Source: http://openjurist.org/672/f2d/1014
Timestamp: 2016-05-01 14:12:25
Document Index: 406982782

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1988', '§ 190', '§ 160', '§ 1988', '§ 205', '§ 1983', '§ 170', '§ 1983']

672 F2d 1014 Russo v. State of New York V | OpenJurist
672 F. 2d 1014 - Russo v. State of New York V HomeFederal Reporter, Second Series 672 F.2d.
672 F2d 1014 Russo v. State of New York V 672 F.2d 1014
Anthony RUSSO and Joann Russo, on behalf of themselves andtheir infant children Rose Russo and AntoninaRusso, Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.STATE OF NEW YORK, The State of New York Police Department,Lawrence Cichocki, Delbert George, Orange MotelCorporation, Tina Horton, HowardJohnsons Company and Big VSupermarkets, Inc., Defendants,Lawrence Cichocki, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 161, 309, Dockets 81-7244, 81-7442.
Argued Oct. 5, 1981.Decided Feb. 9, 1982.
Allen M. Kranz, Garden City, N. Y. (DeMartin, Kranz & Davis, Albertson, N. Y., of counsel), for defendant-appellant.
Lawrence R. Posner, Newburgh, N. Y., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Lawrence Cichocki, a former New York State Trooper, appeals from a judgment entered after a jury trial in the United States District Court, 515 F.Supp. 470, for the Southern District of New York, Abraham D. Sofaer, Judge, awarding Anthony Russo $25,000 compensatory and $5,000 punitive damages upon a finding that Cichocki was guilty of malicious prosecution against Russo. Cichocki also appeals from a second judgment of the district court awarding Russo $10,000 counsel fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 as a prevailing party in a civil rights action. We reverse, vacate both judgments and remand for a new trial on the malicious prosecution claim.
The facts relevant to this appeal constitute one episode in a series of events which gave rise to the suit below. The original complaint filed on behalf of Russo and his family alleged that the State of New York, the State of New York Police Department, the Orange Motel Corporation, the Howard Johnson's Company, Big V Supermarkets, Tina Horton, Detective Delbert George and Officer Lawrence Cichocki had violated the Russos' civil rights, and committed the torts of false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional and mental distress, abuse of process and prima facie tort under New York law.1 Only the state tort claims of malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional and mental distress, and the federal civil rights claim against appellant Cichocki and against Detective George were submitted to the jury. The sole ground of recovery was the jury finding that Cichocki was guilty of malicious prosecution against Anthony Russo. The issues presented on appeal relate solely to Cichocki's challenges to the judgment against him on the malicious prosecution claim and to the award of counsel fees. We limit our recitation of facts accordingly.
Armed with the depositions of Lostraglio and Officer Kopp, Cichocki delivered an information complaint to Judge Sawyer of the Walkill Town Court which charged Russo with criminal impersonation, N.Y. Penal Law § 190.25(1) (McKinney 1975).2 Judge Sawyer issued an arrest warrant on May 7, 1977, and on May 17, 1977, Russo was arrested. On August 23, 1978, the charge was dismissed.
Martin v. City of Albany, 42 N.Y.2d 13, 16, 364 N.E.2d 1304, 1307, 396 N.Y.S.2d 612, 614 (1977); Broughton v. New York, 37 N.Y.2d 451, 457, 335 N.E.2d 310, 314, 373 N.Y.S.2d 87, 94, cert. denied sub nom. Schanbarger v. Kellogg, 423 U.S. 929, 96 S.Ct. 277, 46 L.Ed.2d 257 (1975). On appeal, Cichocki raises challenges concerning the elements of probable cause and favorable termination.
Halberstadt v. New York Life Insurance Co. 194 N.Y. 1, 10-11, 86 N.E. 801, 803-04 (1909). Thus where a determination has been made in favor of the accused on the merits there has been a favorable termination. Where a termination is not based on the merits, the dispositive inquiry is whether the failure to proceed "impl(ies) a lack of reasonable grounds for the prosecution." Loeb v. Teitelbaum, 77 A.D.2d 92, 101, 432 N.Y.S.2d 487, 494 (2d Dep't 1980); Halberstadt v. New York Life Insurance Co., 194 N.Y. at 10-11, 86 N.E. at 804.
Cichocki testified that after filing the information he had not followed the case, and hence did not know what had become of it. Tr. at 620-21. On cross-examination, he hypothesized that the charge may have been dismissed because the main witness, Lostraglio, had left the state. Tr. at 73031. On appeal, Cichocki concedes that this hypothesis is mere speculation. Reply Br. for Appellant at 4 n.1.
On its face the stipulation is ambiguous. Yet, when read in context it is evident that the parties intended the term "dismissal" merely to connote termination, not favorable termination. The initial question posed by the court concerned an earlier request by Russo that Judge Sofaer take judicial notice that under "New York Procedure Law" when criminal charges are dismissed the fingerprint card must be returned to the accused. Tr. at 235. While the return of Russo's fingerprint card would tend to establish that the criminal impersonation charge had been dismissed, see New York Crim.Proc.Law § 160.50 (McKinney Supp. 1981), it would not establish a favorable termination, see Cardi v. Supermarket General Corp., 453 F.Supp. 633, 635 (E.D.N.Y.1978). Since Russo's counsel was only requesting that the court take judicial notice of the fact of dismissal, the stipulation cannot be read as going beyond the scope of that request.
The remainder of the record lends credence to this interpretation. For example, Russo elicited testimony on the issue of favorable termination after the stipulation had occurred.3 In addition, defense counsel's summation to the jury emphasized that Russo had not proven why the charges against him had been dismissed.4 Had appellant conceded the issue, it is unlikely that his counsel would have argued that Russo had failed to meet his burden of proof.
Because appellee may prevail on the retrial of his case, we address the issue of whether the district court had discretion to grant attorney's fees to Russo pursuant to the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (1976), as amended by Act of Oct. 21, 1980, Pub.L.No.96-481, Title II, §§ 205(c) & 208, 94 Stat. 2330. Appellant contends and we agree that because Russo did not prevail on his civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he is not entitled to attorney's fees under the Act. Like the Fourth Circuit we find nothing in the plain language, the legislative history or the judicial interpretations of section 1988 "require(s) or justif(ies)" the award of fees to a party who lost on the constitutional claim after a plenary trial, Haywood v. Ball, 634 F.2d 740, 743 (4th Cir. 1980); Bunting v. City of Columbia, 639 F.2d 1090, 1095 (4th Cir. 1981).5
In interpreting section 1988, the starting point of our inquiry is the language of the statute. See Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 197, 96 S.Ct. 1375, 1383, 47 L.Ed.2d 778 (1976); Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 756, 95 S.Ct. 1917, 1935, 44 L.Ed.2d 539 (1975) (Powell, J., concurring). "Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive." Consumer Products Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108, 100 S.Ct. 2051, 2056, 64 L.Ed.2d 766 (1980). The plain language of section 1988 is unambiguous. It provides that in an action to enforce, inter alia, section 1983 the court,
Moreover, the legislative history is not inconsistent with this plain wording. See S.Rep.No.94-1011, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1976), reprinted in (1976) U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 5909. In addressing the reach of the statute, the Senate report explicitly states that section 1988 is "limited to cases arising under our civil rights laws" and that the award of attorney's fees is to be governed by the principle established in Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402, 88 S.Ct. 964, 966, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968), that "(a) party seeking to enforce the rights protected by (inter alia, section 1983), if successful, 'should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.' " S.Rep.No.94-1011, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 4 (1976), reprinted in (1976) U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 5912 (emphasis added).
Despite the clear wording of the statute and its legislative history, the District Judge raised the novel theory that in "exceptional circumstances" a court should have discretion to award attorney's fees under section 1988 to a party who does not succeed on his civil rights claim but who prevails on a pendent claim which "substantially vindicates his constitutional quest." Meriwether v. Sherwood, 514 F.Supp. 433, 436 (S.D.N.Y.1981). In Meriwether, Judge Sofaer maintained that the present case is an appropriate one for the exercise of this discretion.6 He asserted that in light of the close legal nexus between a section 1983 claim and a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff who succeeds on the latter, especially where punitive damages are awarded, should be treated as a prevailing party for purposes of section 1988. Id. at 437.
The teachings of the Supreme Court in Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240, 95 S.Ct. 1612, 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975), foreclose this expansive interpretation of section 1988. The "American Rule" is that the "prevailing" litigant is not ordinarily entitled to collect attorney's fees from the losing party. Id. at 247, 95 S.Ct. at 1616. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held in Alyeska that the issue of the award of attorney's fees is
Id. at 269, 95 S.Ct. at 1627.
I do not think that in order to prevail, Russo must prove what the state judge was thinking when he dismissed the malicious prosecution action. A much less stringent showing is all that is needed under New York law, Loeb v. Teitelbaum, 77 A.D.2d 92, 432 N.Y.S.2d 487, 493 (2d Dep't 1980) ("the voluntary abandonment of the prosecution by the People ... is ... a termination of the prosecution favorable to the accused," citing Reit v. Meyer, 160 A.D. 752, 146 N.Y.S. 75 (1914)). If Russo can show that Cichocki was correct when he hypothesized that the prosecution was abandoned because Lostraglio left town, then the jury could correctly decide that the state dropped the prosecution for total failure of proof. Such a failure should suffice to support a recovery in malicious prosecution. Singleton v. City of New York, 632 F.2d 185 (2d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 920, 101 S.Ct. 1368, 67 L.Ed.2d 347 (1981), cited by appellant, is not on point. In that case, prosecution was terminated under N.Y.C.P.L. § 170.55 as an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. As we stated in Singleton, 632 F.2d at 194:
Federal jurisdiction in this case is based on the Russos' civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although the jury found against plaintiffs on this claim, the district court properly exercised pendent jurisdiction over the state tort claims. United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725-27, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1138-39, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966); see Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 545-47, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 1383-84, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1973)
New York Penal Law section 190.25 provided that:
A person is guilty of criminal impersonation when he:
Impersonates another and does an act in such assumed character with intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another
The cross-examination of Cichocki by Russo's attorney contained the following:
Q. Trooper Cichocki, you were the complainant in the criminal impersonation matter, were you not?
Q. I believe you said that you never prosecuted it. What do you mean by that?
A. I was never called to trial on it.
Q. Do you have any idea why?
A. I believe motions made in the court-this is not my firsthand knowledge, but something happened in the interim between the arrest of Mr. Russo and the dismissal which caused it to be dismissed. I had no part in that.
Q. But had you been called to court, you would have prosecuted it?
A. The Assistant District Attorney with my assistance would have prosecuted it, yes, sir.
Q. Do you have any idea why this action was dismissed?
A. Just from what I heard in here about Mr. Lostraglio's deposition.
Q. Did you ever hear that anywhere else?
A. No, sir. Can I explain something?
Q. By all means.
A. When the arrest is made by a trooper, the general arrest report is submitted. This was submitted by the trooper who made the arrest. A subsequent report is required within a period of time afterwards, requiring a disposition on it.
Because of that, I was not the arresting officer. I never received the disposition.
Q. Do you happen to know whether anyone appeared in court at any time, any other State Police?
A. On the criminal impersonation?
Q. The answer is that you don't know whether anyone else appeared or not?
A. That's correct, yes, sir.
Tr. at 730-31.
The claimed stipulation covered an allegation of malicious prosecution against Officer Cichocki and a similar allegation against Detective Delbert George which arose from a separate criminal charge filed against Russo. Attorney Krupin represented both Officer Cichocki and Detective George below. In his summation, Attorney Krupin argued that the plaintiffs failed to prove favorable termination with respect to the claim against Detective George:
In addition, along the same lines, you know that the case was eventually dismissed, but do we know for what reason it was eventually dismissed?
No witness came forward on behalf of the plaintiffs to tell you why the case was dismissed. How do we know it had anything to do with the photograph that Detective George had initially provided in his preliminary investigation?
We don't know. We are assuming it. Plaintiffs are telling you that is why it was dismissed. There has been no evidence brought into this courtroom on the part of plaintiffs to show the reason why the case was dismissed, and I say to you it could have been a number of other reasons that had nothing to do with the photograph.
But we are here for facts, not speculation, and these facts were not brought out. Tr. at 766.
Russo argues that our recent decision in Milwe v. Cavuoto, 653 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1981), is applicable to the present case. Despite language in Milwe that a "finding of liability on the pendent state law claim, could be a sufficient ground to justify an award under the Act(,)" id. at 84, that case held only that a plaintiff who recovered nominal damages on her civil rights claim as well as damages on her pendent state law claims was entitled to attorney's fees under section 1988. The important point about Milwe is that the civil rights issue was heard and decided in plaintiff's favor. See Perez v. University of Puerto Rico, 600 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1979). In contrast, Russo's civil rights claim was heard and decided against him
In the process of deciding whether to award attorney's fees in Meriwether, Judge Sofaer decided the issue of the award of attorney's fees in the present case. 514 F.Supp. at 436-37. In accordance with that determination, Judge Sofaer issued a separate order, filed along with the opinion in Meriwether, awarding Russo $10,000 in attorney's fees. Id. at 437; J.App. at 361-64