Opinion ID: 2817217
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Theft of Services

Text: We first consider whether the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Ms. Simpson, provided Officer Nelson probable cause to arrest her for theft of services. As relevant to the facts of this case, under New York State law, a person is guilty of theft of services when: With intent to obtain . . . bus . . . service without payment of the lawful charge therefor, . . . [s]he obtains or attempts to obtain such service or avoids or attempts to avoid payment therefor by force, intimidation, stealth, deception or mechanical tampering, or by unjustifiable failure or refusal to pay[.] N.Y. Penal Law § 165.15(3). The district court rested its decision on Officer Nelson’s assertion that he “saw [Ms. Simpson] board a bus through the rear doors, which were marked ‘no entry,’ without paying the fare,” concluding that this undisputed fact was “sufficient to provide [Officer] Nelson with the belief that plaintiff intended to obtain bus service without payment of the lawful charge.” Simpson, 2013 WL 6503521, at . In so doing, the district court limited its consideration of the facts to those undisputed by either party and failed to consider—in the light most favorable to Ms. Simpson—any facts that were in dispute. We disagree that the lens through which the totality of the events must be viewed may be so narrowly focused, to the exclusion of contextual facts, on Ms. Simpson’s entry through the back doors of the bus. To the extent that Officer Nelson argues that the district court was not properly presented with Ms. Simpson’s current recitation of the material facts, we disagree. Although there may have been some factual claims that were not included in full detail in Ms. Simpson’s response to Officer Nelson’s motion for summary judgment, the district court made clear that it had reviewed and considered Ms. Simpson’s 10 14-680-cv Reisha Simpson v. City of New York recounting of each of those claims and obviously had them in mind when granting summary judgment in Officer Nelson’s favor.6 Viewing the full factual context in the light most favorable to Ms. Simpson, however, it is apparent that there is a genuine issue for a jury as to whether a reasonable officer in Officer Nelson’s position could have had reasonable grounds to believe that she intended to commit, or was committing, theft of services cognizable under N.Y. Penal Law § 165.15(3) and consequently whether Officer Nelson had probable cause to arrest her or reasonably hold the mistaken belief that he did. We highlight but a few of the more pertinent facts. First, Officer Nelson was aware of the problems with the mechanical lift which blocked the front entrance to the bus, given that he was only an “arm’s length” from Ms. Simpson while she waited to board the bus. Appellant’s App. 180. Next, by the same token, Officer Nelson was in a position easily to hear the bus driver direct passengers to “Go around, go around” to the back of the bus and also to witness the bus driver open the back doors. Id. at 184. In fact, viewing the facts as we must, Officer Nelson would have had to have been visually and aurally impaired to miss this chain of events. Finally, according to Ms. Simpson, 6 In its order denying Ms. Simpson’s motion for reconsideration the court wrote: Plaintiff asserts that there was a problem with the lift at the front of the bus; that the bus driver directed passengers to enter through the rear door; that plaintiff entered the bus with a crowd of passengers and waited in line to pay her fare; that defendant Nelson became upset when plaintiff rebuffed his sexual advances; and that Nelson prevented her from paying her fare. Those are the same facts that plaintiff alleged in her papers on summary judgment, and which the Court acknowledged and discussed in its decision. Simpson, 2014 WL 595759, at  (internal citation omitted). 11 14-680-cv Reisha Simpson v. City of New York Officer Nelson observed Ms. Simpson board the bus and wait in line to pay her fare before arresting her. Not surprisingly, Officer Nelson’s account conflicts with Ms. Simpson’s. For instance, he swore that Ms. Simpson was approximately “two arm lengths” from the bus when he first saw her. Id. at 148. He also asserts that he witnessed Ms. Simpson “use[ ] the back door to get inside the bus” while all other passengers boarded through the front door, thus calling into question whether there was a problem with the lift, and whether the lift was blocking the entrance in the first instance. Id. Officer Nelson professes to have no recollection of whether Ms. Simpson displayed her MetroCard or identification—or whether he requested to see either item—before, during, or after the arrest. At best, these juxtaposed versions of the events call into question the veracity of both parties. Ms. Simpson’s version suggests a plausible motive for Officer Nelson’s behavior as alleged by her: his advances were rebuffed, and he undertook a course of action to demonstrate unequivocally that he could obtain Ms. Simpson’s surname and exert significant control over her. Officer Nelson’s version, on the other hand, suggests that there was no problem with the front entrance of the bus and Ms. Simpson was a scofflaw trying to avoid paying the fare. Of course, we may not, and do not, resolve these disputed issues of fact. See Jeffreys, 426 F.3d at 553 (“Assessments of credibility and choices between conflicting versions of the events are matters for the jury, not for the court on summary judgment.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). It is enough on this appeal that we make clear that the series of events leading up to and following Ms. Simpson’s entry through the back door of the BX19 bus that June evening are in genuine dispute and on Ms. Simpson’s version, which 12 14-680-cv Reisha Simpson v. City of New York a jury would be entitled to credit, Officer Nelson was aware of facts that should have made it clear to a reasonable officer that she was not trying to avoid paying her bus fare.7 Officer Nelson is not entitled to summary judgment in his favor on either the § 1983 or New York State law false arrest claims.