Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 1 of 34

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MAUROSOL FELIX; DANILO MELENDEZ;
. 3 ABRAHAM COLLINS; FRANCISCO ZAPATA; and
ANGEL SANCHEZ, Plaintiffs,

cv 2941
13 Civ. - - - -

-against-
CITY OF NEW YORK; RAYMOND W. KELLY, Commissioner ofthe New York City Police Department ("NYPD"); NYPD Deputy Inspector RUSSELL J. GREEN; NYPD Deputy Inspector JOHN HART; NYPD Captain MARC BUSELL; NYPD Officer CINTRON, Shield # 17999; NYPD Officer EDWIN JEREZ, Shield# 9352; NYPD Officer GUAGLIARDI; NYPD Officer MALVI MONCION, Shield# 12778; NYPD Sergeant DANIA CASTRO; NYPD Officer KEVIN M. MARTIN, Shield # 24921; NYPD Officer PRIMITIVO MONTANEZ, Tax# 939058; NYPD Officer ANDRY DUARTE, Shield# 7302; NYPD Officer BRIAN J. FLYNN, Shield# 2084; RICHARD ROES# 1-10; and JOHN/JANE DOES# 1-4,

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
ECFCASE

Defendants.

Plaintiffs Maurosol Felix, Danilo Melendez, Abraham Collins, Francisco Zapata and Angel Sanchez (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), by their attorneys Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP and The Bronx Defenders, for their Complaint allege as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is a civil rights action against the City ofNew York and New York City Police Department ("NYPD") officers for deliberately targeting Plaintiffs-five Black and Latino men-stopping and searching them without cause, lying about their conduct, and falsely charging them with a crime they did not commit, namely, possessing marijuana in a manner that

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 2 of 34
is "open to public view." As a result of Defendants' unlawful actions, Plaintiffs, and indeed thousands of individuals in New York City, and the Bronx in particular, have been unnecessarily forced to endure the humiliation, burden, damage and negative collateral consequences of being falsely charged with a misdemeanor crime, put through the criminal justice system, and compelled to return to court multiple times-all for a crime these men did not commit and which, shockingly, the charging police officers knew they did not commit. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages for Defendants' improper stops, illegal searches, false arrests, malicious prosecutions and abuses of process in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and state common law.
2. Plaintiffs are all residents of the Bronx, where they work in various fields such as human services, journalism and food services, and where they raise or live nearby their families. Plaintiffs were all arrested and charged with violating N.Y. Penal Law§ 221.10 (hereinafter,"§ 221.10"), a class B misdemeanor, which prohibits possessing a small quantity of marijuana (less than twenty-five grams) that is either "burning or open to public view." At the time they were arrested, none ofthe Plaintiffs possessed marijuana that was burning or open to public view. Instead, each Plaintiff, as a result of an unjustified stop and illegal search, was found to have a small quantity of marijuana concealed on his person. New York's Penal Law mandates that persons found in possession of a small quantity of concealed marijuana be charged under N.Y. Penal Law§ 221.05 (hereinafter,"§ 221.05"), a violation as opposed to a misdemeanor. In each Plaintiffs case, the charging police officer lied about the Plaintiffs conduct by asserting he had possessed marijuana in "public view," and charged the Plaintiff with a misdemeanor crime rather than a violation (hereinafter the "Manufactured Misdemeanor").
2

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 3 of 34
3. For each Plaintiff, the practical consequences of the Manufactured Misdemeanor are enormous-the misdemeanor charge is entered into the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services ("DCJS") database, which may follow a person for life; a person is deprived of his statutory entitlement to the issuance of a Desk Appearance Ticket ("DAT"), see N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law§ 150.75, unnecessarily subjecting him to full arrest process and hours-sometimes days---{)fpre-arraignment incarceration; and the speedy trial time allotted to the prosecution is extended, increasing the number of court dates and missed days of work a person must endure in order to exercise his right to challenge the evidence against him. Compare N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law§ 30.30(c) (sixty days where defendant is charged with a misdemeanor) with N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law§ 30.30(d) (thirty days where defendant is charged with a violation). And, unlike a violation, a person convicted of a class B misdemeanor may be sentenced to up to three months in jail.
4. Plaintiffs are not the only Black and Latino New Yorkers who have been subject to Manufactured Misdemeanors by the NYPD for possessing small quantities of marijuana concealed on their person. Studies consistently show that Black and Latino New York City residents, such as Plaintiffs, overwhelmingly and disproportionately bear the brunt of the NYPD' s marijuana arrest practices. From 2003 through 2011, 87.0% of people arrested and charged under§ 221.10 for possessing marijuana "burning or open to pubIic view" in New York City were either Black or Latino. Conversely, only I 0.2% were White. The disparity is even more acute in the Bronx, where the DCJS records show that 95.4% of all persons arrested and charged under § 221.10 were either Black or Latino. Meanwhile, studies show that between 2002 and 2009, among persons between the ages of 18 and 25, a greater percentage of Whites used marijuana than either Blacks or Latinos.
3

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 4 of 34
5. Defendants' misconduct is part of a pervasive and entrenched pattern of misconduct by the NYPD relating to the enforcement of marijuana laws. Indeed, the NYPD itselfhas all but acknowledged how systemic the practice of Manufacturing Misdemeanors is on the force. See NYPD Operation Order# 49, September 19, 2011. Nonetheless, the NYPD's policy and practice of targeting communities of color for heightened enforcement of the marijuana laws has resulted in officers Manufacturing Misdemeanors against Blacks and Latinos at a significantly higher rate than other New York City residents, subjecting them to the harsher consequences of a misdemeanor prosecution and sentence.
6. The NYPD's policy, practice and custom of Manufacturing Misdemeanors appears to be driven by the intense pressure places on officers to generate more arrests, more summonses, and more stops. Upon information and belief, officers who fail to achieve a specific amount of "activity" for each category of offense-felony, misdemeanor and violation-are penalized.
7. Plaintiffs, like countless other Blacks and Latinos throughout New York City, and particularly the Bronx, were falsely charged and prosecuted for a crime they did not commit and needlessly subjected to the harsh consequences of being charged with a misdemeanor crime based on the lies ofthe officers who charged them. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages for Defendants' unconstitutional actions.
PARTIES 8. Plaintiffs are all citizens of the United States. At all relevant times, they resided in Bronx, New York. 9. Defendant City ofNew York ("City") is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State ofNew York. At all times relevant hereto,
4

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 5 of 34

defendant City, acting through the NYPD, was responsible for the policy, practice, supervision,

implementation and conduct of all NYPD matters and was responsible for the appointment,

training, supervision-and conduct of all NYPD personnel, including the defendants referenced

herein. In addition, at all relevant times, defendant City was responsible for enforcing the rules

of the NYPD, and for ensuring that NYPD personnel obey the laws of the United States and the

State ofNew York.

10. At all relevant times, defendant Raymond W. Kelly was the Police

Commissioner ofthe City ofNew York and, as such, made and enforced the policy ofthe

NYPD, and acted in his capacity as agent, servant, and employee of defendant City, within the

scope of his employment as such, and under color of state law.

11. Defendant Russell J. Green is the Commanding Officer ofthe NYPD's

43rd Precinct and, upon information and belief, was the Commanding Officer of the NYPD's 43rd

Precinct at the time of the events alleged herein. In his role as Commanding Officer, defendant

Green made and enforced the policy of the 43rd Precinct, and acted in his capacity as agent,

servant, and employee of defendant City, within the scope of his employment as such, and under

the color of state law.

12.

Defendant

John

Hart

is

the

Commanding

Officer

of the

NYPD's

46

1
h

Precinct and, upon information and belief, was the Commanding Officer of the NYPD's 46th

Precinct at the time of the events alleged herein. In his role as Commanding Officer, defendant

Hart made and enforced the policy of the 46th Precinct, and acted in his capacity as agent,

servant, and employee of defendant City, within the scope of his employment as such, and under

the color of state law.

5

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 6 of 34
13. At all relevant times, defendant Marc Busell was the Commanding Officer of Police Service Area 7 and, as such, made and enforced the policy of Police Service Area 7, and acted in his capacity as agent, servant, and employee of defendant City, within the scope of his employment as such, and under color of state law.
14. At all times relevant hereto, Richard Roes # 1-10, acting in their capacity as agents, servants, and employees of defendant City, and within the scope of their employment as such, were training, supervisory and policy making personnel within the NYPD who implemented, enforced, perpetuated and/or allowed the policy of Manufacturing Misdemeanors. Plaintiffs are unable to determine the names of these supervisory defendants at this time and thus sue them under a fictitious designation.
15. All NYPD supervisory defendants, including defendant Kelly, are referred to collectively herein as the "Supervisory Defendants."
16. At all times relevant hereto, NYPD Officer Cintron, Shield # 17999 was a police officer in the NYPD, acting in the capacity of agent, servant and employee of defendant City, and within the scope of his employment as such.
17. At all times relevant hereto, NYPD Officer Edwin Jerez, Shield# 9352, was a police officer in the NYPD, acting in the capacity of agent, servant and employee of defendant City, and within the scope of his employment as such.
18. At all times relevant hereto, NYPD Officer Guagliardi, was a police officer in the NYPD, acting in the capacity of agent, servant and employee of defendant City, and within the scope ofhis employment as such.
6

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 7 of 34
19. At all times relevant hereto, NYPD Officer Mal vi Moncion, Shield # 12778, was a police officer in the NYPD, acting in the capacity of agent, servant and employee of defendant City, and within the scope of his employment as such.
20. At all times relevant hereto, NYPD Sergeant Dania Castro, was a sergeant in the NYPD, acting in the capacity of agent, servant and employee of defendant City, and within the scope of his employment as such.
21. At all times relevant hereto, NYPD Officer Kevin M. Martin, Shield # 24921, was a police officer in the NYPD, acting in the capacity of agent, servant and employee of defendant City, and within the scope of his employment as such.
22. At all times relevant hereto, NYPD Officer Primitivo Montanez, Tax# 939058, was a police officer in the NYPD, acting in the capacity of agent, servant and employee of defendant City, and within the scope of his employment as such.
23. At all times relevant hereto, NYPD Officer Andry Dua11e, Shield# 7302, was a police officer in the NYPD, acting in the capacity of agent, servant and employee of defendant City, and within the scope ofhis employment as such.
24. At all times relevant hereto, NYPD Officer Brian J. Flynn, Shield# 2084, was a police officer in the NYPD, acting in the capacity of agent, servant and employee of defendant City, and within the scope ofhis employment as such.
25. At all times relevant hereto, defendants John/Jane Does# 1-4, whose actual names Plaintiffs have been unable to ascertain notwithstanding reasonable efforts to do so, but who are sued herein by the fictitious designation "John Doe" and "Jane Doe," were police officers in the NYPD, acting in the capacity of agents, servants and employees of defendant City, and within the scope of their employment as such.
7

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 8 of 34
26. All NYPD officer defendants, excluding the Supervisory Defendants, are referred to collectively herein as the "Individual Defendants."
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 27. This action arises under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and state common law. 28. The jurisdiction of this Court is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3) and (4), 1367(a), and the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction. 29. The acts complained of occurred in the Southern District of New York and venue is lodged in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b).
JURY DEMAND 30. Plaintiffs demand trial by jury in this action.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND New York Law Regarding Marijuana Possession
31. In New York, a person who possesses less than twenty-five (25) grams of marijuana concealed on his person is guilty of violating§ 221.05, a non-criminal violation that does not allow for jail time for non-repeat offenders. The maximum allowable penalty for a first-time offender convicted ofviolating § 221.05 is a fine of up to $100. Where an arrestee is charged with violating§ 221.05, and no other offense is alleged, the arrestee must "promptly" be issued a OAT and released from custody. See N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law§ 150.75. A OAT requires a person to appear in court at some later specified date; a person who receives one need not go through the full arrest process.
32. Section 221.10 of the New York Penal Law, on the other hand, is a class B misdemeanor, which allows for sentences of up to three months in jail. See N.Y. Penal Law§
8

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 9 of 34
70.15. Unlike when an individual is only charged with a violation under§ 221.05, an individual charged with a misdemeanor under § 221.10 may be held in police custody for arraignment before a judge. See N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law§ 140.20(2).-Negative Consequences ofBeing Charged with a Misdemeanor Instead of Violation
33. The negative collateral consequences ofbeing charged with a misdemeanor are profound. An arrestee charged with a misdemeanor may be held in custody until he or she can be seen by a judge for arraignment. This period of detention regularly lasts at least twenty-four (24) hours, and frequently extends even longer. Plaintiffs Mr. Felix and Mr. Zapata, for example, were both detained for approximately forty (40) hours before arraignment.
34. Pre-arraignment conditions are typically deplorable and over-crowded. The arrestees are usually forced to share a single toilet and to sleep sitting up.
35. An arrestee charged with a misdemeanor is fingerprinted and photographed, and the arrestee's information is entered into the DCJS database. These entries remain in the database regardless of whether the person is convicted of a crime. Violation arrests, on the other hand, are not entered into the DCJS database.
36. Being listed in the DCJS database can have a damaging impact on a person's life. Public employers screen job applicants using the DCJS database when deciding whether to hire or retain an employee or grant an occupational license, and therefore a person who has been charged with a Manufactured Misdemeanor is subject to adverse employment and licensing decisions as a result of his unnecessary inclusion in the DCJS database. Moreover, upon information and belief, the Office of Court Administration sells its data to private background-check and credit-reporting agencies on which private employers rely when conducting background checks on job applicants. Indeed, Mr. Felix and Mr. Zapata were afraid
9

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 10 of 34
to look for work after their arrests because they feared their arrests would be revealed to potential employers.
37. A person who is charged with a-misdemeanor is also likely to have to appear in court more times than if he was charged with a violation. New York's Criminal Procedure Law provides that a person charged with a misdemeanor must be tried within sixty days of the commencement ofthe criminal action, while a person charged with a violation must be tried within thirty days of the commencement of the criminal action. N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law§ 30.30(c), (d). In practice, these statutory time limits are virtually never met. For example, when Francisco Zapata's case was ultimately dismissed on August 8, 2012, the case had been pending for 520 days, but only thirty days had been counted against the statutory speedy trial clock.
38. The additional thirty days of speedy trial time allocated to prosecutors when a misdemeanor, rather than a violation, is charged can alter the course of a case. Plaintiffs had to wait an average of 129 days from arraignment until their first trial date. During this period, no speedy trial time accrued. Once cases were in a trial-ready posture, prosecutors were responsible for more than 80% of postponements on trial dates. The average adjournment requested by prosecutors was six days; the average actual length of an adjournment, however, was fifty-six days. This pattern is replicated in virtually all marijuana possession cases in the Bronx. Thus, by artificially increasing the speedy trial time available to prosecutors by thirty days, the practice of Manufacturing Misdemeanors may extend the life of a case by five additional adjournments, or an average of280 days. Here, Abraham Collins' case was dismissed after 247 days; Danilo Melendez's case after 282 days; Maurosol Felix's after 295 days; Angel Sanchez's after 377 days; and Francisco Zapata's after an astonishing 520 days.
10

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 11 of 34
Marijuana Arrests in New York City 39. Arrests for possession of small amounts of marijuana have been one of the
primary forces driving the explosion of misdemeanor arrests in New York City over the past decade. Indeed, § 221.1 0 arrests accounted for 1 in 5 misdemeanor arrests and I in 7 of all arrests in New York City in 2011, and are reportedly the most common type of arrest made by the NYPD. In 2011 alone, DCJS calculated that the NYPD charged 50,688 people with § 221.10, bringing the total number of arrests under the statute for the five-year period from 2007 through 2011 to 227,118.
40. Black and Latino men in low-income neighborhoods have overwhelmingly borne the brunt of the NYPD's marijuana arrest practices. Citywide, Blacks and Latinos accounted for 84.1% of all § 221.10 arrests in 2011. The racial disparity in arrest rates is even more striking in the Bronx, where, in 2011, 94.6% ofthe 13,131 people arrested under § 221.10 were Black or Latino. These disparities persist despite the findings of multiple studies showing that Whites use marijuana at higher rates than either Blacks or Latinos.
41. The City and the NYPD are aware ofthe practice of Manufacturing Misdemeanors that pervades the NYPD. Indeed, on September 19, 2011, defendant Kelly issued a department-wide order-"Operations Order #49"- acknowledging the problem. The Operations Order, however, has failed to stop the practice. Plaintiff Maurosol Felix was charged with a Manufactured Misdemeanor just a couple of months after the Order was issued.
42. A series of investigative reports in 2011 by WNYC reporter Ailsa Chang identified numerous arrestees who, like Plaintiffs, had been charged with possessing marijuana in public view even though the marijuana had only come into public view as a result of a police request or an unlawful search.
11

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 12 of 34
NYPD Quotas: Encouraging Manufactured Misdemeanors 43. Through its quota system, the NYPD encourages and rewards officers for
making arrests, making stops and issuing summonses. Each officer's record is broken down into three categories-felony, misdemeanor, and violation. Upon information and belief, officers are required to make a certain number of arrests in each category every month.
44. The NYPD enforces its quota system by disciplining those officers who do not meet their quotas. These consequences incentivize NYPD officers to do everything in their power to make their quotas.
45. During recent hearings in Floyd, et al. v. City ofNew York, eta!., No. 08 Civ. 1034 (SAS)(HBP) (S.D.N.Y.), multiple NYPD officers testified that because of mandated quotas for arrests, summonses and stop-and-frisks, officers were compelled to make unnecessary stops and arrests. 1
46. As a result of this quota system, and the perverse incentives it imposes, some NYPD officers have developed a policy, practice and custom of lying on criminal complaints-including Plaintiffs'-so as to "justify" charging a misdemeanor rather than a violation.
47. The NYPD, through the Supervisory Defendants, enforces its quota system and encourages officers to Manufacture Misdemeanors.
INDIVIDUAL l'LAINTIFFS' FACTUAL ALLEGATION Mauroso/ Felix
48. Mr. Felix is a 42 year old Latino man who lives in the Bronx. 49. Mr. Felix is a disabled man who suffers from a host of illnesses.
1 See Marina Carver, NYPD Officers Say They Had Stop-and-Frisk Quotas, CNN, March 22, 2013, available at http://www.cnn .com/20 13/03/22/justice/new-york-stop-and-frisk-trial.
12

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 13 of 34
SO. In the past, Mr. Felix has used marijuana for medicinal purposes to treat his illnesses because it helps with his pain management and appetite.
51. On March 16,2012 at approximately 6:10p.m., Mr. Felix exited the Tremont Ave. train station via the 179th Street exit with the intention of heading home.
52. Upon exiting the train station, Mr. Felix walked into a convenience store directly in fi·ont ofthe train station exit.
53. Mr. Felix purchased some food at the store and left to walk home. 54. As Mr. Felix was walking down 179th Street from Grand Concourse and nearing the entrance to his building, a marked NYPD vehicle turned the corner from Creston Avenue onto 179th Street and approached him. 55. Defendant Cintron, who was sitting in the driver's seat, motioned Mr. Felix over to the NYPD vehicle. 56. Mr. Felix complied and approached the vehicle. 57. Defendant Cintron asked Mr. Felix what was in his hand. 58. Mr. Felix responded that he was holding food that he had just purchased at the store. 59. Defendant Jerez then exited the NYPD vehicle from the passenger's side, came around the car, and approached Mr. Felix from behind. 60. Mr. Felix asked, "What is this about?" Both defendants Cintron and Jerez ignored Mr. Felix's question. 61. Defendant Cintron then asked Mr. Felix where he lived. Mr. Felix replied that he lived on the block and pointed to his building.
13

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 14 of 34

62. Without provocation or justification, defendant Jerez used his body to

forcefully and painfully pin Mr. Felix down on the NYPD vehicle. 63. Defendant Cintron e-xited the vehicle and, without a warrant, without

justification and without Mr. Felix's consent, began to search Mr. Felix's person.

64. The violent manner in which Mr. Felix was pinned down caused him

severe pain in his leg. 65. Mr. Felix cried out that his leg was in pain, but his cries were ignored.

66. During this warrantless, illegal, and unjustified search, defendant Cintron

reached into the inside pocket of Mr. Felix's coat and recovered a small amount of marijuana.

67. The marijuana recovered by defendant Cintron was inside Mr. Felix's

pocket from the time he exited the subway until the time it was recovered by defendant Cintron.

It was never in public view.

68. During this illegal and unjustified search, defendants Cintron and Jerez

confiscated Mr. Felix's keys, cell phone and Blackberry.

69. Shortly thereafter, defendants Concepcion and Guagliardi arrived on the

scene in a NYPD van.

70. Mr. Felix was placed in the police van with defendants Concepcion and

Guagliardi. 71.

Mr. Felix remained in the police van for an extended period of time as

defendants Concepcion and Guagliardi went to arrest another individual. 72. While Mr. Felix was in the police van, defendant Guagliardi turned to him

and said, in sum and substance, "Don't take this personally. I have a quota to make."

14

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 15 of 34
73. Mr. Felix was eventually taken to the 46111 precinct where he was held overnight. He was then taken to Bronx Central Booking where he was again held overnight.
74. While he was in custody, Mr. Felix was fingerprinted. 75. Mr. Felix was wrongfully imprisoned by defendants for approximately two days. 76. Mr. Felix was released on March 18,2012. 77. During his unlawful incarceration, Mr. Felix was not adequately fed and was not permitted to take his medication. 78. After his release, Mr. Felix's confiscated property was never returned to him . 79. Mr. Felix was charged with Criminal Possession ofMarijuana, a misdemeanor, pursuant to N.Y. Penal Law§ 221.10. 80. This charge was knowingly and intentionally false and malicious. 81. Defendant Jerez swore to a false and fabricated account ofthe events surrounding plaintiffs arrest. In his deposition in support of the complaint against Mr. Felix, defendant Jerez falsely stated, under penalty of perjury, that Mr. Felix "was observed in possession of a large ziplock bag of marijuana in his right hand in plain view." 82. At no time during the events described above did the defendants have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop Mr. Felix or to search Mr. Felix. At no time did Mr. Felix possess a large ziplock bag of marijuana in his right hand in plain view. 83. Mr. Felix had to appear in court six times to defend the criminal charges against him.
15

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 16 of 34
84. The criminal charges against Mr. Felix were dismissed in his favor on January 7, 2013.
85. As a result of defendants' conduct described above, including restraining, falsely arresting, falsely imprisoning, illegally searching, and maliciously prosecuting Mr. Felix, Mr. Felix suffered serious emotional injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment.
86. The arrest, detention and prosecution ofMr. Felix lacked probable cause, and were done maliciously, falsely, and in bad faith. Defendants Cintron, Jerez, Concepcion and Guagliardi acted in wanton and reckless disregard for the rights of Mr. Felix.
87. Mr. Felix has suffered substantial emotional harm as a result of his arrest. He was terrorized by the assault; he is fearful when he walks in the street; and he is still afraid of police officers. He is even afraid to be on the street after dark for fear that he will be accosted again by the NYPD.
88. Mr. Felix was out of work at the time he was arrested. He had been looking for a job prior to his arrest. After his arrest, he was forced to abandon his search, afraid that any job interview would end in disaster once a potential employer saw the arrest and pending criminal charge.
89. Within ninety days after the criminal charges against him were dismissed in his favor, a written notice of claim, sworn by Mr. Felix, was served upon defendants at the Comptroller's Office at 1 Centre Street, New York, New York.
90. At least thirty days have elapsed since the service of the notice of claim, and adjustment or payment of the claim has been neglected or refused.
16

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 17 of 34
91. This action has been commenced within one year and ninety days after the criminal charges against Mr. Felix were dismissed in his favor. Dani/o Melendez -
92 . Mr. Melendez works as a stocker at a Western Beef grocery store in the Bronx. Though he has since been transferred to a new store, on July 14, 2011, Mr. Melendez worked at the Western Beeflocated at 301 Morris Avenue.
93. Mr. Melendez was at work on July 14, 2011. 94. During one ofhis regularly scheduled thirty-minute work breaks, Mr. Melendez went to a nearby deli to purchase a soda. 95. As he was nearing the deli, a blue and white NYPD van pulled up in front ofMr. Melendez. Defendants Moncion, Castro and Doe# 1 exited the vehicle. 96. Defendants Moncion, Castro and Doe # 1, without a warrant and without cause, stopped Mr. Melendez as he was about to enter the deli. 97. Defendant Moncion asked Mr. Melendez to produce identification. Mr. Melendez complied. 98. Defendant Moncion stated to Mr. Melendez, "Yo, you got anything on you?" 99. Without waiting for a response, and without cause to do so, defendant Moncion began searching Mr. Melendez. 100. During the course of this warrantless, unreasonable and unjustified search, defendant Moncion ordered Mr. Melendez to empty his pockets. 101 . Mr. Melendez complied with the request to empty his pockets, pulling out, among other things, a cigarette packet.
17

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 18 of 34
102. Defendant Moncion opened the cigarette packet and recovered a small, half-smoked marijuana cigarette.
103. Defendant Moncion roughly placed Mr. Melendez in handcuffs and shoved him into the blue and white NYPD van.
104. Mr. Melendez was taken to Police Service Area 7, where he was detained for more than five hours, causing him to miss half a day at work.
105. While he was in custody, Mr. Melendez was fingerprinted. 106. When Mr. Melendez was brought inside the precinct, NYPD officers began cheering for defendant Moncion and congratulating him. 107. In a deposition in support of the complaint against Mr. Melendez, defendant Moncion falsely stated, under penalty of perjury, that Mr. Melendez was observed "in possession of 1 marijuana cigarette in his left hand." 108. Based on the supporting deposition of defendant Moncion, Mr. Melendez was arraigned on October 4, 2011 and charged with Unlawful Possession of Marijuana, a violation, pursuant to N.Y. Penal Law§ 221.05. 109. On November 1, 2011, a superseding criminal complaint was filed against Mr. Melendez, which added a charge of Criminal Possession ofMarijuana, a misdemeanor, pursuant to N.Y. Penal Law§ 221.10. 110. In support of this superseding complaint, defendant Moncion falsely stated, under penalty of perjury, that he observed Mr. Melendez "to have on his person, in his left hand, in public view, one (1) cigarette containing a dried-green leafy substance with a distinctive odor alleged to be marijuana." 111. These charges were knowingly and intentionally false and malicious.
18

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 19 of 34
112. Mr. Melendez appeared at court eight times in order to defend himself against these unjustified and unlawful charges.
113. The criminal charges against Mr. Melendez were dismissed in his favor on July 12, 2012.
114. As a result of defendants' conduct described above, including restraining, falsely arresting, falsely imprisoning, illegally searching, and maliciously prosecuting Mr. Melendez, Mr. Melendez suffered serious emotional injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment.
115. The arrest, detention and prosecution ofMr. Melendez lacked probable cause, and were done maliciously, falsely, and in bad faith. Defendants Moncion, Castro and Doe #1 acted in wanton and reckless disregard for the rights of Mr. Melendez.
116. Since his arrest, Mr. Melendez continues to suffer extreme emotional distress. Seeing police officers on the street makes him nervous, and he attempts to avoid making eye contact with officers whenever possible for fear that he will be subjected to another illegal stop or unlawful arrest.
117. Mr. Melendez also suffered anxiety about retaining his job after being arrested for a misdemeanor offense and being forced to miss work on a number of occasions.
118. Within ninety days after the criminal charges against him were dismissed in his favor, a written notice of claim, sworn by Mr. Melendez, was served upon defendants at the Comptroller's Office at 1 Centre Street, New York, New York.
119. At least thirty days have elapsed since the service of the notice of claim, and adjustment or payment of the claim has been neglected or refused.
19

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 20 of 34
120. This action has been commenced within one year and ninety days after the criminal charges against Mr. Melendez were dismissed in his favor. Francisco Zapata
121. Mr. Zapata is a journalist and television reporter. He has also been a lifeguard in New York City for approximately twenty years.
122. On the night ofMarch 5, 2011, Mr. Zapata was walking down Ford Street in the Bronx listening to his headphones.
123. All of a sudden, without any warning or provocation, defendant Martin, a uniformed NYPD officer, ran up behind Mr. Zapata, violently grabbed Mr. Zapata and forcefully pushed him against a wall.
124. Upon information and belief, there have been a substantial number of complaints filed with the NYPD's Civilian Complaint Review Board against defendant Martin. Defendant Martin has also been named as a defendant in at least three civil rights lawsuits, at least one of which alleged that he filed false charges relating to marijuana possession. See Nunez v. City ofNew York, et al., No. 12 Civ. 8066 (TPG) (S.D.N.Y.).
125. Without seeking or receiving Mr. Zapata's consent, defendant Martin placed his hands on Mr. Zapata in a threatening manner, and asked Mr. Zapata, "Are you trying to tell people we are here?"
126. Not knowing what defendant Mm1in was talking about or why he was being accosted, Mr. Zapata attempted to show his press identification card to defendant Martin.
127. Defendant Martin, however, refused to look at Mr. Zapata's identification. 128. Mr. Zapata was fearful for his safety and looked down to see defendant Martin's badge.
20

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 21 of 34
129. Defendant Martin told Mr. Zapata not to look down, and brutally and unjustifiably struck Mr. Zapata's head three times with his elbow.
130. Without seeking or receiving Mr. Zapata's consent, and without cause, defendant Martin aggressively pushed Mr. Zapata against the wall and began searching him.
131. As he was searching Mr. Zapata, defendant Martin repeatedly threatened Mr. Zapata, stating, "If you keep moving, I'm going to smash your face into the wall."
132. While defendant Martin was searching Mr. Zapata, he placed his hands down Mr. Zapata's pants and inside Mr. Zapata's underwear and touched Mr. Zapata's testicles.
133. During this unwarranted and unjustified search to which Mr. Zapata did not consent, defendant Martin opened Mr. Zapata's jacket, and located a small amount of marijuana inside Mr. Zapata's shirt pocket.
134. The marijuana defendant Martin recovered from Mr. Zapata's shirt pocket was not in public view.
135. Defendant Martin forcefully placed Mr. Zapata in handcuffs and led him over to other NYPD officers.
136. Defendant Martin stated to the other NYPD officers: "We got our first idiot of the night."
137. Mr. Zapata was placed in the back of a NYPD vehicle, where he sat for an extended period oftime.
138. Mr. Zapata was eventually taken to the 461h precinct where he was held overnight.
139. The next day, March 6, 2011, Mr. Zapata was transported to Bronx Central Booking.
21

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 22 of 34
140. While he was in custody, Mr. Zapata was fingerprinted. I 41. After approximately two days in custody, Mr. Zapata was released from ·custody on March 7, 2011. 142. Defendant Montanez entered Mr. Zapata's arrest into the NYPD's database, charging Mr. Zapata with Criminal Possession of Marijuana, a misdemeanor, pursuant to N.Y. Penal Law§ 221.10. 143. In his deposition in support ofthe charges against Mr. Zapata, defendant Martin falsely stated, under penalty of perjury, that Mr. Zapata was holding marijuana in his right hand and in plain view at the time of his arrest. 144. These charges were knowingly and intentionally malicious and false. 145. Mr. Zapata had to appear in criminal court on eleven different days (including his arraignment) in order to defend himself against the criminal charges levied against him. 146. The criminal charges against Mr. Zapata were dismissed in his favor on August 8, 2012. 147. As a result of defendants' conduct described above, including restraining, falsely arresting, falsely imprisoning, illegally searching, and maliciously prosecuting Mr. Zapata, Mr. Zapata suffered serious emotional injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment. 148. The arrest, detention and prosecution ofMr. Zapata Jacked probable cause, and were done maliciously, falsely, and in bad faith. Defendants Martin and Montanez acted in wanton and reckless disregard for the rights of Mr. Zapata.
22

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 23 of 34
149. Mr. Zapata has suffered substantial emotional harm as a result of his arrest. He was terrorized by the assault, and feels as if he is forced to relive it every time he sees
a police officer. As a result, he will often go so far as to cross the street to avoid coming into
contact with police officers. 150. At the time of his arrest, Mr. Zapata was working as a freelance journalist.
His work came primarily from making contacts with people in the industry and offering his services. After he was arrested, Mr. Zapata stopped calling people in search of work for fear that his arrest would be uncovered and he would be blacklisted in the journalism community.
151. Within ninety days after the criminal charges against him were dismissed in his favor, a written notice of claim, sworn by Mr. Zapata, was served upon defendants at the Comptroller's Office at 1 Centre Street, New York, New York.
152. At least thirty days have elapsed since the service of the notice of claim, and adjustment or payment of the claim has been neglected or refused.
153. This action has been commenced within one year and ninety days after the criminal charges against Mr. Zapata were dismissed in his favor. Abraham Collins
154. Mr. Collins is a 48 year old man who has spent the past 24 years working as a Direct Care Worker, teaching mentally handicapped people a variety of life skills.
155. On the afternoon of July 28, 2011, Mr. Collins was walking to meet his work supervisor at the Forest Neighborhood House, which is located on the grounds of the Forest Houses complex.
156. When he reached 1661h Street, he saw defendants Duarte and Doe# 2 in an unmarked NYPD vehicle.
23

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 24 of 34

157. Mr. Collins continued walking, but soon noticed that defendants Duarte and Doe# 2 were following him. On 1651h Street, defendants Duarte and Doe# 2 stopped,

exited the vehicle, and approached Mr. Collins.

158. Defendant Duarte asked Mr. Collins if he had any contraband on his

person.

159. Mr. Collins responded with honesty that he had a small amount of

marijuana in his shorts pocket. 160. The marijuana that was in Mr. Collins's shorts pocket was not in public

view.

161. Defendant Duarte reached into Mr. Collins's pocket and took the

marijuana out.

162. Defendant Duarte violently placed Mr. Collins in handcuffs.

163. Mr. Collins was brought to Police Service Area 7, where he was strip-

searched.

164. While he was in custody, Mr. Collins was fingerprinted. 165. Mr. Collins was charged with Criminal Possession of Marijuana, a

misdemeanor, pursuant to N .Y. Penal Law§ 221.10. 166. In his deposition in support of the charges against Mr. Collins, defendant
Duarte falsely stated, under penalty of perjury, that Mr. Collins was holding marijuana in his left

hand and in public view at the time of his arrest.

167. These charges were knowingly and intentionally false and malicious.

24

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 25 of 34
168. Mr. Collins appeared in cowi three times to defend the crimina! charges against him, and was excused from appearing in court on a further two occasions when his crin1inal defense attorney appeared on his behalf.
I 69. The criminal charges against Mr. Collins were dismissed in his favor on July 28, 2012.
170. As a result of defendants' conduct described above, including restraining, falsely arresting, falsely imprisoning, illegally searching, and maliciously prosecuting Mr. Collins, Mr. Collins suffered serious emotional injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment.
171. The arrest, detention and prosecution of Mr. Collins lacked probable cause, and were done maliciously, falsely, and in bad faith. Defendants Duarte and Doe # 2 acted in wanton and reckless disregard for the rights of Mr. Collins.
172. Mr. Collins has suffered substantial emotional harm as a result of his arrest. Mr. Collins is frustrated and debilitated by the fact that he was targeted by the NYPD and subjected to an unjustified stop, illegal search, and unlawful arrest.
I73. Within ninety days after the criminal charges against him were dismissed in his favor, a written notice of claim, sworn by Mr. Collins, was served upon defendants at the Comptroller's Office at 1 Centre Street, New York, New York.
I74. At least thirty days have elapsed since the service of the notice of claim, and adjustment or payment of the claim has been neglected or refused.
175. This action has been commenced within one year and ninety days after the criminal charges against Mr. Collins were dismissed in his favor.
25

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 26 of 34
Angel Sanchez 176. Mr. Sanchez has worked for over one year as a driver for a drug and
alconol rehabilitation center in the Bronx. 177. On March 7, 2011 at approximately 3:30p.m., Mr. Sanchez was walking
with a female friend down Benedict A venue in the Bronx. 178. All of a sudden, without warning and without provocation, an unmarked
NYPD vehicle pulled up alongside Mr. Sanchez and his friend. 179. Defendants Flynn, Doe# 3 and Doe# 4 jumped out of the vehicle and,
without justification, stopped Mr. Sanchez and his friend. 180. Defendants Flynn and Does # 3 and 4 detained Mr. Sanchez, but told Mr.
Sanchez's friend to "keep walking." 181. Without seeking or receiving Mr. Sanchez's consent, and without cause,
defendant Flynn violently shoved Mr. Sanchez against a gate and began aggressively searching him.
182. Throughout this illegal and unjustified search, defendant Flynn kept asking Mr. Sanchez, "Where is it?"
183. Though defendants Flynn and Does# 3 and# 4 did not find any contraband on Mr. Sanchez, they nonetheless, illegally and without any cause, placed him in handcuffs and threw him into the back of their vehicle.
184. With Mr. Sanchez in the vehicle, Doe# 3 drove a short distance down the road and stopped.
185. Defendant Flynn then grabbed Mr. Sanchez and jerked him out of the car and back onto the street.
26

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 27 of 34
186. Defendant Flynn kicked Mr. Sanchez's legs apart, opened Mr. Sanchez's pants, and pulled his underwear below his genitals.
187. Passersby on the street were able to see Mr. Sanchez's genitals, causing him extreme embarrassment.
188. While Mr. Sanchez was standing in the street with his genitals exposed, defendant Flynn touched Mr. Sanchez's testicles for an extended period of time.
189. In the midst of defendant Flynn's invasive and illegal search, a bag containing a small amount of marijuana fell from the bottom of Mr. Sanchez's pants onto the street.
190. Defendant Flynn violently shoved Mr. Sanchez back into the police vehicle, and Mr. Sanchez was driven to the 43rd Precinct.
191. Mr. Sanchez was detained at the 43rd Precinct for an extended period of time.
192. While he was in custody, Mr. Sanchez was fingerprinted. 193. Mr. Sanchez was charged with Criminal Possession of Marijuana, a misdemeanor, pursuant to N.Y. Penal Law§ 221.10. 194. In his deposition in support of the charges against Mr. Sanchez, defendant Flynn falsely stated, under penalty of perjury, that Mr. Sanchez was observed placing a ziplock bag containing marijuana "into his waistband with his left hand in public view." 195. These charges were knowingly and intentionally false and malicious. 196. Mr. Sanchez appeared in court six times to defend the criminal charges against him.
27

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 28 of 34
197. The criminal charges against Mr. Sanchez were dismissed in his favor on June 4, 2012.
198. As a result of defendants' conduct described above, including restraining, falsely arresting, falsely imprisoning, illegally searching, and maliciously prosecuting Mr. Sanchez, Mr. Sanchez suffered serious emotional injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment.
199. The arrest, detention and prosecution ofMr. Sanchez lacked probable cause, and were done maliciously, falsely, and in bad faith. Defendants Flynn, Doe# 3 and Doe # 4 acted in wanton and reckless disregard for the rights of Mr. Sanchez.
200. Mr. Sanchez has suffered substantial emotional harm as a result of his arrest by defendants. He was terrorized by the assault, and the manner in which he was grabbed by defendant Flynn. He continues to think about it almost daily.
AS AND FOR A FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
42 u.s.c. § 1983
(Against All Individual Defendants) 201. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the foregoing paragraphs as ifthe same were fully set forth at length herein. 202. By reason of the foregoing, by stopping Plaintiffs without cause, by unlawfully searching Plaintiffs, by confining Plaintiffs against their will, by using gratuitous, excessive, and unconscionable force against Plaintiffs, by imprisoning Plaintiffs, by falsifying an account surrounding the events upon which the criminal complaints against Plaintiffs were based, by making false statements under oath in the criminal court proceedings against Plaintiffs, by maliciously prosecuting Plaintiffs, by failing to take steps to intercede and protect the Plaintiffs from such treatment, by falsifying the criminal complaints against Plaintiffs for collateral purposes, including but not limited to satisfying the NYPD's quotas, and by
28

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 29 of 34
intentionally discriminating against Plaintiffs by targeting communities of color for heightened enforcement of marijuana laws, the Individual Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of rights, remedies, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to every citizen of the United States, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including but not limited to, rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The Individuals Defendants' conduct manifested deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.
203. The Individual Defendants acted under pretense and color of state law and in their individual and official capacities and within the scope oftheir respective employments as NYPD officers. Said acts by the Individual Defendants were beyond the scope of their jurisdiction, without authority of law, and in abuse of their powers. The Individual Defendants acted willfully, knowingly, and with the specific intent to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights secured by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
204. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct and abuse of authority detailed above, Plaintiffs sustained the damages hereinbefore alleged.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Against All Supervisory Defendants) 205. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 206. The Supervisory Defendants were, at the relevant times, supervisory personnel within the NYPD, with oversight responsibility over the Individual Defendants. They were responsible for the training, instruction, supervision and discipline of the Individual Defendants, who applied New York's marijuana laws in a race-based manner by intentionally targeting communities of color, who Manufactured Misdemeanors, and who unlawfully stopped,
29

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 30 of 34
illegally searched, falsely arrested, and maliciously prosecuted Plaintiffs in violation oftheir constitutional rights. The Supervisory Defendants were also responsible for instructing the Individual Defendants to intentionally discriminate against, and target, communities of color, because of race and/or national origin, in order to achieve the quotas mandated by the NYPD.
207. Upon information and belief, the Supervisory Defendants were aware and well-informed of the Individual Defendants' unconstitutional conduct perpetrated against Plaintiffs.
208. The Supervisory Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge that the Individual Defendants were engaging in conduct that posed a pervasive and unreasonable threat to the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs.
209. The Supervisory Defendants failed to protect Plaintiffs despite their knowledge that the Individual Defendants violated their constitutional rights and posed a serious threat to the free exercise of their constitutionally protected rights.
210. The response ofthe Supervisory Defendants to their knowledge ofthis threat was so inadequate as to show deliberate indifference or tacit approval of the conduct of the Individual Defendants.
211. The failure ofthe Supervisory Defendants to supervise and discipline the Individual Defendants amounted to gross negligence, deliberate indifference, and/or intentional misconduct.
212. As a direct and proximate result ofthe misconduct and abuse of authority detailed above, Plaintiffs sustained the damages hereinbefore alleged.
30

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 31 of 34
AS AND FOR A THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Against Defendant City) - 213. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the foregoing paragraphs as ifthe same were fully set forth at length herein.
214. Defendant City, through the NYPD, and acting under the pretense and color of law, permitted, tolerated and was deliberately indifferent to a pattern and practice of police officers charging individuals with violations of§ 221.10 without probable cause to do so. This widespread practice of, and tolerance for, Manufactured Misdemeanors by the NYPD constituted a municipal policy, practice, or custom and led to Plaintiffs' malicious prosecutions.
215. Defendant City, through the NYPD, and acting under the pretense and color oflaw, has implemented a policy, practice and/or custom whereby NYPD officers target communities of color for enforcement of New York's marijuana laws and has been deliberately indifferent to the policy, practice and/or custom whereby NYPD officers intentionally discriminate against, and target, people of color, such as Plaintiffs, by Manufacturing Misdemeanors against them, in order to achieve collateral purposes, including but not limited to reaching quotas set by the NYPD.
216. By permitting, tolerating, and sanctioning a persistent and widespread policy, practice and custom pursuant to which Plaintiffs were subjected to false arrest, Manufactured Misdemeanors and malicious prosecution, defendant City has deprived Plaintiffs of rights, remedies, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to every citizen ofthe United States secured by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including but not limited to, the right to be free from unlawful and unwarranted deprivations of liberty and the right to equal treatment under the law guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
31

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 32 of 34
217. As a direct and proximate result ofthe policy, practice and custom detailed above, Plaintiffs sustained the damages hereinbefore alleged.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Malicious Prosecution
(Against Individual Defendants and Defendant City) 218. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the foregoing paragraphs as ifthe same were fully set forth at length herein. 219. The Individual Defendants, without probable cause, initiated a prosecution against Plaintiffs by falsely charging them with violating § 221.10. In so doing, the Individual Defendants acted with a knowing, willful, wanton, malicious, grossly reckless, unlawful, unreasonable, unconscionable, and flagrant disregard ofPlaintiffs' rights, privileges, welfare and well-being, and are guilty of egregious and gross misconduct toward Plaintiffs. 220. All criminal proceedings commenced against Plaintiffs were terminated in Plaintiffs' favor. 221. Defendant City, as employer ofthe Individual Defendants, is responsible for the Individual Defendants' wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 2 222. A~ a direct and proximate result of the misconduct and abuse of authority detailed above, Plaintiffs sustained the damages hereinbefore alleged.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violation ofN.Y. Crim. Proc. Law§ 160.10
(Against Individual Defendants and Defendant City) 223. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 224. Despite the fact that the Individual Defendants were able to ascertain each Plaintiff's identity at the time of arrest, the Individual Defendants took each Plaintiff's
2 Mr. Sanchez does not bring a claim for malicious prosecution against the City under New York Jaw.
32

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 33 of 34
fingerprints in violation ofN.Y. Crim. Proc. Law§ 160.10. In so doing, the Individual Defendants acted with a knowing, willful, wanton, malicious, grossly reckless, unlawful, unreasonable, Lmconscionable, and flagrant disregard of Plaintiffs' rights, privileges, welfare and well-being, and are guilty of egregious and gross misconduct toward Plaintiffs.
225. Defendant City, as employer of the Individual Defendants, is responsible for the Individual Defendants' wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
226. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct and abuse of authority detailed above, Plaintiffs sustained the damages hereinbefore alleged.
AS AND FOR A SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Negligent Hiring/Training/Discipline/Retention of Employment Services
(Against Defendant City) 227. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 228. Defendant City, through the NYPD, owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs to prevent the conduct alleged, because under the same or similar circumstances, a reasonable, prudent, and careful person should have anticipated that injury to Plaintiffs or to those in a like situation would probably result from the foregoing conduct. 229. Upon information and belief, defendant City knew or should have known, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, that the Individual Defendants were likely to engage in the injurious unconstitutional conduct alleged above. 230. Upon information and belief, defendant City's negligence in screening, hiring, training, disciplining, and retaining these Individual Defendants proximately caused Plaintiffs' false arrests and malicious prosecutions. 231. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct and abuse of authority detailed above, Plaintiffs sustained the damages hereinbefore alleged.
33

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 1 Filed 05/02/13 Page 34 of 34
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request judgment against Defendants as follows :
(A) an order awarding compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
(B) an order awarding punitive damages against the Individual Defendants and Supervisory Defendants only in an amount to be determined at trial;
(C) reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and (D) directing such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper, together with attorneys' fees, interest, costs and disbursements of this action. Dated: May 2, 2013 New York, New York
EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF &ABADYLLP
75 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor New York, N.Y. 10019 (212) 763-S . (t) (212) 763- (f)
THE BRONX DEFENDERS Scott D. Levy 360 East 161 st Street Bronx, NY 10451 (718) 838-7878 (t) (718) 508-3547 (f) Attorneys for Plaintiffs
34

 
 Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 1 of 42

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 2 of 42
Latino men—stopping and searching them without cause, lying about their conduct, and falsely charging them with a crime they did not commit, namely, possessing marijuana in a manner that is “open to public view.” As a result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiffs, and indeed thousands of individuals in New York City, and the Bronx in particular, have been unnecessarily forced to endure the humiliation, burden, damage and negative collateral consequences of being falsely charged with a misdemeanor crime, put through the criminal justice system, and compelled to return to court multiple times—all for a crime these men did not commit and which, shockingly, the charging police officers knew they did not commit. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages for Defendants’ improper stops, illegal searches, false arrests, malicious prosecutions and abuses of process in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and state common law.
2. Plaintiffs are all residents of the Bronx, where they work in various fields such as human services, journalism and food services, and where they raise or live nearby their families. Plaintiffs were all arrested and charged with violating N.Y. Penal Law § 221.10 (hereinafter, “§ 221.10”), a class B misdemeanor, which prohibits possessing a small quantity of marijuana (less than twenty-five grams) that is either “burning or open to public view.” At the time they were arrested, none of the Plaintiffs possessed marijuana that was burning or open to public view. Instead, each Plaintiff, as a result of an unjustified stop and illegal search, was found to have a small quantity of marijuana concealed on his person. New York’s Penal Law mandates that persons found in possession of a small quantity of concealed marijuana be charged under N.Y. Penal Law § 221.05 (hereinafter, “§ 221.05”), a violation as opposed to a misdemeanor. In each Plaintiff’s case, the charging police officer lied about the Plaintiff’s
2

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 3 of 42
conduct by asserting he had possessed marijuana in “public view,” and charged the Plaintiff with a misdemeanor crime rather than a violation (hereinafter the “Manufactured Misdemeanor”).
3. For each Plaintiff, the practical consequences of the Manufactured Misdemeanor are enormous—the misdemeanor charge is entered into the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (“DCJS”) database, which may follow a person for life; a person may be deprived of his statutory entitlement to the issuance of a Desk Appearance Ticket (“DAT”), see N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 150.75, unnecessarily subjecting him to full arrest process and hours—sometimes days—of pre-arraignment incarceration; and the speedy trial time allotted to the prosecution is extended, increasing the number of court dates and missed days of work a person must endure in order to exercise his right to challenge the evidence against him. Compare N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 30.30(c) (sixty days where defendant is charged with a misdemeanor) with N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 30.30(d) (thirty days where defendant is charged with a violation). And, unlike a violation, a person convicted of a class B misdemeanor may be sentenced to up to three months in jail.
4. Plaintiffs are not the only Black and Latino New Yorkers who have been subject to Manufactured Misdemeanors by the NYPD for possessing small quantities of marijuana concealed on their person. Studies consistently show that Black and Latino New York City residents, such as Plaintiffs, overwhelmingly and disproportionately bear the brunt of the NYPD’s marijuana arrest practices. From 2003 through 2011, 87.0% of people arrested and charged under § 221.10 for possessing marijuana “burning or open to public view” in New York City were either Black or Latino. Conversely, only 10.2% were White. The disparity is even more acute in the Bronx, where DCJS records show that 95.4% of all persons arrested and charged under § 221.10 were either Black or Latino. Meanwhile, studies show that between
3

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 4 of 42
2002 and 2009, among persons between the ages of 18 and 25, a greater percentage of Whites used marijuana than either Blacks or Latinos.
5. Defendants’ misconduct is part of a pervasive and entrenched pattern of misconduct by the NYPD relating to the enforcement of marijuana laws. Through drug reform lobbying efforts in Albany, reports by civil rights organizations, countless news articles, and other means, the NYPD has long been aware that its officers regularly Manufacture Misdemeanors against Blacks and Latinos. Indeed, in an Operations Order dated September 19, 2011, the NYPD all but acknowledged how systemic the practice of Manufacturing Misdemeanors is on the force. See NYPD Operation Order # 49, September 19, 2011. Nonetheless, the NYPD has deliberately chosen to ignore the known misconduct of its officers and failed to provide adequate training or supervision to halt the constitutional violations that Manufactured Misdemeanors so obviously cause to Black and Latino New Yorkers. In fact, the NYPD has encouraged Manufactured Misdemeanors by promoting a policy and practice of targeting communities of color for heightened enforcement of the marijuana laws, subjecting Blacks and Latinos to the harsher consequences of a misdemeanor prosecution and sentence at a significantly higher rate than other New York City residents.
6. The NYPD’s policy, practice and custom of Manufacturing Misdemeanors appears to be driven, at least in part, by the intense pressure placed on officers to generate more arrests, more summonses, and more stops. Upon information and belief, officers who fail to achieve a specific amount of “activity” for each category of offense—felony, misdemeanor and violation—are penalized. See Floyd v. City of New York, No. 08 Civ. 1034, -- F. Supp. 2d --, 2013 WL 4046209, at *33 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2013) (“officers are routinely subjected to
4

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 5 of 42
significant pressure to increase their stop numbers, without corresponding pressure to ensure that stops are constitutionally justified”).
7. Plaintiffs, like countless other Blacks and Latinos throughout New York City, and particularly the Bronx, were falsely charged and prosecuted for a crime they did not commit and needlessly subjected to the harsh consequences of being charged with a misdemeanor crime based on the lies of the officers who charged them. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages for Defendants’ unconstitutional actions.
PARTIES 8. Plaintiffs are all citizens of the United States. At all relevant times, they resided in Bronx, New York. 9. Defendant City of New York (“City”) is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. At all times relevant hereto, defendant City, acting through the NYPD, was responsible for the policy, practice, supervision, implementation and conduct of all NYPD matters and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all NYPD personnel, including the defendants referenced herein. In addition, at all relevant times, defendant City was responsible for enforcing the rules of the NYPD, and for ensuring that NYPD personnel obey the laws of the United States and the State of New York. 10. At all relevant times, defendant Raymond W. Kelly was the Police Commissioner of the City of New York and, as such, made and enforced the policy of the NYPD, and acted in his capacity as agent, servant, and employee of defendant City, within the scope of his employment as such, and under color of state law.
5

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 6 of 42
11. Defendant Russell J. Green is the Commanding Officer of the NYPD’s 43rd Precinct and, upon information and belief, was the Commanding Officer of the NYPD’s 43rd Precinct at the time of the events alleged herein. In his role as Commanding Officer, defendant Green made and enforced the policy of the 43rd Precinct, and acted in his capacity as agent, servant, and employee of defendant City, within the scope of his employment as such, and under color of state law.
12. Defendant John Hart is the Commanding Officer of the NYPD’s 46th Precinct and, upon information and belief, was the Commanding Officer of the NYPD’s 46th Precinct at the time of the events alleged herein. In his role as Commanding Officer, defendant Hart made and enforced the policy of the 46th Precinct, and acted in his capacity as agent, servant, and employee of defendant City, within the scope of his employment as such, and under color of state law.
13. At all relevant times, defendant Marc Busell was the Commanding Officer of Police Service Area 7 and, as such, made and enforced the policy of Police Service Area 7, and acted in his capacity as agent, servant, and employee of defendant City, within the scope of his employment as such, and under color of state law.
14. At all times relevant hereto, Richard Roes # 1-10, acting in their capacity as agents, servants, and employees of defendant City, and within the scope of their employment as such, were training, supervisory and policy making personnel within the NYPD who implemented, enforced, perpetuated and/or allowed the policy of Manufacturing Misdemeanors. Plaintiffs are unable to determine the names of these supervisory defendants at this time and thus sue them under a fictitious designation.
6

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 7 of 42
15. All NYPD supervisory defendants, including defendant Kelly, are referred to collectively herein as the “Supervisory Defendants.”
16. At all times relevant hereto, NYPD Officer Cintron, Shield # 17999, was a police officer in the NYPD, acting in the capacity of agent, servant and employee of defendant City, and within the scope of his employment as such.
17. At all times relevant hereto, NYPD Officer Edwin Jerez, Shield # 9352, was a police officer in the NYPD, acting in the capacity of agent, servant and employee of defendant City, and within the scope of his employment as such.
18. At all times relevant hereto, NYPD Officer Guagliardi was a police officer in the NYPD, acting in the capacity of agent, servant and employee of defendant City, and within the scope of his employment as such.
19. At all times relevant hereto, NYPD Officer Malvi Moncion, Shield # 12778, was a police officer in the NYPD, acting in the capacity of agent, servant and employee of defendant City, and within the scope of his employment as such.
20. At all times relevant hereto, NYPD Sergeant Dania Castro, was a sergeant in the NYPD, acting in the capacity of agent, servant and employee of defendant City, and within the scope of her employment as such.
21. At all times relevant hereto, NYPD Officer Kevin M. Martin, Shield # 24921, was a police officer in the NYPD, acting in the capacity of agent, servant and employee of defendant City, and within the scope of his employment as such.
22. At all times relevant hereto, NYPD Officer Primitivo Montanez, Tax # 939058, was a police officer in the NYPD, acting in the capacity of agent, servant and employee of defendant City, and within the scope of his employment as such.
7

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 8 of 42
23. At all times relevant hereto, NYPD Officer Andry Duarte, Shield # 7302, was a police officer in the NYPD, acting in the capacity of agent, servant and employee of defendant City, and within the scope of his employment as such.
24. At all times relevant hereto, NYPD Officer Brian J. Flynn, Shield # 2084, was a police officer in the NYPD, acting in the capacity of agent, servant and employee of defendant City, and within the scope of his employment as such.
25. At all times relevant hereto, NYPD Officer Steven Lancia, Shield # 8781, was a police officer in the NYPD, acting in the capacity of agent, servant and employee of defendant City, and within the scope of his employment as such.
26. At all times relevant hereto, defendants John/Jane Does # 1-5, whose actual names Plaintiffs have been unable to ascertain notwithstanding reasonable efforts to do so, but who are sued herein by the fictitious designation “John Doe” and “Jane Doe,” were police officers in the NYPD, acting in the capacity of agents, servants and employees of defendant City, and within the scope of their employment as such.
27. All NYPD officer defendants, excluding the Supervisory Defendants, are referred to collectively herein as the “Individual Defendants.”
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 28. This action arises under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and state common law. 29. The jurisdiction of this Court is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3) and (4), 1367(a), and the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction. 30. The acts complained of occurred in the Southern District of New York and venue is lodged in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
8

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 9 of 42
JURY DEMAND 31. Plaintiffs demand trial by jury in this action.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND New York Law Regarding Marijuana Possession
32. In New York, a person who possesses less than twenty-five (25) grams of marijuana concealed on his person is guilty of violating § 221.05, a non-criminal violation that does not allow for jail time for non-repeat offenders. The maximum allowable penalty for a first-time offender convicted of violating § 221.05 is a fine of up to $100. Where an arrestee is charged with violating § 221.05, and no other offense is alleged, the arrestee must “promptly” be issued a DAT and released from custody. See N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 150.75. A DAT requires a person to appear in court at some later specified date; a person who receives one need not go through the full arrest process.
33. Section 221.10 of the New York Penal Law, on the other hand, is a class B misdemeanor, which allows for sentences of up to three months in jail. See N.Y. Penal Law § 70.15. Unlike when an individual is only charged with a violation under § 221.05, an individual charged with a misdemeanor under § 221.10 may be held in police custody for arraignment before a judge. See N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 140.20(2). Negative Consequences of Being Charged with a Misdemeanor Instead of Violation
34. The negative collateral consequences of being charged with a misdemeanor are profound. An arrestee charged with a misdemeanor may be held in custody until he or she can be seen by a judge for arraignment. This period of detention regularly lasts at least twenty-four (24) hours, and frequently extends even longer. Plaintiffs Mr. Felix and Mr. Zapata, for example, were both detained for approximately forty (40) hours before arraignment.
9

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 10 of 42
35. Pre-arraignment conditions are typically deplorable and over-crowded. The arrestees are usually forced to share a single toilet and to sleep sitting up.
36. An arrestee charged with a misdemeanor is fingerprinted and photographed, and the arrestee’s information is entered into the DCJS database. These entries remain in the database regardless of whether the person is convicted of a crime. Violation arrests, on the other hand, are not entered into the DCJS database.
37. Being listed in the DCJS database can have a damaging impact on a person’s life. Public employers screen job applicants using the DCJS database when deciding whether to hire or retain an employee or grant an occupational license, and therefore a person who has been charged with a Manufactured Misdemeanor is subject to adverse employment and licensing decisions as a result of his unnecessary inclusion in the DCJS database. After being charged with a Manufactured Misdemeanor and entered into the DCJS database, Mr. Fearon was temporarily suspended from his job with the New York City Board of Education.
38. Moreover, upon information and belief, the Office of Court Administration sells its data to private background-check and credit-reporting agencies on which private employers rely when conducting background checks on job applicants. Indeed, Mr. Felix and Mr. Zapata were afraid to look for work after their arrests because they feared their arrests would be revealed to potential employers.
39. A person who is charged with a misdemeanor is also likely to have to appear in court more times than if he was charged with a violation. New York’s Criminal Procedure Law provides that a person charged with a misdemeanor must be tried within sixty days of the commencement of the criminal action, while a person charged with a violation must be tried within thirty days of the commencement of the criminal action. N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law §
10

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 11 of 42
30.30(c), (d). In practice, these statutory time limits are virtually never met. For example, when Francisco Zapata’s case was ultimately dismissed on August 8, 2012, the case had been pending for 520 days, but only thirty days had been counted against the statutory speedy trial clock.
40. The additional thirty days of speedy trial time allocated to prosecutors when a misdemeanor, rather than a violation, is charged can alter the course of a case. Plaintiffs had to wait an average of 129 days from arraignment until their first trial date. During this period, no speedy trial time accrued. Once cases were in a trial-ready posture, prosecutors were responsible for more than 80% of postponements on trial dates. The average adjournment requested by prosecutors was six days; the average actual length of an adjournment, however, was fifty-six days. This pattern is replicated in virtually all marijuana possession cases in the Bronx. Thus, by artificially increasing the speedy trial time available to prosecutors by thirty days, the practice of Manufacturing Misdemeanors may extend the life of a case by five additional adjournments, or an average of 280 days. Here, Abraham Collins’ case was dismissed after 247 days; Danilo Melendez’s case after 282 days; Maurosol Felix’s after 295 days; Angel Sanchez’s after 377 days; Francisco Zapata’s after 520 days; and Anthony Fearon’s after an astonishing 590 days. Inflated and Racially-Biased Marijuana Arrests in New York City
41. Arrests for possession of small amounts of marijuana have been one of the primary forces driving the explosion of misdemeanor arrests in New York City over the past decade. Indeed, § 221.10 arrests accounted for 1 in 5 misdemeanor arrests and 1 in 7 of all arrests in New York City in 2011, and are reportedly the most common type of arrest made by the NYPD. In 2011 alone, DCJS calculated that the NYPD charged 50,688 people with § 221.10, bringing the total number of arrests under the statute for the five-year period from 2007 through 2011 to 227,118.
11

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 12 of 42
42. Black and Latino men in low-income neighborhoods have overwhelmingly borne the brunt of the NYPD’s marijuana arrest practices. Citywide, Blacks and Latinos accounted for 84.1% of all § 221.10 arrests in 2011. The racial disparity in arrest rates is even more striking in the Bronx, where, in 2011, 94.6% of the 13,131 people arrested under § 221.10 were Black or Latino. These disparities persist despite the findings of multiple studies showing that Whites use marijuana at higher rates than either Blacks or Latinos. Notice of the Unconstitutional Practice of Manufacturing Misdemeanors
43. The NYPD has long been aware of how pervasive the practice of Manufacturing Misdemeanors is amongst NYPD officers. As far back as May 2007, a professor from Queens College testified publicly in front of two committees of the New York State Assembly regarding marijuana arrests in New York City. See Testimony of Harry G. Levine at Hearings of New York State Assembly Committees on Codes and on Corrections, Albany, New York, May 31, 2007 available at http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/nymmj_levinetest.pdf. As part of his testimony, the professor explained that most people arrested for marijuana possession were not smoking in public, but rather were generally found with marijuana in their pocket. The professor also highlighted the NYPD’s practice of targeting communities of color for heightened enforcement of the marijuana laws.
44. In April 2008, the New York Civil Liberties Union (“NYCLU”) issued a report entitled “Marijuana Arrest Crusade: Racial Bias and Police Policy in New York City 1997-2006.” The report included a section called “Dropsy Arrests: How Pot in a Pocket Becomes Marijuana ‘Burning or Open to Public View,’” in which the authors chronicle how and
12

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 13 of 42
why NYPD officers Manufacture Misdemeanors, and the alarming frequency with which the practice is used. For example, the authors note the following:
“Approximately two-thirds to three-quarters of those arrested for marijuana possession were not smoking and most were not displaying the marijuana. Most had marijuana in a pocket or otherwise well concealed in their clothing or possessions. However, the officers who found the marijuana in a search said in their report, and when speaking to an Assistant District Attorney, that they observed the marijuana because it was ‘open to public view.’”
45. Upon information and belief, high-ranking NYPD officials reviewed the NYCLU’s report. On April 30, 2008, an NYPD spokesman issued a formal response to the NYCLU’s report, but failed to specifically address the practice of Manufacturing Misdemeanors that the report detailed. See “Flawed Study on Marijuana Arrests” available at http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/pr/flawed_report.shtml.
46. The NYPD’s response to the NYCLU report did, however, acknowledge a striking disparity between the number of persons charged with § 221.10 and the number of persons charged with § 221.05. It noted that, from 1997-2006, there were approximately 350,000 people charged with a misdemeanor under § 221.10, while there were only approximately 8,770 people charged with a violation under § 221.05. Id. Thus, according to the NYPD’s own numbers, during a ten year period, approximately 98 out of every 100 persons arrested for low-level marijuana possession were found to be in possession of marijuana that was “burning or open to public view.” It defies logic to presume that such an overwhelming majority of persons arrested for marijuana possession would have been found holding marijuana that was burning or in plain view. The NYPD’s own numbers suggest that officers have been Manufacturing Misdemeanors for years; yet the NYPD deliberately chose to ignore the obvious implication of its statistics and permitted its officers to continue violating the constitutional rights of New York City residents.
13

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 14 of 42
47. The NYPD was also on notice of the prevalence of Manufactured Misdemeanors and of the racially-biased enforcement of the marijuana laws through numerous articles in newspapers, magazines, and online news sources that appeared prior to any of the Plaintiffs’ arrests.1
48. A series of investigative reports by WNYC reporter Ailsa Chang in 2011 identified numerous arrestees who, like Plaintiffs, had been charged with possessing marijuana in public view even though the marijuana had only come into public view as a result of a police request or an unlawful search.
49. On September 19, 2011, defendant Kelly issued a department-wide order—“Operations Order #49”— acknowledging that “[q]uestions have been raised about the processing of certain marihuana arrests.” The Operations Order specifically addressed the practice of Manufacturing Misdemeanors and instructed officers regarding the circumstances under which § 221.10 may be properly charged. Upon information and belief, defendant Kelly would not have issued such a department-wide order unless he and other high-ranking NYPD officials were aware of the frequency with which NYPD officers were Manufacturing Misdemeanors.
50. In June 2012, the Legal Aid Society filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, seeking a declaratory judgment that
1 See, e.g., Christine Hauser, A Little Stop-and-Frisk May Turn Up a Little Pot, N.Y. Times, Apr. 29, 2008, available at http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/a-little-stop-and-frisk-may-turn-up-a-little-pot/#more2698; Tony Newman, Stop the War on Pot Smokers, N.Y. Daily News, Aug. 25, 2009, available at http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/stop-war-pot-smokers-article-1.399588; Gabriel Sayegh, New York City’s Massive Marijuana Arrests, Huffington Post, Aug. 26, 2009, available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabrielsayegh/new-york-citys-massive-ma_b_269384.html; Marc Jacobson, The Splitting Image of Pot, New York Magazine, Sep. 21, 2009, available at http://nymag.com/news/features/58995/; Alice Speri, 2010 Marijuana Arrests Top 1978-96 Total, N.Y. Times, Feb. 11, 2011, available at http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/marijuana-arrests-increase-in-new-york-city/.
14

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 15 of 42
Manufacturing Misdemeanors is unlawful and an injunction ordering the NYPD to cease the practice. The NYPD’s Deliberate Indifference to Manufactured Misdemeanors
51. Despite being aware that NYPD officers were regularly Manufacturing Misdemeanors, the NYPD and the Supervisory Defendants officials deliberately chose to ignore the facially unconstitutional practice and failed to take sufficient steps to stop Manufactured Misdemeanors from continuing to occur.
52. The NYPD and the Supervisory Defendants’ awareness of the prevalence of Manufactured Misdemeanors made it obvious that increased supervision and better training were needed to curb the well-entrenched practice and to protect against constitutional violations. Yet the NYPD and the Supervisory Defendants did nothing to improve the supervision or training they provided to NYPD officers regarding marijuana arrests. By failing to do so, the NYPD and the Supervisory Defendants displayed a deliberate indifference to constitutional violations that they knew were occurring.
53. The Operations Order issued by defendant Kelly failed to stop the practice of Manufacturing Misdemeanors. Upon information and belief, the Order was not accompanied by increased supervision of NYPD officers or improved training regarding New York’s marijuana laws. By permitting the issuance of an order without implementing any enforcement mechanism or any change in departmental supervision or training, the NYPD and the Supervisory Defendants was deliberately indifferent to the effectiveness of the Operations Order in actually curtailing Manufactured Misdemeanors. In fact, the Operations Order proved ineffective at preventing the practice as plaintiff Maurosol Felix was charged with a Manufactured Misdemeanor just a couple of months after it was issued.
15

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 16 of 42
NYPD Quotas: Encouraging Manufactured Misdemeanors 54. Through its quota system, the NYPD encourages and rewards officers for
making arrests, making stops and issuing summonses. Each officer’s record is broken down into three categories—felony, misdemeanor, and violation. Upon information and belief, officers are required to make a certain number of arrests in each category every month.
55. The NYPD enforces its quota system by disciplining those officers who do not meet their quotas. These consequences incentivize NYPD officers to do everything in their power to make their quotas.
56. During recent hearings in Floyd, et al. v. City of New York, et al., No. 08 Civ. 1034 (SAS)(HBP) (S.D.N.Y.), multiple NYPD officers testified that because of mandated quotas for arrests, summonses and stop-and-frisks, officers were compelled to make unnecessary stops and arrests.2 After hearing the testimony in that case, the court concluded that “[o]fficers may be subject to warnings and more severe adverse consequences if they fail to achieve what their superiors perceive as appropriate enforcement activity numbers.” Floyd, 2013 WL 4046209, at *33.
57. As a result of this quota system, and the perverse incentives it imposes, some NYPD officers have developed a policy, practice and custom of lying on criminal complaints—including Plaintiffs’—so as to “justify” charging a misdemeanor rather than a violation.
58. The NYPD, through the Supervisory Defendants, enforces its quota system and encourages officers to Manufacture Misdemeanors.
2 See Marina Carver, NYPD Officers Say They Had Stop-and-Frisk Quotas, CNN, March 22, 2013, available at http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/22/justice/new-york-stop-and-frisk-trial.
16

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 17 of 42
INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS’ FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Maurosol Felix
59. Mr. Felix is a 42 year old Latino man who lives in the Bronx. 60. Mr. Felix is a disabled man who suffers from a host of illnesses. 61. In the past, Mr. Felix has used marijuana for medicinal purposes to treat his illnesses because it helps with his pain management and appetite. 62. On March 16, 2012 at approximately 6:10 p.m., Mr. Felix exited the Tremont Ave. train station via the 179th Street exit with the intention of heading home. 63. Upon exiting the train station, Mr. Felix walked into a convenience store directly in front of the train station exit. 64. Mr. Felix purchased some food at the store and left to walk home. 65. As Mr. Felix was walking down 179th Street from Grand Concourse and nearing the entrance to his building, a marked NYPD vehicle turned the corner from Creston Avenue onto 179th Street and approached him. 66. Defendant Cintron, who was sitting in the driver’s seat, motioned Mr. Felix over to the NYPD vehicle. 67. Mr. Felix complied and approached the vehicle. 68. Defendant Cintron asked Mr. Felix what was in his hand. 69. Mr. Felix responded that he was holding food that he had just purchased at the store. 70. Defendant Jerez then exited the NYPD vehicle from the passenger’s side, came around the car, and approached Mr. Felix from behind.
17

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 18 of 42
71. Mr. Felix asked, “What is this about?” Both defendants Cintron and Jerez ignored Mr. Felix’s question.
72. Defendant Cintron then asked Mr. Felix where he lived. Mr. Felix replied that he lived on the block and pointed to his building.
73. Without provocation or justification, defendant Jerez used his body to forcefully and painfully pin Mr. Felix down on the NYPD vehicle.
74. Defendant Cintron exited the vehicle and, without a warrant, without justification and without Mr. Felix’s consent, began to search Mr. Felix’s person.
75. The violent manner in which Mr. Felix was pinned down caused him severe pain in his leg.
76. Mr. Felix cried out that his leg was in pain, but his cries were ignored. 77. During this warrantless, illegal, and unjustified search, defendant Cintron reached into the inside pocket of Mr. Felix’s coat and recovered a small amount of marijuana. 78. The marijuana recovered by defendant Cintron was inside Mr. Felix’s pocket from the time he exited the subway until the time it was recovered by defendant Cintron. It was never in public view. 79. During this illegal and unjustified search, defendants Cintron and Jerez confiscated Mr. Felix’s keys, cell phone and Blackberry. 80. Shortly thereafter, defendants Concepcion and Guagliardi arrived on the scene in a NYPD van. 81. Mr. Felix was placed in the police van with defendants Concepcion and Guagliardi.
18

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 19 of 42
82. Mr. Felix remained in the police van for an extended period of time as defendants Concepcion and Guagliardi went to arrest another individual.
83. While Mr. Felix was in the police van, defendant Guagliardi turned to him and said, in sum and substance, “Don’t take this personally. I have a quota to make.”
84. Mr. Felix was eventually taken to the 46th precinct where he was held overnight. He was then taken to Bronx Central Booking where he was again held overnight.
85. While he was in custody, Mr. Felix was fingerprinted. 86. Mr. Felix was wrongfully imprisoned by defendants for approximately two days. 87. Mr. Felix was released on March 18, 2012. 88. During his unlawful incarceration, Mr. Felix was not adequately fed and was not permitted to take his medication. 89. After his release, Mr. Felix’s confiscated property was never returned to him. 90. Mr. Felix was charged with Criminal Possession of Marijuana, a misdemeanor, pursuant to N.Y. Penal Law § 221.10. 91. This charge was knowingly and intentionally false and malicious. 92. Defendant Jerez swore to a false and fabricated account of the events surrounding plaintiff’s arrest. In his deposition in support of the complaint against Mr. Felix, defendant Jerez falsely stated, under penalty of perjury, that Mr. Felix “was observed in possession of a large ziplock bag of marijuana in his right hand in plain view.”
19

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 20 of 42
93. At no time during the events described above did the defendants have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop Mr. Felix or to search Mr. Felix. At no time did Mr. Felix possess a large ziplock bag of marijuana in his right hand in plain view.
94. Mr. Felix had to appear in court six times to defend the criminal charges against him.
95. The criminal charges against Mr. Felix were dismissed in his favor on January 7, 2013.
96. As a result of defendants’ conduct described above, including restraining, falsely arresting, falsely imprisoning, illegally searching, and maliciously prosecuting Mr. Felix, Mr. Felix suffered serious emotional injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment.
97. The arrest, detention and prosecution of Mr. Felix lacked probable cause, and were done maliciously, falsely, and in bad faith. Defendants Cintron, Jerez, Concepcion and Guagliardi acted in wanton and reckless disregard for the rights of Mr. Felix.
98. Mr. Felix has suffered substantial emotional harm as a result of his arrest. He was terrorized by the assault; he is fearful when he walks in the street; and he is still afraid of police officers. He is even afraid to be on the street after dark for fear that he will be accosted again by the NYPD.
99. Mr. Felix was out of work at the time he was arrested. He had been looking for a job prior to his arrest. After his arrest, he was forced to abandon his search, afraid that any job interview would end in disaster once a potential employer saw the arrest and pending criminal charge.
20

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 21 of 42
100. Within ninety days after the criminal charges against him were dismissed in his favor, a written notice of claim, sworn by Mr. Felix, was served upon defendants at the Comptroller’s Office at 1 Centre Street, New York, New York.
101. At least thirty days have elapsed since the service of the notice of claim, and adjustment or payment of the claim has been neglected or refused.
102. This action has been commenced within one year and ninety days after the criminal charges against Mr. Felix were dismissed in his favor. Danilo Melendez
103. Mr. Melendez works as a stocker at a Western Beef grocery store in the Bronx. Though he has since been transferred to a new store, on July 14, 2011, Mr. Melendez worked at the Western Beef located at 301 Morris Avenue.
104. Mr. Melendez was at work on July 14, 2011. 105. During one of his regularly scheduled thirty-minute work breaks, Mr. Melendez went to a nearby deli to purchase a soda. 106. As he was nearing the deli, a blue and white NYPD van pulled up in front of Mr. Melendez. Defendants Moncion, Castro and Doe # 1 exited the vehicle. 107. Defendants Moncion, Castro and Doe # 1, without a warrant and without cause, stopped Mr. Melendez as he was about to enter the deli. 108. Defendant Moncion asked Mr. Melendez to produce identification. Mr. Melendez complied. 109. Defendant Moncion stated to Mr. Melendez, “Yo, you got anything on you?”
21

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 22 of 42
110. Without waiting for a response, and without cause to do so, defendant Moncion began searching Mr. Melendez.
111. During the course of this warrantless, unreasonable and unjustified search, defendant Moncion ordered Mr. Melendez to empty his pockets.
112. Mr. Melendez complied with the request to empty his pockets, pulling out, among other things, a cigarette packet.
113. Defendant Moncion opened the cigarette packet and recovered a small, half-smoked marijuana cigarette.
114. Defendant Moncion roughly placed Mr. Melendez in handcuffs and shoved him into the blue and white NYPD van.
115. Mr. Melendez was taken to Police Service Area 7, where he was detained for more than five hours, causing him to miss half a day at work.
116. While he was in custody, Mr. Melendez was fingerprinted. 117. When Mr. Melendez was brought inside the precinct, NYPD officers began cheering for defendant Moncion and congratulating him. 118. In a deposition in support of the complaint against Mr. Melendez, defendant Moncion falsely stated, under penalty of perjury, that Mr. Melendez was observed “in possession of 1 marijuana cigarette in his left hand.” 119. Based on the supporting deposition of defendant Moncion, Mr. Melendez was arraigned on October 4, 2011 and charged with Unlawful Possession of Marijuana, a violation, pursuant to N.Y. Penal Law § 221.05.
22

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 23 of 42
120. On November 1, 2011, a superseding criminal complaint was filed against Mr. Melendez, which added a charge of Criminal Possession of Marijuana, a misdemeanor, pursuant to N.Y. Penal Law § 221.10.
121. In support of this superseding complaint, defendant Moncion falsely stated, under penalty of perjury, that he observed Mr. Melendez “to have on his person, in his left hand, in public view, one (1) cigarette containing a dried-green leafy substance with a distinctive odor alleged to be marijuana.”
122. These charges were knowingly and intentionally false and malicious. 123. Mr. Melendez appeared at court eight times in order to defend himself against these unjustified and unlawful charges. 124. The criminal charges against Mr. Melendez were dismissed in his favor on July 12, 2012. 125. As a result of defendants’ conduct described above, including restraining, falsely arresting, falsely imprisoning, illegally searching, and maliciously prosecuting Mr. Melendez, Mr. Melendez suffered serious emotional injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment. 126. The arrest, detention and prosecution of Mr. Melendez lacked probable cause, and were done maliciously, falsely, and in bad faith. Defendants Moncion, Castro and Doe #1 acted in wanton and reckless disregard for the rights of Mr. Melendez. 127. Since his arrest, Mr. Melendez continues to suffer extreme emotional distress. Seeing police officers on the street makes him nervous, and he attempts to avoid making eye contact with officers whenever possible for fear that he will be subjected to another illegal stop or unlawful arrest.
23

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 24 of 42
128. Mr. Melendez also suffered anxiety about retaining his job after being arrested for a misdemeanor offense and being forced to miss work on a number of occasions.
129. Within ninety days after the criminal charges against him were dismissed in his favor, a written notice of claim, sworn by Mr. Melendez, was served upon defendants at the Comptroller’s Office at 1 Centre Street, New York, New York.
130. At least thirty days have elapsed since the service of the notice of claim, and adjustment or payment of the claim has been neglected or refused.
131. This action has been commenced within one year and ninety days after the criminal charges against Mr. Melendez were dismissed in his favor. Francisco Zapata
132. Mr. Zapata is a journalist and television reporter. He has also been a lifeguard in New York City for approximately twenty years.
133. On the night of March 5, 2011, Mr. Zapata was walking down Ford Street in the Bronx listening to his headphones.
134. All of a sudden, without any warning or provocation, defendant Martin, a uniformed NYPD officer, ran up behind Mr. Zapata, violently grabbed Mr. Zapata and forcefully pushed him against a wall.
135. Upon information and belief, there have been a substantial number of complaints filed with the NYPD’s Civilian Complaint Review Board against defendant Martin. Defendant Martin has also been named as a defendant in at least three civil rights lawsuits, at least one of which alleged that he filed false charges relating to marijuana possession. See Nunez v. City of New York, et al., No. 12 Civ. 8066 (TPG) (S.D.N.Y.).
24

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 25 of 42
136. Without seeking or receiving Mr. Zapata’s consent, defendant Martin placed his hands on Mr. Zapata in a threatening manner, and asked Mr. Zapata, “Are you trying to tell people we are here?”
137. Not knowing what defendant Martin was talking about or why he was being accosted, Mr. Zapata attempted to show his press identification card to defendant Martin.
138. Defendant Martin, however, refused to look at Mr. Zapata’s identification. 139. Mr. Zapata was fearful for his safety and looked down to see defendant Martin’s badge. 140. Defendant Martin told Mr. Zapata not to look down, and brutally and unjustifiably struck Mr. Zapata’s head three times with his elbow. 141. Without seeking or receiving Mr. Zapata’s consent, and without cause, defendant Martin aggressively pushed Mr. Zapata against the wall and began searching him. 142. As he was searching Mr. Zapata, defendant Martin repeatedly threatened Mr. Zapata, stating, “If you keep moving, I’m going to smash your face into the wall.” 143. While defendant Martin was searching Mr. Zapata, he placed his hands down Mr. Zapata’s pants and inside Mr. Zapata’s underwear and touched Mr. Zapata’s testicles. 144. During this unwarranted and unjustified search to which Mr. Zapata did not consent, defendant Martin opened Mr. Zapata’s jacket, and located a small amount of marijuana inside Mr. Zapata’s shirt pocket. 145. The marijuana defendant Martin recovered from Mr. Zapata’s shirt pocket was not in public view. 146. Defendant Martin forcefully placed Mr. Zapata in handcuffs and led him over to other NYPD officers.
25

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 26 of 42
147. Defendant Martin stated to the other NYPD officers: “We got our first idiot of the night.”
148. Mr. Zapata was placed in the back of a NYPD vehicle, where he sat for an extended period of time.
149. Mr. Zapata was eventually taken to the 46th precinct where he was held overnight.
150. The next day, March 6, 2011, Mr. Zapata was transported to Bronx Central Booking.
151. While he was in custody, Mr. Zapata was fingerprinted. 152. After approximately two days in custody, Mr. Zapata was released from custody on March 7, 2011. 153. Defendant Montanez entered Mr. Zapata’s arrest into the NYPD’s database, charging Mr. Zapata with Criminal Possession of Marijuana, a misdemeanor, pursuant to N.Y. Penal Law § 221.10. 154. In his deposition in support of the charges against Mr. Zapata, defendant Martin falsely stated, under penalty of perjury, that Mr. Zapata was holding marijuana in his right hand and in plain view at the time of his arrest. 155. These charges were knowingly and intentionally malicious and false. 156. Mr. Zapata had to appear in criminal court on eleven different days (including his arraignment) in order to defend himself against the criminal charges levied against him. 157. The criminal charges against Mr. Zapata were dismissed in his favor on August 8, 2012.
26

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 27 of 42
158. As a result of defendants’ conduct described above, including restraining, falsely arresting, falsely imprisoning, illegally searching, and maliciously prosecuting Mr. Zapata, Mr. Zapata suffered serious emotional injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment.
159. The arrest, detention and prosecution of Mr. Zapata lacked probable cause, and were done maliciously, falsely, and in bad faith. Defendants Martin and Montanez acted in wanton and reckless disregard for the rights of Mr. Zapata.
160. Mr. Zapata has suffered substantial emotional harm as a result of his arrest. He was terrorized by the assault, and feels as if he is forced to relive it every time he sees a police officer. As a result, he will often go so far as to cross the street to avoid coming into contact with police officers.
161. At the time of his arrest, Mr. Zapata was working as a freelance journalist. His work came primarily from making contacts with people in the industry and offering his services. After he was arrested, Mr. Zapata stopped calling people in search of work for fear that his arrest would be uncovered and he would be blacklisted in the journalism community.
162. Within ninety days after the criminal charges against him were dismissed in his favor, a written notice of claim, sworn by Mr. Zapata, was served upon defendants at the Comptroller’s Office at 1 Centre Street, New York, New York.
163. At least thirty days have elapsed since the service of the notice of claim, and adjustment or payment of the claim has been neglected or refused.
164. This action has been commenced within one year and ninety days after the criminal charges against Mr. Zapata were dismissed in his favor.
27

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 28 of 42
Abraham Collins 165. Mr. Collins is a 48 year old man who has spent the past 24 years working
as a Direct Care Worker, teaching mentally handicapped people a variety of life skills. 166. On the afternoon of July 28, 2011, Mr. Collins was walking to meet his
work supervisor at the Forest Neighborhood House, which is located on the grounds of the Forest Houses complex.
167. When he reached 166th Street, he saw defendants Duarte and Doe # 2 in an unmarked NYPD vehicle.
168. Mr. Collins continued walking, but soon noticed that defendants Duarte and Doe # 2 were following him. On 165th Street, defendants Duarte and Doe # 2 stopped, exited the vehicle, and approached Mr. Collins.
169. Defendant Duarte asked Mr. Collins if he had any contraband on his person.
170. Mr. Collins responded with honesty that he had a small amount of marijuana in his shorts pocket.
171. The marijuana that was in Mr. Collins’s shorts pocket was not in public view.
172. Defendant Duarte reached into Mr. Collins’s pocket and took the marijuana out.
173. Defendant Duarte violently placed Mr. Collins in handcuffs. 174. Mr. Collins was brought to Police Service Area 7, where he was stripsearched. 175. While he was in custody, Mr. Collins was fingerprinted.
28

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 29 of 42
176. Mr. Collins was charged with Criminal Possession of Marijuana, a misdemeanor, pursuant to N.Y. Penal Law § 221.10.
177. In his deposition in support of the charges against Mr. Collins, defendant Duarte falsely stated, under penalty of perjury, that Mr. Collins was holding marijuana in his left hand and in public view at the time of his arrest.
178. These charges were knowingly and intentionally false and malicious. 179. Mr. Collins appeared in court three times to defend the criminal charges against him, and was excused from appearing in court on a further two occasions when his criminal defense attorney appeared on his behalf. 180. The criminal charges against Mr. Collins were dismissed in his favor on July 28, 2012. 181. As a result of defendants’ conduct described above, including restraining, falsely arresting, falsely imprisoning, illegally searching, and maliciously prosecuting Mr. Collins, Mr. Collins suffered serious emotional injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment. 182. The arrest, detention and prosecution of Mr. Collins lacked probable cause, and were done maliciously, falsely, and in bad faith. Defendants Duarte and Doe # 2 acted in wanton and reckless disregard for the rights of Mr. Collins. 183. Mr. Collins has suffered substantial emotional harm as a result of his arrest. Mr. Collins is frustrated and debilitated by the fact that he was targeted by the NYPD and subjected to an unjustified stop, illegal search, and unlawful arrest.
29

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 30 of 42
184. Within ninety days after the criminal charges against him were dismissed in his favor, a written notice of claim, sworn by Mr. Collins, was served upon defendants at the Comptroller’s Office at 1 Centre Street, New York, New York.
185. At least thirty days have elapsed since the service of the notice of claim, and adjustment or payment of the claim has been neglected or refused.
186. This action has been commenced within one year and ninety days after the criminal charges against Mr. Collins were dismissed in his favor. Angel Sanchez
187. Mr. Sanchez has worked for over one year as a driver for a drug and alcohol rehabilitation center in the Bronx.
188. On March 7, 2011 at approximately 3:30 p.m., Mr. Sanchez was walking with a female friend down Benedict Avenue in the Bronx.
189. All of a sudden, without warning and without provocation, an unmarked NYPD vehicle pulled up alongside Mr. Sanchez and his friend.
190. Defendants Flynn, Doe # 3 and Doe # 4 jumped out of the vehicle and, without justification, stopped Mr. Sanchez and his friend.
191. Defendants Flynn and Does # 3 and 4 detained Mr. Sanchez, but told Mr. Sanchez’s friend to “keep walking.”
192. Without seeking or receiving Mr. Sanchez’s consent, and without cause, defendant Flynn violently shoved Mr. Sanchez against a gate and began aggressively searching him.
193. Throughout this illegal and unjustified search, defendant Flynn kept asking Mr. Sanchez, “Where is it?”
30

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 31 of 42
194. Though defendants Flynn and Does # 3 and # 4 did not find any contraband on Mr. Sanchez, they nonetheless, illegally and without any cause, placed him in handcuffs and threw him into the back of their vehicle.
195. With Mr. Sanchez in the vehicle, Doe # 3 drove a short distance down the road and stopped.
196. Defendant Flynn then grabbed Mr. Sanchez and jerked him out of the car and back onto the street.
197. Defendant Flynn kicked Mr. Sanchez’s legs apart, opened Mr. Sanchez’s pants, and pulled his underwear below his genitals.
198. Passersby on the street were able to see Mr. Sanchez’s genitals, causing him extreme embarrassment.
199. While Mr. Sanchez was standing in the street with his genitals exposed, defendant Flynn touched Mr. Sanchez’s testicles for an extended period of time.
200. In the midst of defendant Flynn’s invasive and illegal search, a bag containing a small amount of marijuana fell from the bottom of Mr. Sanchez’s pants onto the street.
201. Defendant Flynn violently shoved Mr. Sanchez back into the police vehicle, and Mr. Sanchez was driven to the 43rd Precinct.
202. Mr. Sanchez was detained at the 43rd Precinct for an extended period of time.
203. While he was in custody, Mr. Sanchez was fingerprinted. 204. Mr. Sanchez was charged with Criminal Possession of Marijuana, a misdemeanor, pursuant to N.Y. Penal Law § 221.10.
31

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 32 of 42
205. In his deposition in support of the charges against Mr. Sanchez, defendant Flynn falsely stated, under penalty of perjury, that Mr. Sanchez was observed placing a ziplock bag containing marijuana “into his waistband with his left hand in public view.”
206. These charges were knowingly and intentionally false and malicious. 207. Mr. Sanchez appeared in court six times to defend the criminal charges against him. 208. The criminal charges against Mr. Sanchez were dismissed in his favor on June 4, 2012. 209. As a result of defendants’ conduct described above, including restraining, falsely arresting, falsely imprisoning, illegally searching, and maliciously prosecuting Mr. Sanchez, Mr. Sanchez suffered serious emotional injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment. 210. The arrest, detention and prosecution of Mr. Sanchez lacked probable cause, and were done maliciously, falsely, and in bad faith. Defendants Flynn, Doe # 3 and Doe # 4 acted in wanton and reckless disregard for the rights of Mr. Sanchez. 211. Mr. Sanchez has suffered substantial emotional harm as a result of his arrest by defendants. He was terrorized by the assault, and the manner in which he was grabbed by defendant Flynn. He continues to think about it almost daily. Anthony Fearon 212. On July 6, 2011, Mr. Fearon was employed as a Program Aid in a summer school program. 213. Mr. Fearon was at work on Wednesday, July 6, 2011.
32

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 33 of 42
214. At approximately 6:45 pm on July 6, 2011, Mr. Fearon was walking home from work by himself on the sidewalk alongside Bruckner Boulevard in the Bronx.
215. As Mr. Fearon was nearing the intersection of Bruckner Boulevard and Hayemeyer Avenue, he noticed two police officers in plain clothes sitting in an unmarked van at a stop sign.
216. When Mr. Fearon reached the intersection, without a warrant and without cause, one of the police officers demanded that Mr. Fearon stop and speak with him.
217. Mr. Fearon complied and approached the van. 218. As Mr. Fearon approached the men, defendants Lancia and Doe # 5 exited the van. 219. Defendant Doe # 5 began interrogating Mr. Fearon, asking him where he lived, where he was coming from, and a barrage of other questions. 220. While defendant Doe # 5 questioned Mr. Fearon, the second officer, defendant Lancia, walked up to Mr. Fearon and, without any explanation, cause, or warning, began an invasive search of Mr. Fearon’s clothing. Mr. Fearon never consented to the search. 221. During the course of this warrantless, unreasonable and unjustified search, defendant Lancia lifted Mr. Fearon’s shirt, reached directly into Mr. Fearon’s pockets, and recovered a small bag of marijuana – less than two grams – from the coin pocket of his pants. 222. Mr. Fearon was handcuffed, and transported to the 43rd precinct. 223. Mr. Fearon was detained at the precinct for more than seven hours, and was not released until approximately 2:00 a.m. on July 7, 2011. 224. While he was in custody, Mr. Fearon was fingerprinted.
33

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 34 of 42
225. On September 27, 2011, a criminal complaint was filed against Mr. Fearon, charging him with Unlawful Possession of Marijuana, a violation, pursuant to N.Y. Penal Law § 221.05, and with Criminal Possession of Marijuana, a misdemeanor, pursuant to N.Y. Penal Law § 221.10.
226. In a deposition in support of the complaint against Mr. Fearon, defendant Lancia falsely stated, under penalty of perjury, that Mr. Fearon was observed with one zip-lock bag of marijuana in his “right hand in plain public view,” which he then placed in “his right front jeans coin pocket.”
227. These charges were knowingly and intentionally false and malicious. 228. Mr. Fearon appeared at court four times in order to defend himself against these unjustified and unlawful charges, and was excused from appearing in court on a further seven occasions when his criminal defense attorney appeared on his behalf. 229. The criminal charges remained pending against Mr. Fearon for almost two years. 230. The criminal charges against Mr. Fearon were dismissed in his favor on May 9, 2013. 231. As a result of defendants’ conduct described above, including restraining, falsely arresting, falsely imprisoning, illegally searching, and maliciously prosecuting Mr. Fearon, Mr. Fearon suffered serious emotional injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment. 232. The arrest, detention and prosecution of Mr. Fearon lacked probable cause, and were done maliciously, falsely, and in bad faith. Defendants Lancia and John Doe # 5 acted in wanton and reckless disregard for the rights of Mr. Fearon.
34

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 35 of 42
233. Shortly after he was arrested, Mr. Fearon learned from his supervisor that, because he had been fingerprinted while in custody, his arrest had been to the school in which he worked. As a result of his arrest, Mr. Fearon was temporarily suspended from work.
234. During the 2011-2012 school year, Mr. Fearon was interviewed three times for a potential promotion to another teaching position. At each interview, his July 6, 2011 arrest was discussed. Mr. Fearon never received a promotion.
235. In September 2012, approximately fourteen months after he was arrested, Mr. Fearon’s employment was not extended for the upcoming school year and he was terminated. Mr. Fearon had been employed since 2008.
236. Within ninety days after the criminal charges against him were dismissed in his favor, a written notice of claim, sworn by Mr. Fearon, was served upon defendants at the Comptroller’s Office at 1 Centre Street, New York, New York.
237. At least thirty days have elapsed since the service of the notice of claim, and adjustment or payment of the claim has been neglected or refused.
238. This action has been commenced within one year and ninety days after the criminal charges against Mr. Fearon were dismissed in his favor.
AS AND FOR A FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Against All Individual Defendants) 239. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 240. By reason of the foregoing, by stopping Plaintiffs without cause, by unlawfully searching Plaintiffs, by confining Plaintiffs against their will, by using gratuitous, excessive, and unconscionable force against Plaintiffs, by imprisoning Plaintiffs, by falsifying an account surrounding the events upon which the criminal complaints against Plaintiffs were
35

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 36 of 42
based, by making false statements under oath in the criminal court proceedings against Plaintiffs, by maliciously prosecuting Plaintiffs, by failing to take steps to intercede and protect Plaintiffs from such treatment, by falsifying the criminal complaints against Plaintiffs for collateral purposes, including but not limited to satisfying the NYPD’s quotas, and by intentionally discriminating against Plaintiffs by targeting communities of color for heightened enforcement of marijuana laws, the Individual Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of rights, remedies, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to every citizen of the United States, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including but not limited to, rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The Individuals Defendants’ conduct manifested deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
241. The Individual Defendants acted under pretense and color of state law and in their individual and official capacities and within the scope of their respective employments as NYPD officers. Said acts by the Individual Defendants were beyond the scope of their jurisdiction, without authority of law, and in abuse of their powers. The Individual Defendants acted willfully, knowingly, and with the specific intent to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights secured by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
242. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct and abuse of authority detailed above, Plaintiffs sustained the damages hereinbefore alleged.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Against All Supervisory Defendants) 243. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth at length herein.
36

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 37 of 42
244. The Supervisory Defendants were, at the relevant times, supervisory personnel within the NYPD, with oversight responsibility over the Individual Defendants. They were responsible for the training, instruction, supervision and discipline of the Individual Defendants, who applied New York’s marijuana laws in a race-based manner by intentionally targeting communities of color, who Manufactured Misdemeanors, and who unlawfully stopped, illegally searched, falsely arrested, and maliciously prosecuted Plaintiffs in violation of their constitutional rights. The Supervisory Defendants were also responsible for instructing the Individual Defendants to intentionally discriminate against, and target, communities of color, because of race and/or national origin, in order to achieve the quotas mandated by the NYPD.
245. Upon information and belief, the Supervisory Defendants were aware and well-informed of the Individual Defendants’ unconstitutional conduct perpetrated against Plaintiffs.
246. The Supervisory Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge that the Individual Defendants were engaging in conduct that posed a pervasive and unreasonable threat to the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs.
247. The Supervisory Defendants failed to protect Plaintiffs despite their knowledge that the Individual Defendants violated their constitutional rights and posed a serious threat to the free exercise of their constitutionally protected rights.
248. The response of the Supervisory Defendants to their knowledge of this threat was so inadequate as to show deliberate indifference or tacit approval of the conduct of the Individual Defendants.
37

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 38 of 42
249. The failure of the Supervisory Defendants to supervise and discipline the Individual Defendants amounted to gross negligence, deliberate indifference, and/or intentional misconduct.
250. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct and abuse of authority detailed above, Plaintiffs sustained the damages hereinbefore alleged.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Against Defendant City) 251. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 252. Defendant City, through the NYPD, and acting under the pretense and color of law, was aware of the prevalence of Manufactured Misdemeanors in New York City. Nonetheless, defendant City permitted, tolerated and deliberately chose to ignore a pattern and practice of police officers charging individuals with violations of § 221.10 without probable cause to do so. It was obvious, and defendant City knew, that increased supervision and training would curtail the practice of Manufactured Misdemeanors, yet defendant City failed to provide this necessary supervision and training. This widespread practice of, and tolerance for, Manufactured Misdemeanors by the NYPD constituted a municipal policy, practice, or custom and led to Plaintiffs’ malicious prosecutions. 253. Defendant City, through the NYPD, and acting under the pretense and color of law, has implemented a policy, practice and/or custom whereby NYPD officers target communities of color for enforcement of New York’s marijuana laws. Defendant City has been aware of, and deliberately indifferent to, the policy, practice and/or custom whereby NYPD officers intentionally discriminate against, and target, people of color, such as Plaintiffs, by
38

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 39 of 42
Manufacturing Misdemeanors against them, in order to achieve collateral purposes, including but not limited to reaching quotas set by the NYPD.
254. By permitting, tolerating, and sanctioning a persistent and widespread policy, practice and custom pursuant to which Plaintiffs were subjected to false arrest, Manufactured Misdemeanors and malicious prosecution, defendant City has deprived Plaintiffs of rights, remedies, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to every citizen of the United States secured by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including but not limited to, the right to be free from unlawful and unwarranted deprivations of liberty and the right to equal treatment under the law guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
255. As a direct and proximate result of the policy, practice and custom detailed above, Plaintiffs sustained the damages hereinbefore alleged.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Malicious Prosecution
(Against Individual Defendants and Defendant City) 256. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 257. The Individual Defendants, without probable cause, initiated a prosecution against Plaintiffs by falsely charging them with violating § 221.10. In so doing, the Individual Defendants acted with a knowing, willful, wanton, malicious, grossly reckless, unlawful, unreasonable, unconscionable, and flagrant disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights, privileges, welfare and well-being, and are guilty of egregious and gross misconduct toward Plaintiffs. 258. All criminal proceedings commenced against Plaintiffs were terminated in Plaintiffs’ favor.
39

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 40 of 42
259. Defendant City, as employer of the Individual Defendants, is responsible for the Individual Defendants’ wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat superior.3
260. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct and abuse of authority detailed above, Plaintiffs sustained the damages hereinbefore alleged.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violation of N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 160.10
(Against Individual Defendants and Defendant City) 261. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 262. Despite the fact that the Individual Defendants were able to ascertain each Plaintiff’s identity at the time of arrest, the Individual Defendants took each Plaintiff’s fingerprints in violation of N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 160.10. In so doing, the Individual Defendants acted with a knowing, willful, wanton, malicious, grossly reckless, unlawful, unreasonable, unconscionable, and flagrant disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights, privileges, welfare and well-being, and are guilty of egregious and gross misconduct toward Plaintiffs. 263. Defendant City, as employer of the Individual Defendants, is responsible for the Individual Defendants’ wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat superior.4 264. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct and abuse of authority detailed above, Plaintiffs sustained the damages hereinbefore alleged.
AS AND FOR A SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Negligent Hiring/Training/Discipline/Retention of Employment Services
(Against Defendant City) 265. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth at length herein.5
3 Mr. Sanchez does not bring a claim for malicious prosecution against the City under New York law at this time. 4 Mr. Sanchez does not bring a claim for violation of N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 160.10 against the City at this time.
40

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 41 of 42 266. Defendant City, through the NYPD, owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs to
prevent the conduct alleged, because under the same or similar circumstances, a reasonable, prudent, and careful person should have anticipated that injury to Plaintiffs or to those in a like situation would probably result from the foregoing conduct.
267. Upon information and belief, defendant City knew or should have known, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, that the Individual Defendants were likely to engage in the injurious unconstitutional conduct alleged above.
268. Upon information and belief, defendant City’s negligence in screening, hiring, training, disciplining, and retaining these Individual Defendants proximately caused Plaintiffs’ false arrests and malicious prosecutions.
269. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct and abuse of authority detailed above, Plaintiffs sustained the damages hereinbefore alleged.
5 Mr. Sanchez does not bring this claim at this time.
41

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 18 Filed 09/06/13 Page 42 of 42

 
 Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 1 of 57

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------- X
MAUROSOL FELIX, ET AL.,

01/07/2014

-against-

Plaintiffs,

JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 68

CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL.,

Defendants.

----------------------------------------------------------------------- X

13 Civ. 2941 (JMF) (KNF)
II

WHEREAS, plaintiffs Maurosol Felix, Francisco Zapata, Danilo Melendez, Angel Sanchez, and Abraham Collins commenced this action by filing a complaint on or about May 2, 2013, and thereafter, on May 30,2013, filed an amended complaint along with additional plaintiff Anthony Fearon, alleging that defendants violated their federal civil and state common law rights; and
WHEREAS, defendants have denied any and all liability arising out of plaintiffs allegations; and
WHEREAS, defendants City ofNew York, Raymond Kelly, Russell Green, John Hart, and Marc Busell served plaintiffs with Offers of Judgment pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on November 8, 2013, and served plaintiffs Melendez, Collins, Sanchez, and Fearon with revised Rule 68 Offers of Judgment on November 15, 2013; and
WHEREAS, on November 21, 2013, plaintiffs Felix and Zapata accepted the Offers of Judgment and plaintiffs Melendez, Collins, Sanchez, and Fearon accepted the revised Offers of Judgment;

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 2 of 57
NOW, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: 1. Pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs will
take judgment against defendant City of New York in this action for the amounts set forth below, plus reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs for plaintiffs' federal claims accrued as of November 8, 2013.
a. For plaintiff Danilo Melendez, the sum of Twelve Thousand Five Hundred and One ($12,50 1.00) Dollars;
b. For plaintiff Angel Sanchez, the sum of Twelve Thousand Five Hundred and One ($12,50 1.00) Dollars;
c. For plaintiff Anthony Fearon, the sum of Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred and One ($17,501.00) Dollars;
d. For plaintiff Abraham Collins, the sum of Twelve Thousand Five Hundred and One ($12,50 1.00) Dollars;
e. For plaintiff Francisco Zapata, the sum of Fifty Thousand and One ($50,001.00) Dollars;
f. For plaintiff Maurosol Felix, the sum of Fifty Thousand and One ($50,00 1.00) Dollars;
2. This judgment shall be in full satisfaction of all federal and state law claims or rights plaintiffs may have to damages, or any other form of relief, from or against defendants, or any official or employee, either past or present, of the City of New York, or agency thereof, arising out of the events alleged in the Complaint in this action.

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 3 of 57
3. This judgment shall not be construed to be an admission ofliability by any defendant, official, employee, representative, or agent, past or present, of the City ofNew York, or agency thereof.
4. Acceptance of the Rule 68 Offer of Judgment acts to release and discharge all defendants; their successors or assigns; and all past and present officials, employees, representatives, and agents of the City of New York, or any agency thereof, from any and all claims that were or could have been alleged by plaintiffs arising out of the facts and circumstances that are the subject of this action.
5. Plaintiffs agree the payment of the amounts set forth above in paragraph number "1", subsections "a" through "f', within ninety (90) days ofthe date of acceptance ofthe Offers shall be a reasonable time for such payment.
6. Acceptance of the Offers of Judgment operated to waive plaintiffs' right to any claim for interest on the amount of the judgment.
7. Annexed hereto as Exhibit "A" are defendants' Rule 68 Offers of Judgment made to plaintiffs Felix and Zapata, and revised Offers of Judgment made to plaintiffs Melendez, Sanchez, Collins, and Fearon.
8. Annexed hereto as Exhibit "B" are plaintiffs' written acceptances of the Rule 68 Offers of Judgment and revised Offers of Judgment. Dated: New York, New York
1.:keuvt~ If> , 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS DOCUMENT WAS ENTERED
- - - - - ON THE DOCKET ON

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 4 of 57

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MAUROSOL FELIX, ET AL.,
-against-
CITY OF NEV/ YORK, ET AL.,

x

Plaintiffs,

RULE 68 OFFER OF JUDGMENT

Defendants. l3 Civ.294t (JMF) (KNF)
x

Pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants City of New York, Raymond Kelly, Russell Green, John Hart, and Marc Busell hereby offer to allow
plaintiff Maurosol Felix to take a judgment against the City of New York in this action for the
total sum of Fifty Thousand and One ($50,001.00) Dollars, plus reasonable attorneys' fees,
expenses, and costs to the date of this offer for plaintiff Maurosol Felix's federal claims. This judgment shall be in fulI satisfaction of all federal and state law claims or
rights that plaintiff Maurosol Felix may have to damages, or any other form of relief, arising out of the alleged acts or omissions of defendants or any official, employee, or agent, either past or
present, of the City of New York, or any agency thereof, in connection with the facts and
circumstances that are the subject of this action. This offer of judgment may only be accepted up to and including November 22,
2013.
This offer of judgment is made for the pu{poses specified in Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is not to be construed as an admission of liability by defendants or any off,rcial, employee, or agent of the City of New York, or arry agency thereof;
nor is it an admission that plaintiffs have suffered any damages.

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 5 of 57
Acceptance of this offer ofjudgment will act to release and discharge defendants; their successors or assigns; and all past and present officials, employees, representatives, and agents of the City of New York, or any agency thereof, from any and all claims that were or could have been alleged by plaintiff Maurosol Felix arising out of the facts and circumstances
that are the subject of this action.
Acceptance of this offer ofjudgment also will operate to waive plaintiff Maurosol
Felix's rights to any claim for interest on the amount of the judgment.
Plaintiff Maurosol Felix agrees that payment of Fifty Thousand and One
($50,001.00) Dollars within ninety (90) days of the date of acceptance of the offer shall be a reasonable time for such payrnent, unless plaintiff received medical treatment in connection with the underlying claims in this case for which Medicare has provided, or will provide, payment in
full or in part. If plaintiff Maurosol Felix is a Medicare recipient who received medical
treatment in connection with the claims in this case, the ninety (90) day period for payment shall start to run from the date plaintiff submits to counsel for defendants a final demand letter from
Medicare.
By acceptance of this Rule 68 Offer of Judgment, plaintiff Maurosol Felix agrees to resolve any claim that Medicare may have for reimbursement of conditional payments it has
made as secondary payer, and a Medicare Set-Aside Trust shall be created, if required by 42
U.S.C. g 1395y(b) and 42 C.F.R. $$ 411 .22 tluough 411.26. Plaintiff Maurosol Felix turther agrees to hold harmless defendants and all past and present officials, employees, representatives
and agents of the City of New York, oÍ any agency thereof, regarding any past and/or future
Medicare payments, presently knowri or unknown, made in connection with this matter.
-2-

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 6 of 57

Dated:

The judgment shall contain and recite the terms and conditions set forth herein.
New York, New York November 8,2013

MICHAEL A. CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of the
City of New York Attorneyfor Defendants City, Kelly, Green, Hart, and Busell 100 Church Street, Room 3-208 New York, New York 10007 (2 I 356-26s6

By

To: VIA HAND DELIVERY
Katherine Rosenfeld, Esq. Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP 75 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor New York, Nerv York 10019
To: VIA HAND DELIVERY
Sam Shapiro, Esq.
Emery Celli Brinkerhoff & Abady LLP 75 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor New York, New York 10019

As sistant Corp oration Couns eI

-J-

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 7 of 57

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEV/ YORK
MAUROSOL FELIX, ET AL.,
-against-
CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL.,

------------- x

Plaintiffs,

RULE 68 OFFER OF JUDGMENT

Defendants. 13 Civ.294t (JMF) (KNF)
x

Pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants City of

New York, Raymond Kelly, Russell Green, John Hart, and Marc Busell hereby offer to allow

plaintiff Francisco Zapata to take a judgment against the City of New York in this action for the

total sum of Fifty Thousand and One ($50,001.00) Dollars, plus reasonable attorneys' fees,

expenses, and costs to the date of this offer for plaintiff Francisco Zapata's federal claims.

This judgment shall be in ful1 satisfaction of all federal and state law claims or

rights that plaintiff Francisco Zapafa may have to damages, or any other form of relief; arising

out of the alleged acts or omissions of defendants or any official, employee, or agent, either past

or present, of the City of New York, or any agency thereof, in connection with the facts and

circumstances that are the subject of this action.

This offer of judgment may only be accepted up to and including November 22,

20t3.

This offer of judgment is made for the purposes specified in Rule 68 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is not to be construed as an admission of liability by

defendants or any official, employee, or agent of the City of New York, or any agency thereof;

nor is it an admission that plaintiffs have suffered any damages.

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 8 of 57

Acceptance of this offer ofjudgment will act to release and discharge defendants;

their successors or assigns; and all past and present offrcials, employees, representatives, and agents of the City of New York, or any agency thereof, from any and all claims that were or could have been alleged by plaintiff Francisco Zapata arising out of the facts and circumstances

that are the subject of this action.
Acceptance of this offer ofjudgment also will operate to waive plaintiff Francisco
Zapata's rights to any claim for interest on the amount of the judgment.
Plaintiff Francisco Zapata agrees that payment of Fifty Thousand and One
($50,001.00) Dollars within ninety (90) days of the date of acceptance of the offer shall be a reasonable time for such payment, unless plaintiff received medical treatment in connection with the underlying claims in this case for which Medicare has provided, or will provide, payment in
full or in part. If plaintiff Francisco Zapata is a Medicare recipient who received medical
treatment in connection with the claims in this case, the ninety (90) day period for payment shall start to run from the date plaintiff submits to counsel for defendants a final demand letter from

Medicare.

By acceptance of this Rule 68 Offer of Judgment, plaintiff Francisco Zapata

agrees to resolve any claim that Medicare may have for reimbursement of conditional payments
it has made as secondary payer, and a Medicare Set-Aside Trust shall be created, if required by 42 U.S.C. g 1395y(b) and 42 C.F.R. $$ 411.22 tlvough 411.26. Plaintiff Francisco Zapata further agrees to hold harmless defendants and all past and present officials, employees,
representatives and agents of the City of New York, or any agency thereof, regarding any past and/or future Medicare payments, presently known or unknown, made in connection with this

matter.

2

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 9 of 57

Dated:

The judgment shall contain and recite the terms and conditions set forth herein.
New York, New York November 8,2013

MICHAEL A. CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of the
City of New York Attorneyfor Defendants City, Kelly, Green, Hart, and Busell 100 Church Street, Room 3-208 New York, New York 10007 (2r2) 3s6-26s6

By
To: VIA HAND DELIVERY
Katherine Rosenfeld, Esq.
Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP 75 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor New York, New York 10019
To: VIA HAND DELIVERY
Sam Shapiro, Esq.
Emery Celli Brinkerhoff & Abady LLP 75 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor New York, New York 10019

Patrick Beath Assis tant Corporation Couns el

-3 -

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 10 of 57

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEV/ YORK

MAUROSOL FELIX, ET AL.,
-against-
CITY OF NEV/ YORK, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

RULE 68 OFFER OF JUDGMENT

Defendants. t3 Civ.294t (JMF) (KNF)
x

Pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants hereby offer to allow plaintiff Danilo Melendez to take a judgment against the City of New York in this action for the total sum of Twelve Thousand Five Hundred and One ($12,501.00) Dollars, plus reasonable attomeys' fees, expenses, and costs accrued up to and including November 8,2013 for plaintiff Danilo Melendez's federal claims.
This judgment shall be in full satisfaction of all federal and state law claims or rights that plaintiff Danilo Melendez may have to damages, or any other form of relief, arising out of the alleged acts or omissions of defendants or any official, employee, or agent, either past or present, of the City of New York, or any agency thereof, in connection with the facts and
circumstances that are the subject of this action. This offer of judgment may only be accepted up to and including November 29,
20t3.
This offer of judgment is made for the purposes specif,red in Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is not to be construed as an admission of liability by
defendants or any official, employee, or agent of the City of New York, or any agency thereof; nor is it an admission that plaintiffs have suffered any damages.

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 11 of 57
Acceptance of this offer ofjudgment will act to release and discharge defendants; their successors or assigns; and all past and present officials, employees, representatives, and agents of the City of New York, or any agency thereof, from any and all claims that were or could have been alleged by plaintiff Danilo Melendez arising out of the facts and circumstances
that are the subject of this action.
Acceptance of this offer ofjudgment also will operate to waive plaintiff Danilo
Melendez's rights to any claim for interest on the amount of the judgment. Plaintiff Danilo Melendezagîees that payment of Twelve Thousand Five Hundred
and One ($12,501.00) Dollars within ninety (90) days of the date of acceptance of the offer shall be a reasonable time for such payment, unless plaintiff received medical treatment in connection
with the underlying claims in this case for which Medicare has provided, or will provide, payment in full or in part. If plaintiff Danilo Melendez is a Medicare recipient who received medical treatment in connection with the claims in this case, the ninety (90) day period for payment shall start to run from the date plaintiff submits to counsel for defendants a final
demand letter from Medicare.
By acceptance of this Rule 68 Offer of Judgment, plaintiff Danilo Melendez
agrees to resolve any claim that Medicare may have for reimbursement of conditional payments
it has made as secondary payer, and a Medicare Set-Aside Trust shall be created, if required by 42U.S.C.91395y(b) and42 C.F.R. $$411.22 through 411.26. Plaintiff Danilo Melendez further agrees to hold harmless defendants and all past and present officials, employees,
representatives and agents of the City of New York, or any agency thereof, regarding any past andJor future Medicare payments, presently known or unknown, made in connection with this matter

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 12 of 57

Dated:

The judgment shall contain and recite the terms and conditions set forth herein.
New York, New York November 15,2013

To: VIA EMAIL
Katherine Rosenfeld, Esq. A t t o r n ey fo r P I ai n t iffs kro senfeld@ecbalaw. com
To: VIA EMAIL
Sam Shapiro, Esq.
Attorneyfor Plaintffi
sshapiro@ecbalaw.com
To: VIA EMAIL
Scott Levy, Esq.
Attorneyfor Plaintffi
scottl@bronxdefenders. org

MICHAEL A. CARDOZO

Corporation Counsel of the

City of New York

Attorneyfor Defendants City, Kelly, Green, Hart,

and Busell

100 Church Street, Room 3-208

New York, New York 10007

(212) 3

6

By
Beath, As sistant Corporation Couns el

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 13 of 57

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEV/ YORK
MAUROSOL FELIX, ET AL.,
-against-
CITY OF NEV/ YORK, ET AL.,

X

Plaintiffs,

RULE 68 OFFER OF JUDGMENT

Defendants. l3 Civ.294t (JMF) (KNF)
--- x

Pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants hereby offer to allow plaintiff Abraham Collins to take a judgment against the City of New York in this action for the total sum of Twelve Thousand Five Hundred and One ($12,501.00) Dollars, plus reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs accrued up to and including November 8,2013 for plaintiff Abraham Collins' federal claims.
This judgment shall be in full satisfaction of all federal and state law claims or
rights that plaintiff Abraham Collins may have to damages, or any other form of relief, arising out of the alleged acts or omissions of defendants or any official, employee, or agent, either past or present, of the City of New York, or any agency thereof, in connection with the facts and circumstances that are the subject of this action.
This offer of judgment may only be accepted up to and including November 29, 2013.
This offer of judgment is made for the purposes specified in Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is not to be construed as an admission of liability by
defendants or any official, employee, or agent of the City of New York, or any agency thereof; nor is it an admission that plaintiffs have suffered any damages.

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 14 of 57
Acceptance of this offer ofjudgment will act to release and discharge defendants; their successors or assigns; and all past and present officials, employees, representatives, and agents of the City of New York, or any agency thereof, from any and all claims that were or
could have been alleged by plaintiff Abraham Collins arising out of the facts and circumstances that are the subject of this action.
Acceptance of this offer ofjudgment also will operate to waive plaintiff Abraham
Collins' rights to any claim for interest on the amount of the judgment. Plaintiff Abraham Collins agrees that payment of Twelve Thousand Five Hundred
and One ($12,501;00) Dollars within ninety (90) days of the date of acceptance of the offer shall be a reasonable time for such payrnent, unless plaintiff received medical treatment in connection
with the underlying claims in this case for which Medicare has provided, or will provide, payment in fuIl or in part. If plaintiff Abraham Collins is a Medicare recipient who received medical treatment in connection with the claims in this case, the ninety (90) day period for payment shall start to run from the date plaintiff submits to counsel for defendants a final
demand letter from Medicare.
By acceptance of this Rule 68 Offer of Judgment, plaintiff Abraham Collins
agrees to resolve any claim that Medicare may have for reimbursement of conditional payments
it has made as secondary payer, and a Medicare Set-Aside Trust shall be ueated, if required by 42 U.S.C. g 1395y(b) and 42 C.F.R. $$411.22 through 411.26. Plaintiff Abraham Collins further agrees to hold harmless defendants and all past and present officials, employees,
representatives and agents of the City of New York, or any agency thereof, regarding any past and/or future Medicare payments, presently known or unknown, made in connection with this
matter.

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 15 of 57

Dated

The judgment shall contain and recite the terms and conditions set forth herein.
New York, New York November 15,2013

To: VIA EMAIL
Katherine Rosenfeld, Esq.
Attorneyfor Plaintffi
krosenfeld@ecbalaw. com
To: VIA EMAIL
Sam Shapiro, Esq.
Attorneyfor Plaintffi
sshapiro@ecbalaw.com
To: VIA EMAIL
Scott Levy, Esq.
Anorneyfor Plaintffi
scottl@bronxdefenders. org

MICHAEL A. CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of the
City of New York Attorneyfor Defendants City, Kelly, Green, Hart, and Busell 100 Church Street, Room 3-208 New York, New York 10007 (212) 56-2656
By Beath, Patrick As sis tant Corporation Couns el

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 16 of 57

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MAUROSOL FELIX, ET AL.,
-against-
CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL.,

X

Plaintifß,

RULE 68 OFFER OF'JUDGMENT

Defendants. t3 Civ.294t (JMF) (KNF)
X

Pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants hereby

offer to allow plaintiff Angel Sanchez to take a judgment against the City of New York in this

action for the total sum of Twelve Thousand Five Hundred and One ($12,501.00) Dollars, plus

reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs accrued up to and including November 8,2073

for plaintiff Angel Sanchez's federal claims.

This judgment shall be in fuIl satisfaction of all federal and state law claims or

rights that plaintiff Angel Sanchez may have to damages, or any other form of relief, arising out

of the alleged acts or omissions of defendants or any official, employee, or agent, either past or
present, of the City of New York, ot any agency thereof, in connection with the facts and

circumstances that are the subject of this action.

This offer of judgment may only be accepted up to and including November 29,

2013.

This offer of judgment is made for the purposes specified in Rule 68 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is not to be construed as an admission of liability by

defendants or any official, employee, or agent of the City of New York, or any agency thereof;

nor is it an admission that plaintiffs have suffered any damages.

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 17 of 57
Acceptance of this offer ofjudgment will act to release and discharge defendants; their successors or assigns; and all past and present officials, employees, representatives, and agents of the City of New York, or any agency thereof, from any and all claims that were or could have been alleged by plaintiff Angel Sanchez arising out of the facts and circumstances
that are the subject of this action.
Acceptance of this offer of judgment also will operate to waive plaintiff Angel
Sanchez's rights to any claim for interest on the amount of the judgment.
Plaintiff Angel Sanchez agrees that payment of Twelve Thousand Five Hundred and One ($12,501.00) Dollars within ninety (90) days of the date of acceptance of the offer shall be a reasonable time for such payment, unless plaintiff received medical treatment in connection
with the underlying claims in this case for which Medicare has provided, or will provide, payment in full or in part. If plaintiff Angel Sanchez is a Medicare recipient who received medical treatment in connection with the claims in this case, the ninety (90) day period for payment shall start to run from the date plaintiff submits to counsel for defendants a f,tnal
demand letter from Medicare. By acceptance of this Rule 68 Offer of Judgment, plaintiff Angel Sanchez agrees
to resolve any claim that Medicare may have for reimbursement of conditional payments it has
made as secondary payer, and a Medicare Set-Aside Trust shall be created, if required by 42
U.S.C. $ 1395y(b) and 42 C.F.R. $$ 411 .22 through 411.26. Plaintiff Angel Sanchez further agrees to hold harmless defendants and all past and present officials, employees, representatives and agents of the City of New York, or any ageîcy thereof, regarding any past andlor future Medicare payments, presently known or unknown, made in connection with this matter.

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 18 of 57

Dated:

The judgment shall contain and recite the terms and conditions set forth herein.
New York, New York November 15,2013

To: VIA EMAIL
Katherine Rosenfeld, Esq.
Attorneyfor Plaintffi
kro senfeld@ecbalaw. com
To: VIA EMAIL
Sam Shapiro, Esq. At t orn ey fo r P I ain tiffs sshapiro@ecbalaw.com
To: VIA EMAIL
Scott Levy, Esq.
Attorneyfor Plaintffi
scottl@bronxdefenders. org

MICHAEL A. CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of the
City of New York Attorneyfor Defendants City, Kelly, Green, Hart, and Busell 100 Church Street, Room 3-208 New York, New York 10007 (212)
By
Beath, P Assistant Corporation Couns el

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 19 of 57

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTzuCT OF NEW YORK
MAUROSOL FELIX, ET AL.,
-against-
CITY OF NEV/ YORK, ET AL.,

x

Plaintiffs,

RULE 68 OFFER OF JUDGMENT

Defendants. l3 Civ.294I (JMF) (KNF)
--- x

Pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants hereby offer to allow plaintiff Anthony Fearon to take a judgment against the City of New York in this action for the total sum of Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred and One ($17,501.00) Dollars, plus reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs accrued up to and including November 8, 2013 for plaintiff Anthony Fearon's federal claims.
This judgment shall be in full satisfaction of all federal and state law claims or
rights that plaintiff Anthony Fearon may have to damages, or any other form of relief, arising out of the alleged acts or omissions of defendants or any official, employee, or agent, either past or
present, of the City of New York, or any agency thereof, in connection with the facts and
circumstances that are the subject of this action. This offer of judgment may only be accepted up to and including November 29,
2013.
This offer of judgment is made for the purposes specified in Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is not to be construed as an admission of liability by
defendants or any official, employee, or agent of the City of New York, or any agency thereof; nor is it an admission that plaintiffs have suffered any damages.

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 20 of 57
Acceptance of this offer ofjudgment will act to release and discharge defendants; their successors or assigns; and all past and present officials, employees, representatives, and agents of the City of New York, or any agency thereof, from any and all claims that were or could have been alleged by plaintiff Anthony Fearon arising out of the facts and circumstances
that are the subject of this action.
Acceptance of this offer ofjudgment also will operate to waive plaintiff Anthony
Fearon's rights to any claim for interest on the amount of the judgment.
Plaintiff Anthony Fearon agrees that payment of Seventeen Thousand Five
Hundred and One ($17,501.00) Dollars within ninety (90) days of the date of acceptance of the offer shall be a reasonable time for such payrnent, unless plaintiff received medical treatment in connection with the underlying claims in this case for which Medicare has provided, or will
provide, payment in full or in part. If plaintiff Anthony Fearon is a Medicare recipient who
received medical treatment in connection with the claims in this case, the ninety (90) day period for payment shall start to run from the date plaintiff submits to counsel for defendants a final demand letter from Medicare.
By acceptance of this Rule 68 Offer of Judgment, plaintiff Anthony Fearon agrees to resolve any claim that Medicare may have for reimbursement of conditional payments it has
made as secondary payer, and a Medicare Set-Aside Trust shall be created, if required by 42
U.S.C. $ 1395y(b) and 42 C.F.R. $$ 411 .22 thro,tgh 411.26. Plaintiff Anthony Fearon turther agrees to hold harmless defendants and all past and present officials, employees, representatives and agents of the City of New York, or any agency thereof, regarding any past and/or future Medicare payments, presently known or unknown, made in connection with this matter.

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 21 of 57

)

The judgment shall contain and recite the terms and conditions set forth herein.

1

-l

Dated:

New York, New York

November 15,2013

To: VIA EMAIL
Katherine Rosenfeld, Esq.
Attorneyfor Plaintffi
krosenfeld@ecbal aw. com
To: VIA EMAIL
Sam Shapiro, Esq.
Attorneyþr Plaintffi
sshapiro@ecbalaw.com
To: VIA EMAIL
Scott Lev¡ Esq. Attorneyfor Plaintffi
scottl@bronxdefenders. org

MICHAEL A. CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of the
City of New York Attorneyfor Defendants Cíty, Kelly, Green, Hart, and Busell 100 Church Street, Room 3-208 New York, New York 10007 (2r2)3 26s6
By
Assistant Corporation Couns el

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 22 of 57

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 23 of 57

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 24 of 57
Exhibit A

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 25 of 57

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEV/ YORK

MAUROSOL FELIX, ET AL.,
-against-
CITY OF NEV/ YORK, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

RULE 68 OFFER OF JUDGMENT

Defendants. t3 Civ.294t (JMF) (KNF)
x

Pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants hereby offer to allow plaintiff Danilo Melendez to take a judgment against the City of New York in this action for the total sum of Twelve Thousand Five Hundred and One ($12,501.00) Dollars, plus reasonable attomeys' fees, expenses, and costs accrued up to and including November 8,2013 for plaintiff Danilo Melendez's federal claims.
This judgment shall be in full satisfaction of all federal and state law claims or rights that plaintiff Danilo Melendez may have to damages, or any other form of relief, arising out of the alleged acts or omissions of defendants or any official, employee, or agent, either past or present, of the City of New York, or any agency thereof, in connection with the facts and
circumstances that are the subject of this action. This offer of judgment may only be accepted up to and including November 29,
20t3.
This offer of judgment is made for the purposes specif,red in Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is not to be construed as an admission of liability by
defendants or any official, employee, or agent of the City of New York, or any agency thereof; nor is it an admission that plaintiffs have suffered any damages.

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 26 of 57
Acceptance of this offer ofjudgment will act to release and discharge defendants; their successors or assigns; and all past and present officials, employees, representatives, and agents of the City of New York, or any agency thereof, from any and all claims that were or could have been alleged by plaintiff Danilo Melendez arising out of the facts and circumstances
that are the subject of this action.
Acceptance of this offer ofjudgment also will operate to waive plaintiff Danilo
Melendez's rights to any claim for interest on the amount of the judgment. Plaintiff Danilo Melendezagîees that payment of Twelve Thousand Five Hundred
and One ($12,501.00) Dollars within ninety (90) days of the date of acceptance of the offer shall be a reasonable time for such payment, unless plaintiff received medical treatment in connection
with the underlying claims in this case for which Medicare has provided, or will provide, payment in full or in part. If plaintiff Danilo Melendez is a Medicare recipient who received medical treatment in connection with the claims in this case, the ninety (90) day period for payment shall start to run from the date plaintiff submits to counsel for defendants a final
demand letter from Medicare.
By acceptance of this Rule 68 Offer of Judgment, plaintiff Danilo Melendez
agrees to resolve any claim that Medicare may have for reimbursement of conditional payments
it has made as secondary payer, and a Medicare Set-Aside Trust shall be created, if required by 42U.S.C.91395y(b) and42 C.F.R. $$411.22 through 411.26. Plaintiff Danilo Melendez further agrees to hold harmless defendants and all past and present officials, employees,
representatives and agents of the City of New York, or any agency thereof, regarding any past andJor future Medicare payments, presently known or unknown, made in connection with this matter

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 27 of 57

Dated:

The judgment shall contain and recite the terms and conditions set forth herein.
New York, New York November 15,2013

To: VIA EMAIL
Katherine Rosenfeld, Esq. A t t o r n ey fo r P I ai n t iffs kro senfeld@ecbalaw. com
To: VIA EMAIL
Sam Shapiro, Esq.
Attorneyfor Plaintffi
sshapiro@ecbalaw.com
To: VIA EMAIL
Scott Levy, Esq.
Attorneyfor Plaintffi
scottl@bronxdefenders. org

MICHAEL A. CARDOZO

Corporation Counsel of the

City of New York

Attorneyfor Defendants City, Kelly, Green, Hart,

and Busell

100 Church Street, Room 3-208

New York, New York 10007

(212) 3

6

By
Beath, As sistant Corporation Couns el

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 28 of 57

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 29 of 57

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 30 of 57
Exhibit A

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 31 of 57

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MAUROSOL FELIX, ET AL.,
-against-
CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL.,

X

Plaintifß,

RULE 68 OFFER OF'JUDGMENT

Defendants. t3 Civ.294t (JMF) (KNF)
X

Pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants hereby

offer to allow plaintiff Angel Sanchez to take a judgment against the City of New York in this

action for the total sum of Twelve Thousand Five Hundred and One ($12,501.00) Dollars, plus

reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs accrued up to and including November 8,2073

for plaintiff Angel Sanchez's federal claims.

This judgment shall be in fuIl satisfaction of all federal and state law claims or

rights that plaintiff Angel Sanchez may have to damages, or any other form of relief, arising out

of the alleged acts or omissions of defendants or any official, employee, or agent, either past or
present, of the City of New York, ot any agency thereof, in connection with the facts and

circumstances that are the subject of this action.

This offer of judgment may only be accepted up to and including November 29,

2013.

This offer of judgment is made for the purposes specified in Rule 68 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is not to be construed as an admission of liability by

defendants or any official, employee, or agent of the City of New York, or any agency thereof;

nor is it an admission that plaintiffs have suffered any damages.

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 32 of 57
Acceptance of this offer ofjudgment will act to release and discharge defendants; their successors or assigns; and all past and present officials, employees, representatives, and agents of the City of New York, or any agency thereof, from any and all claims that were or could have been alleged by plaintiff Angel Sanchez arising out of the facts and circumstances
that are the subject of this action.
Acceptance of this offer of judgment also will operate to waive plaintiff Angel
Sanchez's rights to any claim for interest on the amount of the judgment.
Plaintiff Angel Sanchez agrees that payment of Twelve Thousand Five Hundred and One ($12,501.00) Dollars within ninety (90) days of the date of acceptance of the offer shall be a reasonable time for such payment, unless plaintiff received medical treatment in connection
with the underlying claims in this case for which Medicare has provided, or will provide, payment in full or in part. If plaintiff Angel Sanchez is a Medicare recipient who received medical treatment in connection with the claims in this case, the ninety (90) day period for payment shall start to run from the date plaintiff submits to counsel for defendants a f,tnal
demand letter from Medicare. By acceptance of this Rule 68 Offer of Judgment, plaintiff Angel Sanchez agrees
to resolve any claim that Medicare may have for reimbursement of conditional payments it has
made as secondary payer, and a Medicare Set-Aside Trust shall be created, if required by 42
U.S.C. $ 1395y(b) and 42 C.F.R. $$ 411 .22 through 411.26. Plaintiff Angel Sanchez further agrees to hold harmless defendants and all past and present officials, employees, representatives and agents of the City of New York, or any ageîcy thereof, regarding any past andlor future Medicare payments, presently known or unknown, made in connection with this matter.

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 33 of 57

Dated:

The judgment shall contain and recite the terms and conditions set forth herein.
New York, New York November 15,2013

To: VIA EMAIL
Katherine Rosenfeld, Esq.
Attorneyfor Plaintffi
kro senfeld@ecbalaw. com
To: VIA EMAIL
Sam Shapiro, Esq. At t orn ey fo r P I ain tiffs sshapiro@ecbalaw.com
To: VIA EMAIL
Scott Levy, Esq.
Attorneyfor Plaintffi
scottl@bronxdefenders. org

MICHAEL A. CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of the
City of New York Attorneyfor Defendants City, Kelly, Green, Hart, and Busell 100 Church Street, Room 3-208 New York, New York 10007 (212)
By
Beath, P Assistant Corporation Couns el

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 34 of 57

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 35 of 57

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 36 of 57

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 37 of 57

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 38 of 57

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 39 of 57

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 40 of 57

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 41 of 57

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 42 of 57
Exhibit A

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 43 of 57

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 44 of 57

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 45 of 57

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 46 of 57

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 47 of 57

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 48 of 57
Exhibit A

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 49 of 57

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEV/ YORK
MAUROSOL FELIX, ET AL.,
-against-
CITY OF NEV/ YORK, ET AL.,

X

Plaintiffs,

RULE 68 OFFER OF JUDGMENT

Defendants. l3 Civ.294t (JMF) (KNF)
--- x

Pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants hereby offer to allow plaintiff Abraham Collins to take a judgment against the City of New York in this action for the total sum of Twelve Thousand Five Hundred and One ($12,501.00) Dollars, plus reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs accrued up to and including November 8,2013 for plaintiff Abraham Collins' federal claims.
This judgment shall be in full satisfaction of all federal and state law claims or
rights that plaintiff Abraham Collins may have to damages, or any other form of relief, arising out of the alleged acts or omissions of defendants or any official, employee, or agent, either past or present, of the City of New York, or any agency thereof, in connection with the facts and circumstances that are the subject of this action.
This offer of judgment may only be accepted up to and including November 29, 2013.
This offer of judgment is made for the purposes specified in Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is not to be construed as an admission of liability by
defendants or any official, employee, or agent of the City of New York, or any agency thereof; nor is it an admission that plaintiffs have suffered any damages.

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 50 of 57
Acceptance of this offer ofjudgment will act to release and discharge defendants; their successors or assigns; and all past and present officials, employees, representatives, and agents of the City of New York, or any agency thereof, from any and all claims that were or
could have been alleged by plaintiff Abraham Collins arising out of the facts and circumstances that are the subject of this action.
Acceptance of this offer ofjudgment also will operate to waive plaintiff Abraham
Collins' rights to any claim for interest on the amount of the judgment. Plaintiff Abraham Collins agrees that payment of Twelve Thousand Five Hundred
and One ($12,501;00) Dollars within ninety (90) days of the date of acceptance of the offer shall be a reasonable time for such payrnent, unless plaintiff received medical treatment in connection
with the underlying claims in this case for which Medicare has provided, or will provide, payment in fuIl or in part. If plaintiff Abraham Collins is a Medicare recipient who received medical treatment in connection with the claims in this case, the ninety (90) day period for payment shall start to run from the date plaintiff submits to counsel for defendants a final
demand letter from Medicare.
By acceptance of this Rule 68 Offer of Judgment, plaintiff Abraham Collins
agrees to resolve any claim that Medicare may have for reimbursement of conditional payments
it has made as secondary payer, and a Medicare Set-Aside Trust shall be ueated, if required by 42 U.S.C. g 1395y(b) and 42 C.F.R. $$411.22 through 411.26. Plaintiff Abraham Collins further agrees to hold harmless defendants and all past and present officials, employees,
representatives and agents of the City of New York, or any agency thereof, regarding any past and/or future Medicare payments, presently known or unknown, made in connection with this
matter.

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 51 of 57

Dated

The judgment shall contain and recite the terms and conditions set forth herein.
New York, New York November 15,2013

To: VIA EMAIL
Katherine Rosenfeld, Esq.
Attorneyfor Plaintffi
krosenfeld@ecbalaw. com
To: VIA EMAIL
Sam Shapiro, Esq.
Attorneyfor Plaintffi
sshapiro@ecbalaw.com
To: VIA EMAIL
Scott Levy, Esq.
Anorneyfor Plaintffi
scottl@bronxdefenders. org

MICHAEL A. CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of the
City of New York Attorneyfor Defendants City, Kelly, Green, Hart, and Busell 100 Church Street, Room 3-208 New York, New York 10007 (212) 56-2656
By Beath, Patrick As sis tant Corporation Couns el

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 52 of 57

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 53 of 57

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 54 of 57
Exhibit A

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 55 of 57

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTzuCT OF NEW YORK
MAUROSOL FELIX, ET AL.,
-against-
CITY OF NEV/ YORK, ET AL.,

x

Plaintiffs,

RULE 68 OFFER OF JUDGMENT

Defendants. l3 Civ.294I (JMF) (KNF)
--- x

Pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants hereby offer to allow plaintiff Anthony Fearon to take a judgment against the City of New York in this action for the total sum of Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred and One ($17,501.00) Dollars, plus reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs accrued up to and including November 8, 2013 for plaintiff Anthony Fearon's federal claims.
This judgment shall be in full satisfaction of all federal and state law claims or
rights that plaintiff Anthony Fearon may have to damages, or any other form of relief, arising out of the alleged acts or omissions of defendants or any official, employee, or agent, either past or
present, of the City of New York, or any agency thereof, in connection with the facts and
circumstances that are the subject of this action. This offer of judgment may only be accepted up to and including November 29,
2013.
This offer of judgment is made for the purposes specified in Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is not to be construed as an admission of liability by
defendants or any official, employee, or agent of the City of New York, or any agency thereof; nor is it an admission that plaintiffs have suffered any damages.

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 56 of 57
Acceptance of this offer ofjudgment will act to release and discharge defendants; their successors or assigns; and all past and present officials, employees, representatives, and agents of the City of New York, or any agency thereof, from any and all claims that were or could have been alleged by plaintiff Anthony Fearon arising out of the facts and circumstances
that are the subject of this action.
Acceptance of this offer ofjudgment also will operate to waive plaintiff Anthony
Fearon's rights to any claim for interest on the amount of the judgment.
Plaintiff Anthony Fearon agrees that payment of Seventeen Thousand Five
Hundred and One ($17,501.00) Dollars within ninety (90) days of the date of acceptance of the offer shall be a reasonable time for such payrnent, unless plaintiff received medical treatment in connection with the underlying claims in this case for which Medicare has provided, or will
provide, payment in full or in part. If plaintiff Anthony Fearon is a Medicare recipient who
received medical treatment in connection with the claims in this case, the ninety (90) day period for payment shall start to run from the date plaintiff submits to counsel for defendants a final demand letter from Medicare.
By acceptance of this Rule 68 Offer of Judgment, plaintiff Anthony Fearon agrees to resolve any claim that Medicare may have for reimbursement of conditional payments it has
made as secondary payer, and a Medicare Set-Aside Trust shall be created, if required by 42
U.S.C. $ 1395y(b) and 42 C.F.R. $$ 411 .22 thro,tgh 411.26. Plaintiff Anthony Fearon turther agrees to hold harmless defendants and all past and present officials, employees, representatives and agents of the City of New York, or any agency thereof, regarding any past and/or future Medicare payments, presently known or unknown, made in connection with this matter.

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 52 Filed 01/07/14 Page 57 of 57

)

The judgment shall contain and recite the terms and conditions set forth herein.

1

-l

Dated:

New York, New York

November 15,2013

To: VIA EMAIL
Katherine Rosenfeld, Esq.
Attorneyfor Plaintffi
krosenfeld@ecbal aw. com
To: VIA EMAIL
Sam Shapiro, Esq.
Attorneyþr Plaintffi
sshapiro@ecbalaw.com
To: VIA EMAIL
Scott Lev¡ Esq. Attorneyfor Plaintffi
scottl@bronxdefenders. org

MICHAEL A. CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of the
City of New York Attorneyfor Defendants Cíty, Kelly, Green, Hart, and Busell 100 Church Street, Room 3-208 New York, New York 10007 (2r2)3 26s6
By
Assistant Corporation Couns el

 
 Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 48 Filed 12/18/13 Page 1 of 2

TINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------x

12/18/2013

MAUROSOL FELIX, ET AL,,
-against-
CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

STIPULATION OT DISMISSAL OF CROSS CLAIMS
13 Civ.2941 (JMF)

Defendants.
-----------x

\VHEREAS, plaintiffs Maurosol Felix, Francisco Zapata, Danilo Melendez, Angel Sanchez, and Abraham Collins commenced this action by frling a complaint on or about May 2, 2013, and thereafter, on May 30, 2013, filing an amended complaint along with additional plaintiff Anthony Fearon, alleging that defendants violated their federal civil and state
common law rights; and WIIEREAS, defendants City of New York, Raymond Kelly, Russell Green, John
Hart, and Marc Busell served plaintiffs with Offers of Judgment pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on November 8,2013, and served plaintiffs Melendez, Collins,
Sanchez, and Fearon with revised Rule 68 Offen of Judgment on Novembe¡ 15, 2013; and WHEREAS, plaintiffs Felix and Zapata accepted the Offers of Judgment, and
plaintiffs Melendez, Collins, Sanchez, and Fearon accepted thq revised Offers of Judgment, on November 21,2013, all in satisfaction of any claims that they may have had to damages, or any other form of relief, arising out of the alleged acts or omissions of defendants or any official,
employee, or agent, either past ø present, of the City of New York, or any agency thereof in
connection with the facts and circumstances that are the subject of this action; and

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 48 Filed 12/18/13 Page 2 of 2

WHEREAS, defendant Offrcers Jose Cintron, Edwin Jerez, Kevin M. Martin,

and Andry Duarte f,rled an amended answer to the second amended complaint with cross-claims on November25,20l3, in which they assefted four cross-claims against defendant City of New

York; and

\ryHEREAS, defendants Cintron, Jerez, Martin and Duarte have authorized their

counsel to voluntarily disrniss this matter on the terms set forth below;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HBREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, bY

and between the trndersigned, as follows:

L

The cross-claims assertecl against defendant City of New York are hereby

dismissecl pursuant to F'ederal Rrile of Civil Procedure 4l(c), with prejudice, and without costs,

expenses, or attorneys' f'ees to any party,

WORTH, LONGWORTTI & LONDON LLP
Attorneys þr Defendants Citron, Jerez,
Martin, ancl Duarte
l1 I John Street - Suite 640 New York, New York 10038
(212)
By

MICIIAEL A. CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of the
City of New York Attorneyfor Defendant Cìty of New York 100 Church Street New York, New York 10007
l2) 356-3533
By: k Beath, Esq,
As s is tant Corpo rat ion Couns e I
SO ORDEREDT

Dated: New York, New York December 18 20r3

HON, JESSE M. I.URMAN LINITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

a

 
 Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 53 Filed 02/03/14 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
:J;;;a:;i:;:¿JJJîaj-J;*¿Jà*-ii+.¿J!;t4:--='-tl¿;--:¿----.at-...-::?--.-=-=-:t--:
MAUROSOL FELIX, ET AL.,
-against-
CITY OF NE\M YORK, ET AL.,

K

02/03/2014

Plaintiffs, Defendants.

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT OF ATTORNEYS'F'EES
13 Civ.2941 (JMF) (KNF)

r¿'¡¡g;::-,L¡Ììt-;* â.ÈÊi¡¡'lirâf -
\ilIIEREAS, plaintiffs Maurosol Felix, Francisco Zapata, Danilo Melendez, Angel Sanchez, and Abraham Collins commenced this action by filing a complaint on or about
¡¿ay 2,2073,and thereafter, on May 30, 2013, filed an amended complaint along with additional
. plaintiff Anthony fi*o4, alleging thai defendants violate{.their fe.deral civil qndrb. tate commog'-
law righis; and \ilHEREAS, defendants have deniecl any and all liability arising out of plaintiffsl

allegations; and WHEREAS, defendants City of New York, Raymond Kelly, Russell Green, John
Hart, and Marc Busell served plaintiffs with Offers of Judgment pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure oÍi November 8,2073, and served plaintifß Melendez, Collins, Sanchez, and Fearon with revised Rule 68 Offers of Judgment on November 15, Z0l3; and
WHEREAS, on November 21,2073, plaintiffs Felix and Zapata accepted the Offers of Judgment and plaintiffs Melendez, Collins, Sanchez, and Fearon acceped the revised
Offers of Judgment; and WHEREAS, on January 7,2}L4,judgment was entered against the City of New
York in accordance with the above offers and acceptances made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ' P' 68; ¡
and

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 53 Filed 02/03/14 Page 2 of 4

WIIEREAS, plaintiffs have assigned their rights to attomeys' fees, costs and

and

WHpnnESr,counsel fof defendants, and counsel for plaintiffs now desire to'

resog therï'SSùe,ò.f a{tþ¡ne.y$ fègs¡ c-oq!¡ an{ expe¡rses, without furtherproceedingsi and
,, this. 'stipulátion and Order of Settlernent of Attorneysl FeeS
'("stipulation??) shall'not be, eonstrued to, be an admission of liability by any defendant$,. nor an

tþAt any of the allegations made by plaintiffs are true or that defendants in any'way

vi.olated any ¡,ightS g¡¡arantçed to plair¡lff$ by any constitutions, statutes, ordinanees, rules or

regulatious of.tlie.Unite¿ $.1àtes; the States-,of Ne-w York, or any subdivision thereof; and

1t
::tlt:¡

o ;-,

,-'
o...

wHEIiEAs, tb'ìbStipu,lÑn shál'l'not'be admis¡ibl9'in, ni¡r is it related t9' any

bei ö¿i:;j,:g,_ì et-ttlen'*teñ.*t.ncgotji.ali.oans-.,:Êa'ni,l', no.ih.-ì:n:.g¡..c.onata.i1n,ed..,..h.,,e.r-iê.,.,i,il,shua.ll*] ,r

..
to

:ûiú

,d

o¡ pragtþe of the,efu,y, of New York;

2

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 53 Filed 02/03/14 Page 3 of 4

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, bY . . and between.the undersigned, the attorneys ef fecord for the respective parties to the above-

captioned action, as follows:

1. Defendant City of New York shall pay to plaintiffs' counsel, Emery Celli
Brinkerhoff & Abady LLP and The Bronx Defenders, the sum total of ONE-HUNDRED T'WENTy-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($125,000.00) in full satisfaction of plaintiffs'

attomeys' fees, expenses and costs. Such sum shall be paid by check made payable to Emery

Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP within ninety (90) days of the date of this Stipulation.
2, In consideration for the payment of this sum, plaintiffs, Emery Celli

Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP, and The Bronx Defenders do hereby release and discharge the

defendants, their successors or assigns; and all past and present officials, employees,

,;

t

;.1

e

¡

l!- ,;;!- .!

'.i.

;,

I

;

represeiitatives and ag"ents"of thå City ofNew York or any entily,.feþresented bV th1 Office of the

Corporation Counsel, from any and all claims of attorneys' fees, expenses and costs relating to

this matter.
3.

The parties agree that facsimile or electronic copies of signatures are

equivalent to originals.

3

Case 1:13-cv-02941-JMF Document 53 Filed 02/03/14 Page 4 of 4 New York, New York

By:

Counsel

EMERY CBÍ-II'ts:R{-N,KERHOFF &'

fhaza,,.?,ßlß Floor New Yõrh New Yj'oik lì0019 ØÍ2)763-500;0
-ãñd'

New (2r2)3s6-26s6

10007'

Þ

È

ri+ :<e

ffi Atftbi iie,,J¿

Ð ç&wdafliß'

4 :.,';1i:

¿ ':,-

f t:

$re&r,'

lt

Ai:tøÌttegs,

t'Pt':

,:: tktíff\..

'D.'ate.4 ¡'¡gçryqr,l(1, !$.ew York,
'rFre'tb*r-ru¿a¡r2y0134

.S-O.O, E-REÐ.¿

JUDGE

4

 
 Case: 1:13-cv-2941 As of: 05/16/2016 03:58 PM EDT 1 of 13
CLOSED,1983−PLAN,CASREF,ECF
U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13−cv−02941−JMF

Felix et al v. City of New York et al

Date Filed: 05/02/2013

Assigned to: Judge Jesse M. Furman

Date Terminated: 12/18/2013

Referred to: Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox (Settlement) Jury Demand: Both

Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other

Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff

Maurosol Felix

represented by Katherine R. Rosenfeld Emery Celli Brinckerhoff &Abady, LLP 600 Fifth Avenue 10th Floor New York, NY 10020 212−763−5010 Fax: 212−763−5001 Email: krosenfeld@ecbalaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel Shapiro Emery Celli Brinckerhoff &Abady, LLP 75 Rockefeller Plaza 20th Flr. New York, NY 10019 (212)−763−5000 Fax: (212)−763−5001 Email: sshapiro@ecbalaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Duffield Levy The Bronx Defenders 860 Courtlandt Ave. Bronx, NY 11238 (718)−838−7833 Fax: (718)−508−3547 Email: scottl@bronxdefenders.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Danilo Melendez

represented by Katherine R. Rosenfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel Shapiro (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Duffield Levy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Abraham Collins

represented by Katherine R. Rosenfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel Shapiro (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:13-cv-2941 As of: 05/16/2016 03:58 PM EDT 2 of 13

Scott Duffield Levy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Francisco Zapata

represented by Katherine R. Rosenfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel Shapiro (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Duffield Levy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Angel Sanchez

represented by Katherine R. Rosenfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel Shapiro (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Duffield Levy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Anthony Fearon

represented by Katherine R. Rosenfeld (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel Shapiro (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Duffield Levy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant City of New York

represented by Patrick Neil Beath New York City Law Department, Office of The Corporation Coun 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 (212) 356−2656 Fax: (212) 788−9776 Email: pbeath@law.nyc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel Amy Seligman New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 (212) 788−0784

Case: 1:13-cv-2941 As of: 05/16/2016 03:58 PM EDT 3 of 13

Fax: (212) 788−9776 Email: rseligma@law.nyc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Raymond W. Kelly Commisioner of the New York City Police Department (NYPD)

represented by Patrick Neil Beath (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rachel Amy Seligman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Russell J. Green NYPD Deputy Inspector

represented by Patrick Neil Beath (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John Hart NYPD Deputy Inspector

represented by Patrick Neil Beath (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Captain Marc Busell

represented by Patrick Neil Beath (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
NYPD Officer Cintron Shield # 17999

represented by Mitchell Garber Worth, Longworth &London, LLP 111 John Street, Suite 640 New York, NY 10038 (212)−964−8038 Fax: (212)−964−8164 Email: mgarber@pbalawyers.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas LaBarbera Worth, Longworth, London LLP 111 John Street New York, NY 10038 (212)−964−8038 Fax: (212)−964−8164 Email: dlabarbera@pbalawyers.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John William Burns Worth, Longworth &London, LLP 111 John Street, Suite 640 New York, NY 10038 (212)−964−8038 Fax: (212)−964−8164 Email: jburns@pbalawyers.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:13-cv-2941 As of: 05/16/2016 03:58 PM EDT 4 of 13

Defendant NYPD Officer Edwin Jerez Shield # 9352
Defendant NYPD Officer Guagliardi Defendant NYPD Officer Malvi Moncion Shield # 12778 Defendant NYPD Sergeant Diana Castro
Defendant NYPD Officer Kevin M. Martin Shield # 24921
Defendant Police Officer Primitivo Montanez Tax # 939058

represented by Mitchell Garber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas LaBarbera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John William Burns (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anthony J. DiFiore The Quinn Law Firm, PLLC 399 Knollwood Road Suite 220 White Plains, NY 10603 (914) 997−0555 Fax: (914) 997−0550 Email: adifiore@quinnlawny.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew C Quinn The Quinn Law Firm, PLLC 399 Knollwood Road Suite 220 White Plains, NY 10603 914−997−0555 Fax: 914−997−0550 Email: aquinn@quinnlawny.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mitchell Garber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas LaBarbera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John William Burns (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:13-cv-2941 As of: 05/16/2016 03:58 PM EDT 5 of 13

Defendant NYPD Officer Andry Duarte Shield # 7302
Defendant NYPD Officer Bryan J. Flynn Shield # 2084
Defendant Richard Roes # 1−10 Defendant John/Jane Does # 1−5 Defendant Steven Lancia Shield # 8781 Cross Claimant NYPD Officer Andry Duarte Shield # 7302

represented by Mitchell Garber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Douglas LaBarbera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED John William Burns (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anthony J. DiFiore (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Andrew C Quinn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mitchell Garber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Cross Defendant City of New York TERMINATED: 12/18/2013
Cross Claimant NYPD Officer Cintron Shield # 17999 Cross Claimant

represented by Patrick Neil Beath (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel Amy Seligman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:13-cv-2941 As of: 05/16/2016 03:58 PM EDT 6 of 13

NYPD Officer Kevin M. Martin Shield # 24921

Cross Claimant
NYPD Officer Edwin Jerez Shield # 9352

Cross Claimant
NYPD Officer Andry Duarte Shield # 7302

represented by Mitchell Garber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Cross Defendant City of New York TERMINATED: 12/18/2013
Cross Claimant NYPD Officer Bryan J. Flynn Shield # 2084
Cross Claimant NYPD Sergeant Diana Castro

represented by Patrick Neil Beath (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel Amy Seligman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anthony J. DiFiore (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew C Quinn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anthony J. DiFiore (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew C Quinn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Cross Defendant
City of New York TERMINATED: 12/18/2013

represented by Patrick Neil Beath (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel Amy Seligman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:13-cv-2941 As of: 05/16/2016 03:58 PM EDT 7 of 13

Date Filed 05/02/2013
05/02/2013 05/02/2013 05/02/2013 05/02/2013
05/17/2013 05/20/2013 05/20/2013 05/20/2013 05/21/2013
05/22/2013 05/29/2013
05/30/2013

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Marc Busell, Diana Castro, Cintron, City of New York, John/Jane Does # 1−4, Andry Duarte, Bryan J. Flynn, Russell J. Green, Guagliardi, John Hart, Edwin Jerez, Raymond W. Kelly, Kevin M. Martin, Malvi Moncion, Primitivo Montanez, Richard Roes # 1−10. (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 465401066376)Document filed by Abraham Collins, Maurosol Felix, Angel Sanchez, Danilo Melendez, Francisco Zapata.(cde) (Entered: 05/07/2013)
SUMMONS ISSUED as to Marc Busell, Diana Castro, Cintron, City of New York, John/Jane Does # 1−4, Andry Duarte, Bryan J. Flynn, Russell J. Green, Guagliardi, John Hart, Edwin Jerez, Raymond W. Kelly, Kevin M. Martin, Malvi Moncion, Primitivo Montanez, Richard Roes # 1−10. (cde) (Entered: 05/07/2013)
CASE REFERRED TO Judge Shira A. Scheindlin as possibly related to 1:08−cv−1034. (cde) (Entered: 05/07/2013)
Case Designated ECF. (cde) (Entered: 05/07/2013)
NOTICE OF PARTICIPATION IN SECTION 1983 PLAN: Unless otherwise ordered, this case shall participate in the Southern District of New York's Plan for Certain Section 1983 Cases against The City of New York (the "Section 1983 Plan"). Please reference the Court's website to review the Section 1983 Plan for important information.(rpr) (Entered: 05/08/2013)
2 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Rachel Amy Seligman on behalf of City of New York, Raymond W. Kelly (Seligman, Rachel) (Entered: 05/17/2013)
CASE DECLINED AS NOT RELATED. Case referred as related to 08−cv−1034 and declined by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin and returned to wheel for assignment. (pgu) (Entered: 05/20/2013)
3 NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT to Judge Jesse M. Furman. Judge Unassigned is no longer assigned to the case. (pgu) (Entered: 05/20/2013)
Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox is so designated. (pgu) (Entered: 05/20/2013)
4 ORDER FOR INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: As the case is designated for inclusion in the Court's Plan for Section 1983 cases against the New York City Police Department, it is hereby ORDERED that counsel for all parties appear for an Initial Conference set for 1/22/2014 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 1105, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Jesse M. Furman. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 5/21/2013) (ab) (Entered: 05/21/2013)
5 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Patrick Neil Beath on behalf of City of New York, Raymond W. Kelly (Beath, Patrick) (Entered: 05/22/2013)
6 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Summons and Complaint,. Marc Busell served on 5/11/2013, answer due 6/3/2013; Cintron served on 5/11/2013, answer due 6/3/2013; City of New York served on 5/9/2013, answer due 5/30/2013; Andry Duarte served on 5/24/2013, answer due 6/14/2013; Bryan J. Flynn served on 5/10/2013, answer due 5/31/2013; Russell J. Green served on 5/11/2013, answer due 6/3/2013; John Hart served on 5/11/2013, answer due 6/3/2013; Edwin Jerez served on 5/11/2013, answer due 6/3/2013; Raymond W. Kelly served on 5/13/2013, answer due 6/3/2013; Kevin M. Martin served on 5/11/2013, answer due 6/3/2013; Malvi Moncion served on 5/11/2013, answer due 6/3/2013; Primitivo Montanez served on 5/11/2013, answer due 6/3/2013. Service was accepted by Dmitriy Aronov, P.O. Mr. Calvin, Sgt. 'Jane' Fontanez, David Goldfarb, Esq., P.O. Mr. Alexander, and P.O. Mr. Gonzalez. Document filed by Abraham Collins; Maurosol Felix; Angel Sanchez; Danilo Melendez; Francisco Zapata. (Shapiro, Samuel) (Entered: 05/29/2013)
7 AMENDED COMPLAINT amending 1 Complaint, against Marc Busell, Diana Castro, Cintron, City of New York, John/Jane Does # 1−4, Andry Duarte, Bryan J. Flynn, Russell J. Green, Guagliardi, John Hart, Edwin Jerez, Raymond W. Kelly, Kevin M. Martin, Malvi Moncion, Primitivo Montanez, Richard Roes # 1−10, Steven Lancia with JURY DEMAND.Document filed by Abraham Collins,

Case: 1:13-cv-2941 As of: 05/16/2016 03:58 PM EDT 8 of 13

05/30/2013 06/11/2013
06/14/2013 06/19/2013 07/24/2013 07/26/2013
08/01/2013

Maurosol Felix, Angel Sanchez, Danilo Melendez, Francisco Zapata, Anthony Fearon. Related document: 1 Complaint, filed by Danilo Melendez, Abraham Collins, Francisco Zapata, Maurosol Felix, Angel Sanchez.(tro) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
SUMMONS ISSUED as to Marc Busell, Diana Castro, Cintron, City of New York, John/Jane Does # 1−4, Andry Duarte, Bryan J. Flynn, Russell J. Green, Guagliardi, John Hart, Edwin Jerez, Raymond W. Kelly, Steven Lancia, Kevin M. Martin, Malvi Moncion, Primitivo Montanez, Richard Roes # 1−10. (tro) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
8 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Patrick Beath dated 6/10/2013 re: Defendants write, with consent of plaintiff's counsel, to respectfully request (1) an enlargement of time until August 2, 2013, to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint, and (2) that the initial conference in this matter be rescheduled from January 22, 2014, to a date convenient to the Court which is closer in time to August 2, 2013. ENDORSEMENT: Application GRANTED. All defendants are granted an extension to August 2, 2013, to respond to the Complaint. In addition, the pretrial conference is rescheduled for August 14, 2013, at 2:30 pm., Marc Busell answer due 8/2/2013; Diana Castro answer due 8/2/2013; Cintron answer due 8/2/2013; City of New York answer due 8/2/2013; John/Jane Does # 1−4 answer due 8/2/2013; Andry Duarte answer due 8/2/2013; Bryan J. Flynn answer due 8/2/2013; Russell J. Green answer due 8/2/2013; Guagliardi answer due 8/2/2013; John Hart answer due 8/2/2013; Edwin Jerez answer due 8/2/2013; Raymond W. Kelly answer due 8/2/2013; Steven Lancia answer due 8/2/2013; Kevin M. Martin answer due 8/2/2013; Malvi Moncion answer due 8/2/2013; Primitivo Montanez answer due 8/2/2013; Richard Roes # 1−10 answer due 8/2/2013., ( Initial Conference set for 8/14/2013 at 02:30 PM before Judge Jesse M. Furman.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 6/11/2013) (lmb) (Entered: 06/11/2013)
9 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Summons and Amended Complaint,,. City of New York served on 6/4/2013, answer due 8/2/2013; Raymond W. Kelly served on 6/4/2013, answer due 8/2/2013. Service was accepted by Dmitriy Aronov. Document filed by Abraham Collins; Anthony Fearon; Maurosol Felix; Angel Sanchez; Danilo Melendez; Francisco Zapata. (Rosenfeld, Katherine) (Entered: 06/14/2013)
10 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Summons and Amended Complaint,,. Steven Lancia served on 6/13/2013, answer due 8/2/2013. Service was accepted by P.O. 'Jane' Francis, Co−Worker of the Defendant. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by Abraham Collins; Anthony Fearon; Maurosol Felix; Angel Sanchez; Danilo Melendez; Francisco Zapata. (Rosenfeld, Katherine) (Entered: 06/19/2013)
11 NOTICE of Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Claims Against Defendant The City of New York Without Prejudice. Document filed by Abraham Collins, Anthony Fearon, Maurosol Felix, Danilo Melendez, Angel Sanchez, Francisco Zapata. (Rosenfeld, Katherine) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
12 NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF FOURTH, FIFTH, AND SIXTH CLAIMS FOR RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT THE CITY OF NEW YORK PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 41(a): PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs MAUROSOL FELIX; DANILO MELENDEZ; ABRAHAM COLLINS; FRANCISCO ZAPATA; and ANTHONY FEARON, by their attorneys Emery Celli Brinckerhoff &Abady LLP and The Bronx Defenders, hereby dismiss, without prejudice, the following claims in the Amended Complaint in the above−captioned action against defendant the City of New York only: Fourth Claim For Relief (Malicious Prosecution); Fifth Claim for Relief (Violation of N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 160.10); and Sixth Claim for Relief (Negligent Hiring/Training/Discipline/Retention of Employment Services). (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 7/26/2013) (lmb) (Entered: 07/26/2013)
13 ENDORSED LETTER: addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Patrick Beath dated 7/31/2013 re: Counsel for defendants City and Kelly respectfully request that their time to answer or move to dismiss the amended complaint be extended to

Case: 1:13-cv-2941 As of: 05/16/2016 03:58 PM EDT 9 of 13

08/06/2013
08/08/2013
08/12/2013 08/12/2013 09/06/2013 09/06/2013

August 16, 2013, and it is further requested that the individual defendants obligation to answer the complaint be stayed until the resolution of the IAB investigation in the incidents underlying the complaint ENDORSEMENT: The City and Raymond Kelly are granted until August 16, 2013, to respond to the complaint. No further extensions will be granted. The Court reserves judgment on the request for a stay with respect to the individual defendants. The City Law Department is directed to submit a letter no later than August 5, 2013, advising the Court with respect to how long the IAB investigation is anticipated to take. Plaintiffs may submit a letter, not to exceed three pages, in response to the request for a stay, no later than August 7, 2013. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 8/1/2013) (js) Modified on 8/1/2013 (js). (Entered: 08/01/2013)
14 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Patrick Beath dated 8/5/2013 re: I am an Assistant Corporation Counsel in the office of Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, and one of the attorneys assigned to represent defendants City of New York (City) and Raymond Kelly in the above−referenced matter. Defendants write in accordance with Your Honors Order, dated August 1, 2013, which, in relevant part, directed defendants to inform the Court as to the anticipated length of the Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) investigation into the incident underlying the suit. Upon information and belief, IAB cannot undertake any substantive investigative actions until it has received statements from the plaintiffs in this matter. In this regard, plaintiffs have agreed to provide to IAB copies of their N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law. 50−h testimony by early September 2013. IAB estimates that, following receipt of plaintiffs 50−h testimony, the investigation will take between eleven and twelve months. Document filed by City of New York, Raymond W. Kelly.(rsh) (Entered: 08/06/2013)
15 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Samuel Shapiro and Scott D. Levy dated 8/7/2013 re: Pursuant to the Court's direction, we write to oppose defendants' request for a one−year stay of this case pending an Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) investigation into plaintiffs' allegations. Defendants offer no persuasive justification for their attempt to delay this case for an additional year. Their request should be denied. ENDORSEMENT: Substantially for the reasons set forth herein, the Court declines to issue a sua sponte stay. Plaintiffs shall file their Second Amended Complaint by September 6, 2013. All defendants are granted an extension to respond to the complaint until fourteen days after Plaintiffs file their Second Amended Complaint., ( Amended Pleadings due by 9/6/2013.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 8/8/2013) (lmb) Modified on 8/12/2013 (lmb). (Entered: 08/08/2013)
16 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Summons and Amended Complaint,,. Diana Castro served on 8/1/2013, answer due 8/22/2013. Service was accepted by Ms. Vegas, co−worker of the Defendant. Document filed by Abraham Collins; Anthony Fearon; Maurosol Felix; Angel Sanchez; Danilo Melendez; Francisco Zapata. (Shapiro, Samuel) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
17 REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER: In light of Plaintiffs' plan to file an amended complaint and Defendants' extension of time to respond to the complaint, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the conference in this matter, previously scheduled for August 14, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., is RESCHEDULED for September 23, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in Courtroom 1105 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New York, New York. Initial Conference set for 9/23/2013 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 1105, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Jesse M. Furman. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 8/12/2013) (lmb) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
18 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT amending 7 Amended Complaint,, against All Defendants with JURY DEMAND.Document filed by Abraham Collins, Anthony Fearon, Maurosol Felix, Angel Sanchez, Danilo Melendez, Francisco Zapata. Related document: 7 Amended Complaint,, filed by Danilo Melendez, Abraham Collins, Francisco Zapata, Anthony Fearon, Maurosol Felix, Angel Sanchez.(ama) (ca). (Entered: 09/09/2013)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO E−MAIL PDF. Note to Attorney Katherine R. Rosenfeld to E−MAIL the PDF for Document 18 Amended Complaint, to: caseopenings@nysd.uscourts.gov. (ama) (Entered: 09/09/2013)

Case: 1:13-cv-2941 As of: 05/16/2016 03:58 PM EDT 10 of 13

09/12/2013 09/18/2013
09/19/2013 09/23/2013 09/23/2013 09/23/2013
09/23/2013

19 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Summons and Amended Complaint,. City of New York served on 9/9/2013, answer due 9/30/2013. Service was accepted by Madelyn Santana. Document filed by Abraham Collins; Anthony Fearon; Maurosol Felix; Angel Sanchez; Danilo Melendez; Francisco Zapata. (Shapiro, Samuel) (Entered: 09/12/2013)
20 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Summons and Amended Complaint,. Marc Busell served on 9/11/2013, answer due 10/2/2013; Diana Castro served on 9/11/2013, answer due 10/2/2013; Cintron served on 9/11/2013, answer due 10/2/2013; Andry Duarte served on 9/11/2013, answer due 10/2/2013; Bryan J. Flynn served on 9/11/2013, answer due 10/2/2013; John Hart served on 9/11/2013, answer due 10/2/2013; Edwin Jerez served on 9/11/2013, answer due 10/2/2013; Kevin M. Martin served on 9/11/2013, answer due 10/2/2013; Malvi Moncion served on 9/11/2013, answer due 10/2/2013; Primitivo Montanez served on 9/11/2013, answer due 10/2/2013. Service was accepted by P.O. "Jane" Palacios, Regina Cooley, and P.O. "John" Dennis. Document filed by Abraham Collins; Anthony Fearon; Maurosol Felix; Angel Sanchez; Danilo Melendez; Francisco Zapata. (Shapiro, Samuel) (Entered: 09/18/2013)
21 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Samuel Shapiro dated September 19, 2013 re: Initial Case Management Conference. Document filed by Abraham Collins, Anthony Fearon, Maurosol Felix, Danilo Melendez, Angel Sanchez, Francisco Zapata. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shapiro, Samuel) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
22 REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER: As discussed during the initial pre−trial conference held on September 23, 2013, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the deadline for all Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is extended until November 7, 2013. If any Defendant files a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs' opposition shall be due two weeks thereafter and any reply one week thereafter. All other deadlines remain as indicated in the Case Management Plan. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 9/23/2013) (mro) Modified on 9/24/2013 (mro). (Entered: 09/24/2013)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Marc Busell answer due 11/7/2013; Diana Castro answer due 11/7/2013; Cintron answer due 11/7/2013; City of New York answer due 11/7/2013; Andry Duarte answer due 11/7/2013; Bryan J. Flynn answer due 11/7/2013; Russell J. Green answer due 11/7/2013; Guagliardi answer due 11/7/2013; John Hart answer due 11/7/2013; Edwin Jerez answer due 11/7/2013; John/Jane Does # 1−5 answer due 11/7/2013; Raymond W. Kelly answer due 11/7/2013; Steven Lancia answer due 11/7/2013; Kevin M. Martin answer due 11/7/2013; Malvi Moncion answer due 11/7/2013; Primitivo Montanez answer due 11/7/2013; Richard Roes # 1−10 answer due 11/7/2013. (mro) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
23 CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER: All parties do not consent to conduct all further proceedings before a United States Magistrate Judge, including motions and trial. This case is to be tried to a jury. Counsel for the parties have conferred, and the present best estimate of the length of trial is 10 trial days. As discussed on the record at the initial conference, the parties shall meet and confer with respect to limited discovery of documents relating to operations orders and advise the Court by joint letter, no later than noon on Sept. 25, 2013, if they agree on the matter or, if not, the nature of the disagreement. The City shall produce CCRB indexes by Sept. 27, 2013, and the parties shall confer with respect to any additional related discovery by the close of business on Sept. 30, 2013. The parties shall submit a joint letter with respect to any agreement or disagreement on that score no later than October 1, 2013. Fact Discovery due by 3/7/2014. Expert Discovery due by 4/21/2014. Pretrial Conference set for 3/11/2014 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 1105, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Jesse M. Furman. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 9/23/2013) (lmb) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jesse M. Furman: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 9/23/2013. Katherine Rosenfeld, Samuel Shapiro and Scott Levy present for the Plaintiffs. Patrick Beath and Rachel Seligman present for the Defendants. (ab) (Entered: 09/25/2013)

Case: 1:13-cv-2941 As of: 05/16/2016 03:58 PM EDT 11 of 13

09/24/2013 09/25/2013 09/30/2013 10/01/2013 10/02/2013 10/03/2013
10/03/2013
10/04/2013 10/04/2013 10/04/2013 10/23/2013

24 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Summons and Amended Complaint,. Russell J. Green served on 9/18/2013, answer due 11/7/2013; Raymond W. Kelly served on 9/19/2013, answer due 11/7/2013; Steven Lancia served on 9/18/2013, answer due 11/7/2013. Service was accepted by Ms. Watson and Eileen Flaherty. Document filed by Abraham Collins; Anthony Fearon; Maurosol Felix; Angel Sanchez; Danilo Melendez; Francisco Zapata. (Shapiro, Samuel) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
25 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Samuel Shapiro dated September 25, 2013 re: Limited Discovery Relating to Operations Order #49. Document filed by Abraham Collins, Anthony Fearon, Maurosol Felix, Danilo Melendez, Angel Sanchez, Francisco Zapata.(Shapiro, Samuel) (Entered: 09/25/2013)
26 ORDER REFERRING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Order that case be referred to the Clerk of Court for assignment to a Magistrate Judge for Settlement. Referred to Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 9/30/2013) (lmb) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
27 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Joint Letter Concerning Scope of Initial Limited Discovery addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Patrick Beath dated October 1, 2013. Document filed by Marc Busell, City of New York, Russell J. Green, John Hart.(Beath, Patrick) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
28 ORDER granting 27 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File letter regarding the parties' agreement (or lack thereof) over the scope of discovery. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Jesse M. Furman)(Text Only Order) (Furman, Jesse) (Entered: 10/02/2013)
29 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERENCE held on 9/23/2013 before Judge Jesse M. Furman. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Alena Lynch, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/28/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/7/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/4/2014.(Rodriguez, Somari) (Entered: 10/03/2013)
30 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a CONFERENCE proceeding held on 9/23/13 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(Rodriguez, Somari) (Entered: 10/03/2013)
31 ORDER: Settlement Conference set for 10/29/2013 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 228, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 10/4/2013) (tn) (Entered: 10/04/2013)
32 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Katherine Rosenfeld dated 10/4/2013 re: Joint Letter on Behalf of All Parties Concerning Scope of Discovery. Document filed by Abraham Collins, Anthony Fearon, Maurosol Felix, Danilo Melendez, Angel Sanchez, Francisco Zapata.(Rosenfeld, Katherine) (Entered: 10/04/2013)
33 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 32 Letter, filed by Danilo Melendez, Abraham Collins, Francisco Zapata, Anthony Fearon, Maurosol Felix, Angel Sanchez. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/4/2013) (lmb) (Entered: 10/07/2013)
34 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox from Katherine Rosenfeld, Samuel Shapiro and Scott D. Levy dated 10/22/2013 re: Counsel for plaintiffs requests plaintiffs' absence from the settlement conference. ENDORSEMENT: Plaintiff Maurosal Felix may participate in the settlement conference via telephone, owing to his "serious illness." Mr. Felix must be on the telephone for the duration of the conference. Mr. Felix should call (212) 805−6705 at least five minutes prior to the commencement of the settlement conference. All other plaintiffs must appear at the courthouse to participate in the settlement

Case: 1:13-cv-2941 As of: 05/16/2016 03:58 PM EDT 12 of 13

10/29/2013 11/06/2013 11/06/2013
11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013
11/07/2013 11/08/2013 11/08/2013 11/08/2013 11/26/2013 11/26/2013

conference. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 10/23/2013) (tn) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox: Settlement Conference was held on 10/29/2013. The parties were unable to resolve their dispute. (Midwood, Laura) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
35 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to file motion to dismiss addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Rachel Seligman Weiss dated November 6, 2013. Document filed by City of New York.(Seligman, Rachel) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
36 ORDER granting 35 Letter Motion for Extension of Time as modified. Defendants' deadline to file a motion to dismiss is extended to November 27, 2013. Any opposition shall be filed by December 13, 2013, and any reply by December 20, 2013. No further extensions will be granted on the basis of the ongoing settlement negotiations or Rule 68 offer of judgment. Further, the discovery deadlines remain in effect and will not be extended on these bases. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Jesse M. Furman)(Text Only Order) (Furman, Jesse) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
37 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Mitchell Garber on behalf of Andry Duarte. (Garber, Mitchell) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
38 ANSWER to 18 Amended Complaint, with JURY DEMAND., CROSSCLAIM against City of New York. Document filed by Andry Duarte.(Garber, Mitchell) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
39 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Anthony J. DiFiore on behalf of Diana Castro, Bryan J. Flynn. (DiFiore, Anthony) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
40 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Andrew C Quinn on behalf of Diana Castro, Bryan J. Flynn. (Quinn, Andrew) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
41 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Move to Dismiss addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Anthony J. DiFiore dated November 7, 2013. Document filed by Diana Castro, Bryan J. Flynn.(DiFiore, Anthony) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
SECTION 1983 PLAN 100−DAY REVIEW: The mediator shall be available to the parties throughout the discovery phase of the Plan and shall schedule and hold the first mediation session in the case within ten (10) days of the close of the discovery period. In the event that the mediation cannot begin within the time set forth herein, the assigned mediator shall promptly notify the Mediation Supervisor of the date by which the mediation will begin and the reason for the delay. The mediator shall correspond with the Mediation Office to arrange a mutually convenient date and time to hold the first session. 1983−Plan Review due by 2/15/2014. Mediator to be Assigned by 11/18/2013.(rpr) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
NOTICE OF SELECTION FOR MEDIATION: This case has been selected for participation in the Southern District of New York's mediation program.(rpr) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
42 ORDER granting 41 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. Application GRANTED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/7/2013) (lmb) Modified on 11/8/2013 (lmb). (Entered: 11/08/2013)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Diana Castro answer due 11/27/2013; Bryan J. Flynn answer due 11/27/2013. (lmb) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
NOTICE OF MEDIATOR ASSIGNMENT − Notice of assignment of mediator.(cda) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
43 AMENDED ANSWER to 18 Amended Complaint, with JURY DEMAND., CROSSCLAIM against City of New York. Document filed by Cintron, Kevin M. Martin, Edwin Jerez, Andry Duarte. (Garber, Mitchell) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
44 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Mitchell Garber on behalf of Cintron, Edwin Jerez, Kevin M. Martin. (Garber, Mitchell) (Entered: 11/26/2013)

Case: 1:13-cv-2941 As of: 05/16/2016 03:58 PM EDT 13 of 13

11/26/2013 11/26/2013 11/27/2013 12/18/2013 12/18/2013
12/18/2013 12/30/2013 12/31/2013 01/07/2014
02/03/2014

45 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by John William Burns on behalf of Cintron, Andry Duarte, Edwin Jerez, Kevin M. Martin. (Burns, John) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
46 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Douglas LaBarbera on behalf of Cintron, Andry Duarte, Edwin Jerez, Kevin M. Martin. (LaBarbera, Douglas) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
47 ANSWER to 18 Amended Complaint, with JURY DEMAND., CROSSCLAIM against City of New York. Document filed by Bryan J. Flynn, Diana Castro.(DiFiore, Anthony) (Entered: 11/27/2013)
48 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF CROSS CLAIMS: that the cross−claims asserted against defendant City of New York are hereby dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(c), with prejudice, and without costs, expenses, or attorneys' fees to any party. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 12/18/2013) (tn) (Entered: 12/18/2013)
49 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF CROSS CLAIMS: The cross−claims asserted against defendant City of New York are hereby dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(c), with prejudice, and without costs, expenses, or attorneys' fees to any party. All claims and cross−claims in this case having been resolved, the Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 12/18/2013) (tn) (Entered: 12/18/2013)
Terminate Transcript Deadlines (tn) (Entered: 12/18/2013)
50 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to file Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Samuel Shapiro dated December 30, 2013. Document filed by Abraham Collins, Anthony Fearon, Maurosol Felix, Danilo Melendez, Angel Sanchez, Francisco Zapata.(Shapiro, Samuel) (Entered: 12/30/2013)
51 ORDER granting 50 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to file application for attorney's fees and costs. Any application must be filed by January 31, 2014; any opposition is due by February 14, 2014; and any reply is due by February 21, 2014. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Jesse M. Furman)(Text Only Order) (Furman, Jesse) (Entered: 12/31/2013)
52 JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 68: in favor of Danilo Melendez against City of New York in the amount of $12,501.00; in favor of Angel Sanchez against City of New York in th amount of $12,501.00; in favor of Anthony Fearon against City of New York in the amount of $17,501.00; in favor of Abraham Collins against City of New York in the amount of $12,501.00; in favor of Francisco Zapata against City of New York in the amount of $50,001.00; and in favor of Maurosol Felix against City of New York in the amount of $ 50,001.00. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 12/18/2013) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Right to Appeal)(dt) (Entered: 01/08/2014)
53 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT OF ATTORNEYS' FEES: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned, the attorneys of record for the respective parties to the above−captioned action, as follows: 1. Defendant City of New York shall pay to plaintiffs' counsel, Emery Celli Brinkerhoff &Abady LLP and The Bronx Defenders, the sum total of ONE−HUNDRED TWENTY−FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($125,000.00) in full satisfaction of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, expenses and costs. Such sum shall be paid by check made payable to Emery Celli Brinckerhoff &Abady LLP within ninety (90) days of the date of this Stipulation. 2, In consideration for the payment of this sum, plaintiffs, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff &Abady LLP, and The Bronx Defenders do hereby release and discharge the defendants, their successors or assigns; and all past and present officials, employees, representatives and agents of the City of New York or any entity represented by the Office of the Corporation Counsel, from any and all claims of attorneys' fees, expenses and costs relating to this matter as further set forth in this order. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 2/3/2014) (lmb) (Entered: 02/03/2014)