09-0055-c v

Dawson v. Snow U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT SUM M AR

Y O RD ER RU LIN G S BYSUM M AR Y ORD ER

DO NO T HA VE P RE CE DE NT IA L EF F EC T. CI TA TIO N T O SU M M AR Y O RD ER S F ILED AF TER JA NU AR Y 1, 200 7, IS P ERM ITTE D AN D I S G OV ERNE D B Y THIS C OU RT ’S LOC AL RU LE 3 2. 1 A ND F ED ER AL RU LE OF AP P ELLA TE P RO CE DU RE 32 .1 . I N ABRIEF OR OTHE R P AP ER

IN WHI CH A LITI G AN T C ITES A SUM M AR Y O RD ER , I N E AC H P AR AG RA P H IN WHI CH A CI TA TIO N A P P EA RS, AT LEA S T ON E CI TA TIO N M UST EITH ER BE TO THE F EDERAL AP P ENDIX OR B E AC CO MP ANIED BY THE NOT ATION: “(SUMM ARY ORDER).” A P ARTY CITINGA SUMMA RY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPYOF THAT SUM M A R

Y OR D ER TO G ET HE R

W I TH TH E P A P ER

I N W HI C H T HE SUM MARY OR DE R I S CI TED ON AN Y P AR TY NO T RE P RE SEN TED BYCO UN SEL U NL ESS TH E SUM M ARY OR

DE R I S AVAI LA BLE I N A N E LEC TR ON IC DA TA BA SE WH IC H IS P UB LIC LYAC CE SSIBL E WI THOU T P AY M EN T OF F EE ( SUC H A S THE D AT AB ASE AV AI LA BLE A T HTT P :/ /WW W. CA 2. USC OU RT S.G OV/) . I F NO CO P Y I S SER VE D B Y RE ASO N O F T H E A V A I L A B I L I T Y O F T H E O RD E R O N S U C H A D A T A B A S E, T HE CI TA TIO N MU ST INC LU DE RE F EREN CE TO TH AT DA TA BA SE A ND THE D OC KET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERE D. At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 16 day th of De cembe r, two thousand nine. Pr e se nt: AMALYA L . KEARSE,

ROBERT D. SACK, ROBERT A. K

ATZ MANN, Circuit Judges
.

________________________________________________ ANTHO NY DAWSON AND MO RRI S FREEDMAN

Plaintif fs-Appellant s,
v. No. 09-0055-c v OMAR SNOW, I nvestig ator, Ne w York State Police D epar tmentThe Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the off icial ca ption as set forth above
. * -2- Defendant-

Appellee , STATE OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK STATE POL I CE DEPARTMENT,

De fe nd an ts . *

________________________________________________ F or Pla int if fs -A pp e lla nts : L EW I S B. O LI V ER J R ., Oliver & Oliver, Alba ny , NY For Def endant- Appellee : KAT E H. N EPVEU , Assistant Sol icitor Gene ral (B arba ra D. Under wood, Solicitor Gener al, Nanc y A. Spie gel , Senior Assistant Sol icitor Gene ral, on the brief ), for A ndre w M
. C u o m o , A t t o r

n e y G e n e r a l o f

th e S t a t e o f N e w Y o r

k , A l b an y, NY Appea l from the United States District Court for the Northe rn District of Ne w York (Sharpe , J

.). ON CO NSI DE RA TIO N W HEREOF , i ti s h e r e b y OR DE RE D , AD JU DG ED , and DE CREED that th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED
. Plaintiffs-Appellants appe al from a judgme nt of the United States District Court for the Norther n District of Ne w York ( Sharpe, J. ) d a te d D e c e mbe r 1 0, 20 08 , g ra nti ngthe De fe nd antAppellee ’s motion for summary judgme nt. We assume the par ties’ familiarity

with the underlying f

acts a nd proce dural history

of the c ase. We r e vie w a

dis tr ic t c ourt ’s g ra

nt o f a mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt de novo , resolving all ambig uities and draw ing a ll reasona ble infer ence s in favor of the non-movant. Belfi v. Pr e nd e rg as t , 191 F.3d 129, 135 ( 2d Cir. 1999). Summary judgme nt is appropriate only wher e the par ties’ submissions “show that there is no g enuine issue a s to any materia l fac t and that the-3-

mov ant i s e nti tle d to jud g me nt a s a matte r o f l aw. ” F e d. R. C iv. P. 5 6( c ); see also Celotex Corp.
v . Ca tre tt , 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). Plaintiffs-Appellants, Da

wson and F ree dman bringan ac tion under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arguing that Defe ndant Appellee Snow is li able f or fa lse arr est. “In analy

zing § 1983 claims for
un c on sti tut ion a l f

a lse arr e st, we have g e ne ra lly loo ke d to the law o f t

he state in whic h th e arr e st
occur red,” Davis v. Rodrigue

z , 3 64 F .3 d 4 24 , 4 33 (2 d Ci r. 20 04 ), and in N e w Y or

k p ro ba ble
cause is a complete de fense to an ac tion for fa lse arr est, Bu rn s v . Ci ty of N e w York, 791 N.Y.S.2d 851, 851 (App. Div. 2d De p’t 2005). Probable cause exis ts if the arr esting office r had “information sufficient to support a re asonable belief that an offe nse has be en committed” by the person to be a

rre sted. Id. at 85 2; se e als o R e ap e v . Ci ty of N e w York, 886 N.Y.S.2d 357, 358 (App. Div. 2d De p’t 2009). He re , Inv e sti g ator

Sno w a c te d r e a so na

bly wh e n h e re lie d o n th e inf or matio n p ro vid e d to him by Dea n Plowman and Adam De nicola, since , “[g]ener ally , information provided by an identified citizen acc using a nother individual of a spe cific c rime is leg ally sufficie nt to provide the police with proba

ble ca use to arr est.” Pe op lev . B e ro , 526 N.Y.S.2d 979, 982 (App. Div. 2d De p’ t 19 88 ); se e als o P e op lev . Ti dwe ll , 504 N.Y.S.2d 787, 787 (App. Div. 2d De p’t 1986) (noting that information provided by a name d ey ewitness “is de emed hig hly reliable and may

be acte d upon by

the police” ). Investig ator Snow had no r eason to doubt either Denicola ’s or Plo wm an’ s v e ra c ity

be c a us e the y we re bo th i de nti fi e d e y e wi tne sse s w ithno a pp are nt m oti ve to falsify
. See Caldarola v. Cal abrese, 298 F.3d 156, 163 ( 2d Cir. 2002). Acc ording ly , Investig ator Snow did not act improperly in acc epting their ver sion of events a s true.-4-

Th e a c c ounts of

fe re d b y Plo wm an a

nd De nic ola , ta

ke n to g e the r, we re su ff

ic ie nt t o
e sta bli shpr ob a

ble c a us e . Pl ow man w itn e sse d th e tw o me n s te a lin g an o ra ng e la dd e r f

ro m hi s fathe r’s truc k on Fe bruar

y 3rd. De nicola stated unde r oath that shortly there afte r he sa

w two men speedingout of the par

king lot with an or ang e ladde r in their vehic le. Plaintiffs conce ded at or al
argume nt b e fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt that it wa s “ re a so na

ble to a ssume that th e . . . v e hic le De nic ola
s awma y h av e b e e nth e p e r

p e tr ato r ’ s v e h ic le
. ” T r . o f Pr o c e e d in g s , D e c . 1 0 , 2 0 0 8 , a t 1 9
. We dis a g re e wi th P la int if

fs ’ c on te nti on

that, b e c a

us e on e of

the pe rp e tr a tor s h a d b e e n p re vio us ly descr ibed as having a

mustache, D enicola’ s identification of the c lean- shaven me n he sawon Fe bruar y 4th did not support a finding of probable cause . That same da y Denicola stated to a state po lic e of

fi c e r t hat he wa s “ 10 0% sure ” that th e me n h e sa w that mo rn ingwe re the same ones he ha d seen spe edingout of the par king lot the da

y befor e, and that one of them “ had shave d his mus ta c he .” In a

sw or n s tate me nt g ive n o n F e br ua ry 9th , D e nic ola

c on fi rm e d h is ide nti fi c atio n o f t

he tw o me n to Inv e sti g a tor Sno w. I t is ir

re le va nt t hat D e nic ola

wa s mi sta

ke n in identifying the two men; probable cause can be based on mistaken inf ormation, as longas the police ac ted re asonably

and in g ood faith in rely

ing on the information. Colon v. City of N ew Y or k, 60 N.Y.2d 78, 82 (1983) . Fa ced w ith either letting the alleg ed per petrators g o or ar

resting them, Investig ator Snow ac ted prope rly
. Se e Cur le yv . V illage of S

uff e rn , 268 F.3d 65, 70 ( 2d Cir. 2001). Plaintiffs-Appellants also alleg e that Investig ator Snow is liable under § 1983 for malicious prosec ution. Malicious prosecution claims ar e ana ly zed under the a

pplicable state law. See, e .g. , Sa v ino v . Ci ty

of N e w York, 331 F.3d 63, 72 ( 2d Cir. 2003) (ana ly zing malicious prosec ution claim under Ne w York la w). In New Y ork, “[t] he ele ments of an a ction for-5-

ma lic iou s p ro se c uti on

are (1 ) t he ini tiatio n o f a

pr oc e e din g , ( 2) its te rm inatio n f avo ra bly to plaintiff, (3) la ck of pr obable c ause, a nd (4) malice .” Colon , 60 N.Y.2d at 82. The exis tence of probable cause defe ats a c laim of malicious prosec ution. W asilewicz v. Village of Monroe Police Dep’ t , 7 7 1 N
. Y
. S
. 2 d

1 7 0 , 1 7 1 ( Ap p . D i v . 2 d

D e p ’ t2 0 0 4 )
. H e r e , p r o b a b l e c a u s e w a s f o un d b y a judge at a pr obable c ause he aring . In the ana logous c ase of a g rand jury

indictment, New Yor

k courts will presume pr obable c ause a nd deny a malicious prose cution claim unless the plaintiff
can e stablish that the indictment “was produc ed by fra ud, perjury , the suppression of e vidence or other police conduct unde rtake n in bad fa ith.” Colon , 6 0 N .Y .2 d at 82 -8 3. Pla int if fs -A pp e lla nts alleg e that the lice nse plate numbe r g iven by Plowman was exculpatory evidenc e suppre ssed by Inv e sti g ator

Sno w. Ho we ve r, the fa c t th a t th e lic e ns e plate se arc h p ro du c e d n o matc he s si mpl y
su g g e ste d th at th e numbe r w a s in c or re c t; i t di d n ot s ug g e st a

dif fe re nt p e rp e tr a tor . Pl a int if fs
Appellants have not demonstrated that Investig ator Snow’s ha ndling of this evidence was responsible for

the findingof proba

ble ca use. Be cause Investig ator Snow had pr obable c ause f or both the ar

rest and the prosec ution, we need not a ddress his qualified immunity defe nse. Plaintiffs-Appe llants’ claim for unla wful detention was pr operly

dismiss ed by

the lower court be cause it was not raised in the c omplaint. We have c onsidered a ll of Plainti ffs-A ppellants’ other

arguments and find them to be without
me ri t. F or

the re a so ns se t f

or th a bo ve , th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED
. FOR THE COURT: CA TH ERI

NE O’ HA GA

N WO L F E, CL ERK By :_________________________________