD members arrest people after they observe them "remove the valuable portion of the property, such as the cash or credit cards in a wallet, and discard the rest of it." It also recommended that the NYPD "have a person in civilian clothes approach the person who picks up the property and state that they lost the property. They would then ask the perpetrator if they have seen it." It recommends the NYPD can arrest the perpetrator if she or he denies having seen the property.
42. The City has failed to adequately train and supervise its officials, employees and agents, including Officer Fody, John Doe and Jane Roe et al., so as to prevent the false arrest and false imprisonment of the Class and Sub-class members, which has resulted in the violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Constitution and laws of New York State. Upon information and belief, during the proposed class period, NYPD members were conducting Operation Lucky Bag without any formal training in how to conduct the operation.
43. The City's failure to train and supervise amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom NYPD personnel came into contact, including the Plaintiffs and the Class and Sub-class members.
44. The deficiency in the training and supervision of Defendants Officer Fody, John Doe and Jane Roe et al. was an actual cause of the deprivation of the Plaintiffs and the Class and Sub-class members' rights and injuries. Plaintiff Spiridon Argyros
45. On or about May 29,2012, at approximately 5 pm, on the corner of Flushing and Main Streets in Queens, New York, Mr. Argyros saw a backpack left on the sidewalk, leaning against the wall of an AT&T Wireless store. After some time, he walked over,
12

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 8 Filed 08/07/13 Page 13 of 28 PageID #: 95
picked up the backpack, and saw a wallet sticking out from its side pocket. Without ever opening the backpack or the wallet, he placed the wallet into a plastic bag. He kept both the backpack and the plastic bag with the wallet. His intent was to bring the items to his house in the hope that he would identify the rightful owner and determine how to return the backpack and wallet to him or her.
46. Mr. Argyros was standing holding the backpack and the plastic bag that contained the wallet and took a step forward when 4 or 5 under-cover members of the NYPD rushed towards him and identified themselves with their badges.
47. In response to the NYPD members' inquiries, Mr. Argyros explained that he saw the bag leaning against the wall of the AT&T Wireless store and intended to bring the wallet and backpack back to his apartment in the hope of identifying their owner in order to return the property.
48. Nonetheless, Mr. Argyros was handcuffed and arrested without probable cause.
49. Police Officer Daniel Fody, shield no. 08352, was one of the NYPD members who observed Mr. Argyros remove the wallet from the backpack and arrested him.
50. The arrest of Mr. Argyros on May 29,2012 occurred after the Deputy Commissioner's Memorandum was issued on January 30,2012. The NYPD officers who arrested Mr. Argyros acted in a manner that the memo characterized as illegal. Moreover, the arrest was in contravention of the recommendations in that memorandum.
51. He was taken to the 109th Precinct and held in police custody, all of which lasted approximately four hours.
52. On August 9, 2012, the case against Mr. Argyros was favorably
13

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 8 Filed 08/07/13 Page 14 of 28 PageID #: 96
terminated to him when it was dismissed by a judge of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, at the recommendation of the Queens County District Attorney's office.
53. Defendants' conduct caused pain and suffering and psychological and emotional harm to Mr. Argyros. Their actions constituted outrageous and reckless conduct, and demonstrated a callous indifference to and willful disregard of Plaintiff Argyros' and other Class members' federal and state constitutional rights.
54. As long as Operation Lucky Bag remains in existence, there is a likelihood that Mr. Argyros will be harmed in the future by the policy and practice. As the manager at the Gemini Diner in Manhattan for almost 14 years he constantly finds items-such as watches, cell phones and wallets- that customers accidentally left behind. If it is possible to contact the person to let him or her know about the property, Mr. Argyros promptly does this each time; if it is not possible to contact the person, Mr. Argyros keeps the property safe for the person to reclaim it. If Mr. Argyros saw another bag on the street in the future, he would look to the contents to try to return it to its rightful owner, as would other good Samaritans.
55. On August 21,2012, a notice of claim was served on the Comptroller of the City of New York. At least 30 days have elapsed since service of such notice, and adjustment and/or payment has been neglected and/or refused.
56. A 50-h hearing was held on April 24, 2013. 57. In taking the actions described above, the Defendants were acting under color of state law as aforesaid. Plaintiff Tiffany Ivey 58. On or about January 3, 2012, at approximately 1pm, Ms. Ivey arrived at the Forest Hills Post Office on Queens Boulevard in Queens, New York. As Ms. Ivey used one
14

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 8 Filed 08/07/13 Page 15 of 28 PageID #: 97
of the side counters, she noticed an open Victoria's Secrets bag, with an iPad sticking out of it. After looking around for several minutes to see if anyone had left it there by mistake, Ms. Ivey picked up the bag and looked for an employee with whom to leave the bag.
59. The post office was very crowded that afternoon, and Ms. Ivey saw that all employees were occupied at that time. The crowd had also resulted in a long line to receive services, including the automatic teller line that Ms. Ivey intended to use. Because Ms. Ivey had put only a single quarter in the meter, not anticipating the long line, she needed to refill the meter in order to complete her business without the meter expiring.
60. Ms. Ivey walked out of the post office to refill the meter, still holding the bag. At no point did she remove the iPad from the bag. She was concerned that if she left it on the counter, someone might steal it.
61. As Ms. Ivey arrived at her car, parked across the street from the post office, two plain-clothed individuals, one female, one male, approached her. Upon information and belief, these were undercover police officers. The plain-clothed female asked Ms. Ivey, "Why would you take something that wasn't yours?" Ms. Ivey replied, "If it's yours you can have it" and "I'm going to return it."
62. After a short exchange between Ms. Ivey and the plain-clothed female, the plain-clothed female declared, "It's not mine; it belongs to the Police Department." At that point, Ms. Ivey was pushed up against her car by a second plain-clothed male, who repeated, "Don't resist, don't resist." To this point, including when Ms. Ivey was shoved against her car, no one had identified himself or herself as a police officer.
63. Ms. Ivey was handcuffed, falsely arrested and taken to her local police precinct, where she spent nine hours. She was able to make a single phone call, which she
15

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 8 Filed 08/07/13 Page 16 of 28 PageID #: 98
placed to her father to pick her son up from school. 64. Ms. Ivey was then taken to Queens Central Booking, where she spent the
next fifteen hours. During this time, she placed a phone call to her husband, who had no idea where she or their son were, which had caused him great stress. In total, Ms. Ivey spent approximately twenty-four hours in police custody.
65. After pleading "not guilty" at her arraignment, Ms. Ivey returned to court in April 2012, where she and the prosecution agreed to an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD) and community service.
66. Defendants' conduct caused pain and suffering and psychological and emotional harm to Ms. Ivey. Their actions constituted outrageous and reckless conduct, and demonstrated a callous indifference to and willful disregard of Plaintiff Ivey's and other Class and Sub-class members' federal and state constitutional rights.
67. As long as Operation Lucky Bag remains in existence, there is likelihood that Ms. Ivey will be harmed in the future by the policy and practice. While Ms. Ivey, a nursing school student, will be more hesitant to pick up items she finds in the street, she still intends to return property she finds left behind in establishments where she can hand the items to employees, such as in the post office.
68. In taking the actions described above, the Defendants were acting under color of state law as aforesaid. Plaintiff Jonathan Peirce
69. On or about November 20,2010, at approximately noon, Mr. Peirce was walking a dog in Central Park, in Manhattan, New York. Mr. Peirce stopped to sit on a bench in a tree-lined promenade known as the "Mall", and noticed an unattended black handbag to the
16

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 8 Filed 08/07/13 Page 17 of 28 PageID #: 99
side of the bench. Mr. Peirce waited on the bench for approximately twenty minutes, guarding the bag, and waiting for its owner to return, before picking up the bag. The bag contained a $10 bill, a hair brush, and a map of Central Park. Mr. Peirce resolved to return the bag to the Visitor Center located at Tavern on the Green, a short walk away.
70. Mr. Peirce walked alongside Sheep's Meadow towards the Visitor Center, aware that he was being followed by a suspicious-looking individual who had also been seated near him at the Mall. As it turned out, the individual was an undercover, plain-clothed police officer, dressed in a grey, oversized, hooded sweatshirt.
71. When Mr. Peirce was approximately 200 feet from the Visitor Center, a second plain-clothed police officer grabbed him and threw him against the Sheep's Meadow fence. Mr. Peirce was told to tie up the dog, and was then handcuffed and arrested.
72. As five or six police officers gathered around him, including the initial undercover officer, Mr. Peirce explained that he had picked up the bag with the intent of returning to the nearby Visitor Center, and that the undercover officer had observed how long he had remained waiting with the bag at the Mall.
73. During the period that Mr. Peirce was handcuffed, a significant crowd gathered around him. Mr. Peirce, who is an attorney at a distinguished and well known New York law firm, became extremely anxious that the arrest would cost him his job, and as a result, jeopardize his immigration status and ability to remain in New York. In addition, the formation of the crowd at the scene and the screams caused Mr. Peirce further stress and anxiety. Mr. Peirce was made particularly anxious because he feared that once arrested his dog would be taken away.
74. After a discussion amongst the officers, an officer, who upon information
17

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 8 Filed 08/07/13 Page 18 of 28 PageID #: 100
and belief was the commanding officer at the scene, released Mr. Peirce from custody. 75. Defendants' conduct caused pain and suffering and psychological and
emotional harm to Mr. Peirce. Their actions constituted outrageous and reckless conduct, and demonstrated a callous indifference to and willful disregard of Plaintiff Peirce's and other Class and Sub-class members' federal and state constitutional rights.
76. As long as Operation Lucky Bag remains in existence, there is likelihood that Mr. Peirce will be harmed in the future by the policy and practice. Mr. Peirce has on multiple occasions found and successfully returned lost items, similar to other good Samaritans, and he will likely do so again in the future.
77. Mr. Peirce continues to frequent Central Park, and on occasion when he passes through the Mall, he has observed the same handbag in the same location, awaiting its next Lucky Bag victim.
78. In taking the actions described above, the Defendants were acting under color of state law as aforesaid.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution)
(On Behalf of Plaintiffs Argyros, Ivey, Peirce, the Class and the Sub-class) 79. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above. 80. Defendants, who were acting in concert and within the scope of their
authority, arrested and caused Plaintiffs Argyros, Ivey, Peirce, the Class members and Sub-class members to be imprisoned without probable cause in violation of their right to be free of an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and to be free of deprivation of liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
18

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 8 Filed 08/07/13 Page 19 of 28 PageID #: 101
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of Article I, Section 12 of the New York State Constitution) (On Behalf of Plaintiff Argyros, Ivey, Peirce, the Class and the Sub-class)
81. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above. 82. The City'S policy and practice violates Plaintiffs Argyros, Ivey, Pierce, the Class members' and Sub-class members' rights under Article 1, Section 12 of the New York State Constitution.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Inadequate Supervision and Training) (On Behalf of Plaintiffs Argyros, Ivey, Peirce, the Class and the Sub-class) 83. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above. 84. The City failed to train and supervise its officials, employees and agents, including Officer Fody and John Doe and Jane Roe et ai., so as to prevent the false arrest and false imprisonment of Plaintiffs Argyros, Ivey, Peirce, Class members and Sub-class members, which resulted in the violation of their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 85. The City's failure to train and supervise amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom Defendants came into contact, including Plaintiffs Argyros, Ivey, Peirce, Class members and Sub-class members.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (False Arrest)
(On Behalf of Plaintiff Argyros and the Class) 86. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above. 87. The acts and conduct of Defendants constitute false arrest and false imprisonment under the laws of the State of New York. Defendants intended to confine Plaintiff
19

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 8 Filed 08/07/13 Page 20 of 28 PageID #: 102
Argyros and, in fact, confined him, and he was conscious of the confinement. In addition, Plaintiff Argyros did not consent to the confinement and the confinement was not otherwise privileged.
88. Upon information and belief, Defendants intended to confine and did confine members of the Class and members of the Class were conscious of the confinement. Upon information and belief, members of the Class did not consent to the confinement and the confinement was not otherwise privileged.
89. Defendants were at all relevant times officers, employees and/or agents acting within the scope of their employment by the City and NYPD, which are responsible for their conduct.
90. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367, this Court has pendant or supplemental jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate such claims.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Malicious Prosecution)
(On Behalf of Plaintiff Argyros Individually) 91. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth above. 92. The acts and conduct of Defendants constitute malicious prosecution under the laws of the State of New York and under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Defendants commenced and continued a criminal proceeding against Plaintiff Argyros. There was actual malice and an absence of probable cause for the proceeding. In addition the proceeding terminated favorably to Plaintiff Argyros. 93. Pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §1367, this Court has pendant or supplemental jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate such claims.
20

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 8 Filed 08/07/13 Page 21 of 28 PageID #: 103
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Assault)
(On Behalf of Plaintiff Argyros and the Class) 94. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above. 95. The Defendants, their officers, employees and/or agents, acting within the scope of their employment, intentionally, willfully and maliciously assaulted Plaintiff Argyros in that they had the real or apparent ability to cause imminent harmful and/or offensive bodily contact and intentionally did a violent and/or menacing act that threatened such contact to Plaintiff Argyros, and that such act(s) caused apprehension of such contact in Plaintiff Argyros. 96. Upon information and belief, the Defendants, their officers, employees and/or agents, acting within the scope of their employment, intentionally, willfully and maliciously assaulted members of the Class in that they had the real or apparent ability to cause imminent harmful and/or offensive bodily contact and intentionally did a violent and/or menacing act that threatened such contact to members of the Class, and that such act(s) caused apprehension of such contact in members of the Class. 97. Pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §1367, this Court has pendant or supplemental jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate such claims.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Battery)
(On Behalf of Plaintiff Argyros and the Class) 98. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above. 99. The Defendants, their officers, employees and/or agents, acting within the scope of their employment, intentionally, willfully and maliciously battered Plaintiff Argyros, when they, in a hostile and/or offensive manner grabbed and handcuffed Plaintiff Argyros
21

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 8 Filed 08/07/13 Page 22 of 28 PageID #: 104
without his consent and with the intention of causing harmful and/or offensive bodily contact to him.
100. Upon information and belief, the Defendants, their officers, employees and/or agents, acting within the scope of their employment, intentionally, willfully and maliciously battered members of the Class, when they, in a hostile and/or offensive manner grabbed and handcuffed members of the Class without their consent and with the intention of causing harmful and/or offensive bodily contact to them.
101. Pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §1367, this Court has pendant or supplemental jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate such claims.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Negligent Hiring, Retention, Training, and Supervision)
(On Behalf of Plaintiff Argyros and the Class) 102. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above. 103. The City and its officials, employees and/or agents acting within the scope of their employment did negligently hire, retain, train, and supervise the individual Defendants, who were unfit for the performance of their duties on May 29, 2012, at the aforementioned location as regards Plaintiff Argyos, and upon information and belief, as regards members of the Class, on dates to be determined through discovery. 104. Pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §1367, this Court has pendant or supplemental jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate such claims.
DEMAND FOR .JURY TRIAL 105. Plaintiffs demand trial by jury.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the named plaintiffs on behalf of themselves, the members of
22

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 8 Filed 08/07/13 Page 23 of 28 PageID #: 105
the Class and the members of the Sub-class request the following relief: A. Certification of this case as a class action maintainable under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) , or alternatively 23(a),(b) and (c)(4) on behalf of the proposed class, with the named plaintiffs as representative of the Class and Sub-class; and the designation of Plaintiffs' counsel of record as Class counsel and Sub-class counsel.
B. A declaratory judgment that Defendants violated the named plaintiffs' , Class members' and Sub-class members' rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Article I, Section 12 of the New York State Constitution, and violated the laws of the State of New York.
C. A permanent injunction preventing the City of New York and its employees from implementing Operation Lucky Bag or any similar operation.
D. Damages awarded to the named plaintiffs, Class members and Sub-class members in an amount to be determined at trial against the City and the individual Defendants, jointly and severally, together with interest and costs.
E. Punitive damages awarded to the named plaintiffs, Class members and Sub-class members in an amount to be determined at trial against the individual Defendants Officer Fody, John Doe and Jane Roe et aI., whose actions constituted outrageous conduct, were reckless, and showed a callous indifference to and willful disregard of Plaintiffs', Class members' and Sub-class members' rights as set forth above.
F. The cost of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.c. § 1988.
G. Any further and different relief that this Court deems appropriate.
23

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 8 Filed 08/07/13 Page 24 of 28 PageID #: 106 Dated: New York, New York August 7, 2013
MeL
/.J7 bY: --+-J.~<Il-'-.~,.L..M->--m-:-:----
Alan Sash (AS 8804) 260 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 (212) 448-1100 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
24

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 8 Filed 08/07/13 Page 25 of 28 PageID #: 107
EXHIBIT
A

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 8 Filed 08/07/13 Page 26 of 28 PageID #: 108

LB # 116/12 DCLM # 58/12

POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEW YORK

January 30, 2012

FROM:

Deputy Commisaioncr, Legal Mattm

TO:

Chief of Patrol

SUBJECTr REVIEW OF OPERATION LUCKY BAG

In light of recent court decisions that dismissed charges against defendants
ancstc:d as a rarult of Operation Lucky Bag, the LeaBl Bureau has been asked to review the conduct of these operations in order to ensure they are in CODIpliance with existing law and to recommend changes so that aaosts made pursuant to these operations can be
properly prolloouted.

Operation Lucky Bas is essentially a sting operation where an individual is presented with an opportunity to commit a larceny and upon committing this crime is arrested~ Safeguards mUlt be established to ensure that we can prove that is person who is arrested pursuant to this operation truly bas the intent to commit a larceny lUI opposed to being engaged in innocent behavior.

In tho past, Operation Lucky Bag has often been conducted in such a way that a
wallet, or 4 bag with an expcmsive item, such as a laptop, WIIB left in 11 public place. Officers in a marked police car or uniformed officm on foot were posted nearby. If an individual picked up the item and walked past the police without turning the item over to
the offh:ers, the individual would be arrested and charged with petit larcmlY lUldc:r the
theory that the individual COIDInitted larceny by acquiring lost property. A [Clview of existing law shows that this method of conducting Lucky Bag operations is not sufficient
to establish that the perpetrator actually had the intent to commit a larceny.

PurSuant to New York State Penal Law § 155.25. a person is guilty of petit
larceny ''when he steals property." New York State Penal Law establishes several
different theories by which someone can commit a larceny. The theory that Operation Lucky Bag has relied on thus far is that of larceny by acqujrinS lost property. Pursuant to
Penal Law f lSS.OS(2)(b). a person commits larceny by acquirina lost property when "he
exercisea cdntrol over propart)' of another which he knows to have been lost or mislaid, or to have been delivered under a mistake IS to the identity 0 f the reoipicmt or the nature or amount of the property, withoullaking reasonable mellSUNlS to return such property to the owner;" [Emphasis added].

D19

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 8 Filed 08/07/13 Page 27 of 28 PageID #: 109
There are two statutes that establish the "reasonable measures" that a person must take to return the property to the owner. The fint statuto is New York State Personal Property Law, Article 7B § 252(1), which states:
[A]nyperson who finds lost property ofthe value oftwenty dolJars or more or comes into possession of property of the value of twenty dollar8 or more with knowledge that it is lost property or found property shall within (0 ist'.r after the finding or acqui8ition OfpoSBession thereof, either return it to the owner or repOrt BUch finding or acquisition of possession and depo.it such property in a police station or police headquarters olthe city where the finding occurred...
The second statute is New York City Administrative Code § l(hl06(a), which states:
Any person who finds any lost money or property ofor exceeding the value of ten dollan shall report such finding to and deposit such money or property in a police station house within tf" tillY! after the finding thereof.
In light of these laws. a person picking up property that they find cannot be charged with larceny simply because they fail to return the property to a police officer who is located near the site at the time that the property was found. The penon finding the property has ten days to bring the property to the police. In order to conduct Lucky Bag operations that are consistent with existing law, we must ~tabli8h that the perRon taking the property has the actual intent to steal it at the time they are taking it, as opposed to taking it and later tuming it in. Therefore. some additionaJ element must be used to establish that the person has the immediate intent to steal the property.
One way that we can establish that the penon picking up the property hu the intent to steal it is if we obsctVc them remove the valuable portion of the property. such as the cash or credit cards in a wallet. and discard the rest of it. Another way we can establish that the penon picking up the property has tho intent to steal it is if we have a person in civilian olothes approach the person who picks up the property and state that they lost the property. They would then ask the papctrator if they han seen it. If the pcnpetrator denies seeing the lost property, this would establish the intent to steal it.
Another effective method to establish a true intent on the part of the perpetrator to steal property is to conduct an operation where the perpetrator engages in a larceny by trespassory taking, as opposed to the larceny by acquiring lost property that is the buis of current Lucky Bag operations. One example of larceny by trespassory taking is to leave a vehicle unlocked or with Ii window open with property dispJayed insido the vehicle. Any individual going into the vehicle to remove the property would clearly not be behaving innocently. Another example would be to leave It bicycle locked against a pole or bike rack with a bag attached to the bicycle. There IS no way that a reasonable person could conclude that someone taking property from the bicy"le would be acting innooendy.
Simply leaving property in a public place and arresting a penon who picks it up if they do not immediately notify the police is in contravention of New York State law and does not establish that the person had the intent to commit a luceny. The Department shouJd not conduct Lucky Bag operations of this nature.
020

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 8 Filed 08/07/13 Page 28 of 28 PageID #: 110

For yout information. SAS:KO

/;2~'J~'#;'I/'.J
A:~;ew Ds.eApuntyComSmchiasfsfieorncr
Legal Matters

021

 
 Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 36 Filed 09/16/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 298

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------J{

SPIRIDON ARGYROS, TIFFANY IVEY, JONATHAN PEIRCE, individually and on behalf of a class and subclass of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT
13CV2946 (SLT) (RML)

-against-

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, POLICE OFFICER DANIEL FODY, shield no. 08352, POLICE OFFICERS JOHN DOE and JANE ROE and other unidentified members of the New York City Police Department,

Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------J{

WHEREAS, plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a complaint on or about May 20, 2013, and an amended complaint on or about August 7, 2013 alleging that the defendants violated plaintiffs' federal civil and state constitutional and common law rights; and
WHEREAS, defendants City and Police Officer Daniel Fody have denied any and all liability arising out of plaintiffs' allegations; and
WHEREAS, the parties now desire to resolve the issues raised in this litigation, without further proceedings and without admitting any fault or liability; and
WHEREAS, plaintiffs have authorized their counsel to settle this matter on the terms set forth below.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned, as follows:
1. The above-referenced action is hereby dismissed against defendants, with prejudice, and without costs, eJ{penses, or attorneys' fees eJ{cept as specified below.

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 36 Filed 09/16/14 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 299

2.

For the purposes of this Stipulation of Settlement, "Operation Lucky Bag"

is defined as an operation conducted by the New York City Police Department ("NYPD") in

which NYPD members purposefully leave what appears to be an unattended bag that contains a

valuable item(s) or a valuable item(s) not contained in a bag, and arrest the persons who pick up

the bag and/or remove or attempt to remove the valuable, or pick up the valuable item(s) not

contained in a bag.

3. The NYPD will prepare an Operations Order providing that:

a. Arrests shall be made as part of a Operation Lucky Bag only when there is

probable cause to believe that:

i. There is a separation of any valuables from the rest of the property

where the remaining property is left behind or discarded and/or;

ii. A trespassory taking occurs, where a perpetrator removes property

from someone else's belongings, e.g., a purse hanging on a bike, a

bag in a stroller, or an object in an unlocked car and/or;

iii. If an individual who has taken property is approached by a police

officer, and the individual denies seeing or possessing the property

after the police officer has identified him or herself as such.

b. Before any operation is conducted pursuant to Operation Lucky Bag, the

commanding officer, executive officer, or special operations lieutenant of

the precinct will confer with the NYPD Legal Bureau regarding the

proposed Lucky Bag operation.

c. In each Lucky Bag Usual Occurrence Report the signatory must identify

whether the arrest was the result of:

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 36 Filed 09/16/14 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 300
i. A separation of any valuables from the rest of the property where the remaining property is left behind or discarded and/or; ii. A trespassory taking/or; iii. An individual has taken property and was approached by a police officer, and the individual denied seeing or possessing the property after the police officer has identified him or herself as such. 4. The NYPD Legal Bureau shall develop a training program offered to designated supervisors to ensure Lucky Bag operations are conducted in accordance with paragrilph 3. This training will occur at least every six months. Only supervisors who have been trained by the Operation Lucky Bag training program may lead Lucky Bag operations. Supervisors will not be required to attend the updated training more than once. 5. The NYPD shall develop a training component that will be included in the Police Academy training of newly appointed police officers by January 2015 that addresses Operation Lucky Bag as modified herein. 6. On December 31, 2014, March 31,2015, June 30, 2015 and September 30, 2015 and on December 31, 2015, March 31, 2016, June 30, 2016, and September 30, 2016 the NYPD Legal Bureau will provide a report, subject to the terms of the Confidentiality Stipulation filed on February 26, 2014 in connection with this action and ordered on March 1, 2014, to plaintiffs' counsel in this action that details: a. The number of Lucky Bag operations condu~ted; b. The precincts where Lucky Bag operations were conducted; c. The number of arrests from Lucky Bag operations, including;
-3 -

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 36 Filed 09/16/14 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 301
i. The number of Lucky Bag arrests from separation of valuables; ii. The number of Lucky Bag arrests from trespassory takings; iii. The number of Lucky Bag arrests from denial of possession of
found property to an identified police officer; d. The Usual Occurrence Report and Arrest Report for all persons arrested
pursuant to Operation Lucky bag, redacting the personal information of those arrested. 7. The Court shall maintain jurisdiction over the matter for one (1) year. 8. Defendant City of New York hereby agrees to pay plaintiff Spiridon Argyros the sum of Fifteen Thousand ($15,000.00) Dollars; plaintiff Tiffany Ivey the sum of Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000.00) Dollars and plaintiff Jonathan Peirce the sum of Ten Thousand ($10,000.00) Dollars in full satisfaction of all claims, except claims for costs, expenses and attorneys' fees. In consideration for the payment of these sums, plaintiffs agree to dismissal of all the claims against the defendants and to release the defendants and any present or former employees and agents of the City of New York or any entity represented by the Office of the Corporation Counsel, from any and all liability, claims, or rights of action related to allegations of a violation of plaintiffs' civil rights and any and all related state law claims, from the beginning of the world to the date of the Release, including claims for costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. 9. Plaintiffs hereby assign any and all claims for costs, expenses and attorneys' fees to their attorneys Siegel, Teitelbaum and Evans LLP, McLaughlin & Stem, LLP, and Cutler & Parlatore, PLLC.
-.4 -

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 36 Filed 09/16/14 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 302
10. Plaintiffs each shall execute and deliver to defendant City of New York's attorney all documents necessary to effect this settlement, including, without limitation, a Release based on the terms of paragraph 8 above and an Affidavit of Status of Liens. Prior to tendering the requisite documents to effect this settlement, Medicare-recipient plaintiffs must obtain and submit a final demand letter from Medicare for the reimbursement of any conditional payments made by Medicare for any injury or condition that is the subject of this lawsuit. A Medicare Set-Aside Trust may also be required if future anticipated medical costs are found to be nece~sary pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b) and 42 C.F.R. §§ 411.22 through 411.26.
II. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to be an admission by the defendants that they have in any manner or way violated plaintiffs' rights, or the rights of any other person or entity, as defined in the constitutions, statutes, ordinances, rules or regulations of the United States, the State of New York, or the City of New York or any other rules or regulations of any department or subdivision of the City of New York. This stipulation shall not be admissible in, nor is it related to, any other litigation or settlement negotiations, except to enforce the terms of this Stipulation of Settlement.
12. Nothing contained herein shall constitute a policy or practice of the City of New York our any agency thereof.
13. Plaintiffs agree to hold harmless defendants regarding any liens or past and/or future Medicare payments, presently known or unknown, in connection with this matter. If conditional and/or future anticipated Medicare payments have not been satisfied, defendants reserve the right to issue a multiparty settlement check naming Medicare as a payee or to issue a check to Medicare directly based upon Medicare's final demand letter.

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 36 Filed 09/16/14 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 303

14. The parties agree that plaintiffs ' counsel are entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, the amount of which shall be determined by this Court absent an agreement between the parties.
15. This Stipulation of Settlement is contingent upon the City waiving its right to impose or exercise any lien upon any plaintiff as set forth in paragraph 10 herein . In the event the City declines to provide the waiver, plaintiffs may notify the Court. In such event and at the option of the plaintiffs, this Stipulation of Settlement shall be deemed null and void and the litigation shall resume pursuant to a schedule to be determined by the Court.
16. The Stipulation of Settlement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties hereto, and no oral agreement entered into at any time nor any written agreement entered into prior to the execution of the Stipulation regarding the subject matter of the instant proceeding shall be deemed to exist, or to bind the parties hereto, or to vary the terms and conditions contained herein.
17. This Stipulation may be executed in counterparts.

Dated: New York, t w York
September ! 'l. 2014 •
By._~1 ~~~M:1mU1.~1J) Norman Siegel Herbert Teitelbaum Sharon Sprayregen 260 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, New York, 10016

ZACHARY W. .cARTER- ·-·

/ ./,.y--'"

)

gy:; "

/

Dara 1. Weiss, Senior Counsel

Corporation Counsel of the

City of New York

100 Church Street, Rm. 3-20 I

New Yark, New York 10007

Attorneysfor Defendants

· 6·

Case 1:13-cv-02946-SLT-RML Document 36 Filed 09/16/14 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 304

CV'/R & PARLAT?fE' PLLC

1MN:»~C-, By:
Timothy

C.

~tore

r~~k

260 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor

New York, New York 10016

212·679-6669

~r~ s;.~ MCLA~TERN'LLP

Sash

K

260 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 (212) 448-1100

Attorneys for Plaintijft

SO ORDERED:

.-7 -

 
 U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13−cv−02946−SLT−RML

CLOSED

Argyros v. The City of New York et al Assigned to: Judge Sandra L. Townes Referred to: Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff
Spirdon Argyros individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated

Date Filed: 05/20/2013 Date Terminated: 09/26/2014 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Alan Edward Sash McLaughlin & Stern 260 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 (212)448−6250 Fax: (212)448−0066 Email: asash@mclaughlinstern.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Norman Siegel Siegel Teitelbaum & Evans, LLP 260 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10016 212−455−0300 Fax: 212−455−0301 Email: nsiegel@stellp.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon Vicky Sprayregen Siegel Teitelbaum & Evans LLP 260 Madison Avenue 22nd Floor New York, NY 10016 212−455−0300 Fax: 212−448−0066 Email: ssprayregen@stellp.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy C Parlatore FisherBroyles LLP 445 Park Avenue, Ninth Floor New York, NY 10022 212−679−6312 Fax: 212−202−4787 Email: timothy.parlatore@fisherbroyles.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Herbert Teitelbaum Siegel Teitelbaum & Evans LLP 260 Madison Avenue 22nd Floor New York, NY 10016 212−455−0300 Fax: 212−455−0301 Email: hteitelbaum@stellp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Tiffany Ivey
Plaintiff Jonathan Peirce
V. Defendant The City of New York
Defendant Police Officer Daniel Fody shield no. 08352
Defendant Police Officers John Doe and Jane Roe (names and number of whom are unknown at present)and other unidentified members of the New York City Police Department Date Filed # Docket Text

represented by Herbert Teitelbaum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon Vicky Sprayregen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Herbert Teitelbaum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon Vicky Sprayregen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew J. Lucas City of New York Law Department 100 Church St New York, NY 10007 212−356−2373 Fax: 212−788−9776 Email: alucas@law.nyc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dara Lynn Weiss NYC Law Department 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 212−356−3517 Fax: 212−788−9776 Email: daweiss@law.nyc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew J. Lucas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dara Lynn Weiss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

05/20/2013 05/20/2013 05/20/2013 05/21/2013
05/24/2013
06/07/2013 06/10/2013 06/17/2013 06/17/2013 08/07/2013
08/29/2013 09/05/2013 09/25/2013 09/26/2013
09/26/2013

1 COMPLAINT against Daniel Fody, Police Officers John Doe and Jane Roe, The City of New York Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed −Yes,, filed by Spirdon Argyros. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Davis, Kimberly) (Entered: 05/21/2013)
2 Summons Issued as to Daniel Fody, The City of New York. (Davis, Kimberly) (Entered: 05/21/2013)
FILING FEE: $ 400, receipt number 4653059145 (Davis, Kimberly) (Entered: 05/21/2013)
3 In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link:http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (Davis, Kimberly) (Entered: 05/21/2013)
4 ORDER: An initial conference has been scheduled for September 30, 2013 at 3:30 p.m., before the Hon. Robert M. Levy, United States Magistrate Judge at 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York. Parties are directed to check−in with chambers, Room 1223−S, upon arrival. All counsel must be present. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to confirm with defendants' counsel that all necessary participants are aware of this conference. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy on 5/24/2013. (Marino, Janine) (Main Document 4 replaced on 5/24/2013) (Marino, Janine). (Entered: 05/24/2013)
5 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by The City of New York. (Lucas, Andrew) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
ORDER RE 5 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Application granted. The City of New York: answer due 8/8/2013. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy on 6/10/2013. (Marino, Janine) (Entered: 06/10/2013)
6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Spirdon Argyros. The City of New York served on 5/20/2013, answer due 8/8/2013. (Sprayregen, Sharon) (Entered: 06/17/2013)
7 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Spirdon Argyros. Daniel Fody served on 6/13/2013, answer due 7/4/2013. (Sprayregen, Sharon) (Entered: 06/17/2013)
8 AMENDED COMPLAINT Spiridon Argyros, Tiffany Ivey, Jonathan Peirce, individually and on behalf of a class and sub−class of all others similarly situated against Daniel Fody, Police Officers John Doe and Jane Roe, The City of New York, filed by Spirdon Argyros, Tiffany Ivey, Jonathan Peirce. (Sprayregen, Sharon) (Entered: 08/07/2013)
9 First MOTION for pre motion conference by Daniel Fody, The City of New York. (Lucas, Andrew) (Entered: 08/29/2013)
10 First MOTION for pre motion conference re 9 First MOTION for pre motion conference Response by Spirdon Argyros, Tiffany Ivey, Jonathan Peirce. (Sprayregen, Sharon) (Entered: 09/05/2013)
11 First MOTION to Adjourn Conference set for September 30, 2013, by Daniel Fody, The City of New York. (Lucas, Andrew) (Entered: 09/25/2013)
ORDER re: 9 , 10 Motion for Pre Motion Conference and Response. The Court grants Defendants leave to file their motion to dismiss. In light of the submissions, a pre−motion conference will not materially assist the Court. The parties are directed to agree upon and file a proposed briefing schedule by October 10, 2013. Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 9/26/2013. (Berman, Laura) (Entered: 09/26/2013)
12 RESPONSE to Motion re 11 First MOTION to Adjourn Conference set for September 30, 2013, filed by Spirdon Argyros, Tiffany Ivey, Jonathan Peirce. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Letter from Plaintiffs' counsel to Chambers) (Sprayregen, Sharon) (Entered:

09/27/2013
09/27/2013 09/30/2013
09/30/2013 10/07/2013 10/09/2013 10/18/2013 12/24/2013 12/24/2013 12/24/2013 12/24/2013 12/24/2013 01/02/2014 01/09/2014 01/14/2014 01/15/2014
01/21/2014

09/26/2013)
ORDER: The initial conference scheduled for September 30, 2013 at 3:30 will be held by telephone before the Hon. Robert M. Levy, USMJ at (718) 613−2340. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to initiate the conference call. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy on 9/27/2013. (Marino, Janine) (Entered: 09/27/2013)
13 Letter regarding September 30, 2013 Phone Conference by Daniel Fody, The City of New York (Lucas, Andrew) (Entered: 09/27/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy: Norman Siegel, Herb Teitelbaum, Sharon Sprayregen; Andre Lucas. For the reasons explained at the conference, limited discovery will proceed on the Monell claims pending briefing and decision of defendants' motion to dismiss. Counsel will submit a proposed scheduling order by 10/6/13.Initial Conference Hearing held on 9/30/2013 (Levy, Robert) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
ORDER terminating 11 Motion to Adjourn Conference. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy on 9/30/2013. (Levy, Robert) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
14 Proposed Scheduling Order Monell Claim by Spirdon Argyros, Tiffany Ivey, Jonathan Peirce (Sprayregen, Sharon) (Entered: 10/07/2013)
15 Proposed Scheduling Order for 12(b) motion, by Daniel Fody, The City of New York (Lucas, Andrew) (Entered: 10/09/2013)
ORDER re 14 The Proposed Scheduling Order is Approved. Next conference 4/17/14 at 4:00 (tel)(status). Ordered by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy on 10/18/2013. (Levy, Robert) (Entered: 10/18/2013)
16 First Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Daniel Fody, The City of New York. (Lucas, Andrew) (Entered: 12/24/2013)
17 AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION in Support re 16 First Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Daniel Fody, The City of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B1, # 3 Exhibit B2) (Lucas, Andrew) (Entered: 12/24/2013)
18 MEMORANDUM in Support re 16 First Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Daniel Fody, The City of New York. (Lucas, Andrew) (Entered: 12/24/2013)
19 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 16 First Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Spirdon Argyros, Tiffany Ivey, Jonathan Peirce. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Lucas, Andrew) (Entered: 12/24/2013)
20 REPLY in Support re 16 First Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Daniel Fody, The City of New York. (Lucas, Andrew) (Entered: 12/24/2013)
21 Letter requesting oral argument by Spirdon Argyros, Tiffany Ivey, Jonathan Peirce (Sprayregen, Sharon) (Entered: 01/02/2014)
22 Letter MOTION to Compel by Spirdon Argyros, Tiffany Ivey, Jonathan Peirce. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B) (Sprayregen, Sharon) (Entered: 01/09/2014)
23 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 22 Letter MOTION to Compel , First MOTION for Extension of Time to File cross motion by Daniel Fody, The City of New York. (Lucas, Andrew) (Entered: 01/14/2014)
ORDER granting 23 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response and MOTION for Extension of Time to File cross motion filed by defendant, The City of New York. (Lucas, Andrew). Ordered by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy on 1/15/2014. (Marino, Janine) (Entered: 01/15/2014)
24 Cross MOTION to Bifurcate and memorandum in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to compel by Daniel Fody, The City of New York. (Lucas, Andrew) (Entered: 01/21/2014)

01/22/2014 01/31/2014
02/04/2014 02/04/2014 02/26/2014 03/01/2014 04/17/2014
05/12/2014 05/14/2014 05/16/2014 05/19/2014 06/09/2014 06/09/2014 06/18/2014 06/19/2014

ORDER: A telephone conference has been scheduled for January 27, 2014 at 4:00 p.m, before the Hon. Robert M. Levy, USMJ at (718) 613−2340. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to initiate this conference call. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy on 1/22/2014. (Marino, Janine) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy: Herb Teitelbaum, Norman Siegel, Sharon Sprayregen; Andrew Lucas. (1) Although the motion to bifurcate Monel discovery is in effect a motion for reconsideration of the court's 9/30/13 ruling, and thus untimely, the court has nonetheless considered it on its merits. The motion to bifurcate Monel discovery is denied for the reasons explained at the 9/30/13 conference and at this conference. In making this ruling, the court has carefully reviewed defendants' motion to dismiss as well as the instant letter motion to bifurcate and finds no persuasive reason to alter its prior decision. (2) Within 30 days, defendants shall produce, subject to agreement by the parties, memoranda written by special operations lieutenants regarding Operation Lucky Bag arrests. (3) Within 30 days, defendants shall produce all requested documents that review, analyze and evaluate Operation Lucky Bag and that propose changes to NYPD policy concerning Operation Lucky Bag. Motion Hearing held on 1/27/2014 re 24 22 (Levy, Robert) (Entered: 01/31/2014)
ORDER terminating 22 Motion to Compel. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy on 2/4/2014. (Levy, Robert) (Entered: 02/04/2014)
ORDER denying 24 Motion to Bifurcate. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy on 1/31/2014. (Levy, Robert) (Entered: 02/04/2014)
25 Consent MOTION for Protective Order by Daniel Fody, The City of New York. (Lucas, Andrew) (Entered: 02/26/2014)
ORDER granting 25 Motion for Protective Order. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy on 3/1/2014. (Levy, Robert) (Entered: 03/01/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy: Sharon Sprayregen, Norman Siegel, Herb Teitelbaum; Andrew Lucas. (1) The parties have discovery issues which they will hold in abeyance while they attempt to settle this case. Plaintiffs will communicate a settlement proposal by the middle of next week. A settlement conference will be held on 5/15/14 at 10:45. (2) The deadline for the completion of fact discovery will be revisited after the settlement conference, in the event the case does not settle.Status Conference held on 4/17/2014 (Levy, Robert) (Entered: 04/17/2014)
26 First MOTION to Adjourn Conference presently set for May 15, 2014 at 10:45 a.m. by Daniel Fody, The City of New York. (Lucas, Andrew) (Entered: 05/12/2014)
ORDER granting 26 Motion to Adjourn Conference. The settlement conference is adjourned to May 19, 2014 at 2 p.m. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy on 5/14/2014. (Culley, Rachel) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
ORDER: The settlement conference scheduled for May 19, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. has been moved to 1:00 p.m. on the same date. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy on 5/16/2014. (Marino, Janine) (Entered: 05/16/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy: Norman Siegel, Herbert Teitelbaum, Sharon Sprayregen; Andrew Lucas with co−counsel. Settlement discussions held. Agreement in principle reached. Status report 6/9/14.Settlement Conference held on 5/19/2014 (Levy, Robert) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
27 STATUS REPORT re settlement by Spirdon Argyros, Tiffany Ivey, Jonathan Peirce (Sprayregen, Sharon) (Entered: 06/09/2014)
28 STATUS REPORT pursuant to May 19, 2014 Order, by Daniel Fody, The City of New York (Lucas, Andrew) (Entered: 06/09/2014)
29 STATUS REPORT by Daniel Fody, The City of New York (Lucas, Andrew) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
30 Letter in response to Defendants' status report by Spirdon Argyros, Tiffany Ivey, Jonathan Peirce (Sprayregen, Sharon) (Entered: 06/19/2014)

07/02/2014 07/03/2014
07/11/2014
07/14/2014 07/16/2014 07/16/2014 07/17/2014 07/21/2014
09/09/2014 09/16/2014 09/26/2014
12/08/2014 12/08/2014
01/07/2015 01/07/2015

31 Letter request for settlement conference by Spirdon Argyros, Tiffany Ivey, Jonathan Peirce (Sprayregen, Sharon) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
SCHEDULING ORDER: Settlement Conference set for 7/11/2014 at 10:15 AM in Courtroom 11B South before Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy. Persons with full settlement authority are directed to be present or reachable by telephone. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy on 7/3/2014. (Culley, Rachel) (Entered: 07/03/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy: Norman Siegel, Herbert Teitelbaum, Sharon Sprayregen; Andrew Lucas and NYPD representatives did not appear, but his supervisor Dara Weiss graciously responded to the court's inquiries and appeared. A settlement conference is scheduled for 7/21/14 at 8:45 a.m. Counsel will confirm on 7/18/14.Settlement Conference held on 7/11/2014 (Levy, Robert) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
32 NOTICE of Appearance by Dara Lynn Weiss on behalf of Daniel Fody, The City of New York (aty to be noticed) (Weiss, Dara) (Entered: 07/14/2014)
33 NOTICE of Appearance by Herbert Teitelbaum on behalf of All Plaintiffs (aty to be noticed) (Teitelbaum, Herbert) (Entered: 07/16/2014)
34 Letter by Spirdon Argyros, Tiffany Ivey, Jonathan Peirce (Sprayregen, Sharon) (Entered: 07/16/2014)
35 Letter by Daniel Fody, The City of New York (Weiss, Dara) (Entered: 07/17/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy: Norman Siegel, Herbert Teitelbaum, Sharon Sprayregen; Dara Weiss, Kerry Sweet, Katherine Byrns. Settlement discussions continued. Counsel to continue discussions. Next conference 9/9/14 at 5:00 (settlement).Settlement Conference held on 7/21/2014 (Levy, Robert) (Entered: 07/21/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy: Settlement discussions held. Next conference 9/16/14 at 5:00, if necessary.Settlement Conference held on 9/9/2014 (Levy, Robert) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
36 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT by Spirdon Argyros, Tiffany Ivey, Jonathan Peirce (Sprayregen, Sharon) (Entered: 09/16/2014)
37 Order of Settlement. The action is hereby dismissed against defts. with prejudice and without costs, expenses, or attorneys fees except as specified. ** See Order for Details **. Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 9/17/2014. (Greene, Donna) (Entered: 09/26/2014)
38 Letter by Spirdon Argyros, Tiffany Ivey, Jonathan Peirce (Sprayregen, Sharon) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
ORDER: A telephone conference has been scheduled for January 20, 2015 at 11:00 a.m., before the Hon. Robert M. Levy, USMJ at (718) 613−2340. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy on 12/8/2014. (Marino, Janine) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
39 Letter re January 20, 2015 telephone conference by Spirdon Argyros, Tiffany Ivey, Jonathan Peirce (Sprayregen, Sharon) Modified on 1/7/2015 (Levy, Robert). (Entered: 01/07/2015)
ORDER granting 39 Motion to Cancel Conference as the issue has been resolved. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy on 1/7/2015. (Levy, Robert) (Entered: 01/07/2015)