Opinion ID: 2522805
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the denial of judgment as a matter of law

Text: In order to prevail on a § 1983 claim against a state actor for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must show a violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment, see, e.g., Murphy v. Lynn, 118 F.3d 938, 944 (2d Cir.1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1115, 118 S.Ct. 1051, 140 L.Ed.2d 114 (1998); Rohman v. New York City Transit Authority, 215 F.3d 208, 215 (2d Cir.2000), and must establish the elements of a malicious prosecution claim under state law, see, e.g., Murphy v. Lynn, 118 F.3d at 944; Russell v. Smith, 68 F.3d 33, 36 (2d Cir. 1995); Janetka v. Dabe, 892 F.2d 187, 189 (2d Cir.1989). To establish a malicious prosecution claim under New York law, a plaintiff must prove `(1) the initiation or continuation of a criminal proceeding against plaintiff; (2) termination of the proceeding in plaintiff's favor; (3) lack of probable cause for commencing the proceeding; and (4) actual malice as a motivation for defendant's actions.' Murphy v. Lynn, 118 F.3d at 947 (quoting Russell v. Smith, 68 F.3d at 36); see Broughton v. State, 37 N.Y.2d 451, 457, 373 N.Y.S.2d 87, 94, 335 N.E.2d 310, cert. denied, 423 U.S. 929, 96 S.Ct. 277, 46 L.Ed.2d 257 (1975). In considering a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the district court  must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.... Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge.... Thus, although the court should review the record as a whole, it must disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe.  Zellner v. Summerlin, 494 F.3d 344, 370 (2d Cir.2007) ( Zellner ) (quoting Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing, 530 U.S. 133, 150-51, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) (other internal quotation marks omitted) (emphases in Zellner )). We review a district court's denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo. In so doing, we apply the same standard[s] that [are] required of the district court. Zellner, 494 F.3d at 371. Under these standards, Agostini plainly was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Although the existence of probable cause must be determined with reference to the facts of each case, in general [p]robable cause to arrest exists when the officers have knowledge of, or reasonably trustworthy information as to, facts and circumstances that are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed by the person to be arrested. Zellner, 494 F.3d at 368 (citing, e.g., Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 208 n. 9, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 479, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175-76, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949)). Probable cause may also exist where the officer has relied on mistaken information, so long as it was reasonable for him to rely on it. See, e.g., Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797, 803-04, 91 S.Ct. 1106, 28 L.Ed.2d 484 (1971). However, the failure to make a further inquiry when a reasonable person would have done so may be evidence of lack of probable cause. Colon v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 78, 82, 468 N.Y.S.2d 453, 455, 455 N.E.2d 1248 (1983). The existence of probable cause must be determined by reference to the totality of the circumstances. See, e.g., Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). [T]he existence of probable cause is a complete defense to a claim of malicious prosecution in New York, Savino v. City of New York, 331 F.3d 63, 72 (2d Cir.2003), and indictment by a grand jury creates a presumption of probable cause, id. That presumption may be rebutted only by evidence that the indictment was procured by `fraud, perjury, the suppression of evidence or other police conduct undertaken in bad faith.' Id. (quoting Colon v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d at 83, 468 N.Y.S.2d at 456, 455 N.E.2d 1248). Where there is some indication in the police records that, as to a fact crucial to the existence of probable cause, the arresting officers may have lied in order to secure an indictment, and a jury could reasonably find that the indictment was secured through bad faith or perjury, the presumption of probable cause created by the indictment may be overcome. Boyd v. City of New York, 336 F.3d 72, 77 (2d Cir.2003). Like a prosecutor's knowing use of false evidence to obtain a tainted conviction, a police officer's fabrication and forwarding to prosecutors of known false evidence works an unacceptable `corruption of the truth-seeking function of the trial process.' Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Authority, 124 F.3d 123, 130 (2d Cir.1997) ( Ricciuti ) (quoting United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 104, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976)). As set out in Part I above, the jury in the present case found that Agostini had engaged in at least one of those forms of misconduct and had done so knowingly. We see no error in the district court's ruling that there was ample evidence to support the jury's findings. The evidence described above included, for example, Agostini's misrepresentation in one of his DD5s that, after Manganiello responded to a report of a disturbance at 1700 Metropolitan on February 12, 2001, prior to the shooting of Acosta in the basement of that building, no one had seen Manganiello leave the building. In fact, a DD5 prepared by Martinez, and given to Agostini as leader of the investigative team, reported that two NYPD officers who had also responded to that disturbance stated that Manganiello left the building with them. In addition, although there was evidence that Manganiello had informed Agostini of two prior instances in which Acosta had been assaulted or threatened by members of the Bloods or by other local thugs, Agostini's DD5 on his interrogation of Manganiello stated that when he asked Manganiello if anyone he knows has any problems with Acosta, Manganiello would not answer. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 33.) Agostini apparently made no effort to follow up on the information Manganiello gave him. The record also indicates that Agostini made only the most superficial and credulous of inquiries of the taxi passenger who had been overheard telling someone he had been present at the shooting and had seen the shooter. And the jury could infer that Agostini coerced a false statement about Manganiello from Booth in exchange for not reporting Booth to the organized crime bureau. Further, it was permissible for the jury, on the evidence before it, to find that Agostini used Alston to inculpate Manganiello with no concern whatever for whether Alston's statements were truthful. It was clear that Agostini promoted Alston to the ADA as a witness against Manganiello despite knowing that Alston had already lied to him about Manganiello at least once; and it was clear that Agostini in his paperworksome of which was sent to the ADA and would have been subject to discovery by Manganiello prior to the criminal trialdid not mention Agostini's belief that Alston was playing games. In addition, given Alston's angry criticism of Agostini for interviewing Baker without Alston being present and Alston's insistence that any future alleged witness not be interviewed by Agostini in Alston's absence, the jury was entitled (a) to disbelieve Agostini's testimony that he had no suspicion that Alston was planning to continue fabricating evidence, and (b) to infer that Agostini did not inform the ADA of Alston's insistence because Agostini knew that if the ADA were aware of it she would question the veracity of statements thus procured. In sum, looking at the evidence as a whole, the jury could permissibly infer that Agostini was determined simply to make a case against Manganiello, and that in order to do so Agostini refrained from making inquiry into other possible suspects, ignored evidence that was inconsistent with his belief that Manganiello was guilty, declined to inform the ADA of, or to document, any exculpatory evidence or inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses who agreed to inculpate Manganiello, secured one statement inculpating Manganiello by agreeing not to disclose the witness's known criminal activities to the proper authorities, and included in some of Agostini's own reports supposedly factual statements adverse to Manganiello that were contradicted by persons having first-hand knowledge of the facts. The evidence amply supported the jury's finding that Agostini had engaged in misconduct and supported the conclusions both that the presumption of probable cause created by the grand jury indictment was rebutted and that probable cause was lacking.
Agostini also contends that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the basis that Manganiello failed to establish that Agostini had caused the initiation or the continuation of the criminal proceeding and failed to establish that Agostini had acted with actual malice. Again, we disagree. To initiate a prosecution, a defendant must do more than report the crime or give testimony. He must play[] an active role in the prosecution, such as giving advice and encouragement or importuning the authorities to act. Rohman v. New York City Transit Authority, 215 F.3d at 217 (internal quotation marks omitted). A jury may permissibly find that a defendant initiated a prosecution where he fil[ed] the charges or prepar[ed an] alleged false confession and forward[ed] it to prosecutors. Ricciuti, 124 F.3d at 130. Here, there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could infer that Agostini, inter alia, actively elicited inculpatory statements from witnesses such as Alston and Booth, whose veracity in making such statements was circumstantially suspect; that Agostini forwarded those statements to the ADA; that Agostini was in touch with the ADA at least once a week; and that Agostini signed the felony complaint on which Manganiello was ultimately rearrested. This sufficed to satisfy the initiation-or-continuation element. Finally, we also agree with the district court that the evidence was ample to permit an inference that Agostini proceeded against Manganiello with malice. First, [a] lack of probable cause generally creates an inference of malice. Boyd v. City of New York, 336 F.3d at 78; see, e.g., Ricciuti, 124 F.3d at 131; Lowth v. Town of Cheektowaga, 82 F.3d 563, 573 (2d Cir. 1996). Further, malice may be shown by proving that the prosecution complained of was undertaken from improper or wrongful motives, or in reckless disregard of the rights of the plaintiff. Pinsky v. Duncan, 79 F.3d 306, 313 (2d Cir.1996) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Lowth v. Town of Cheektowaga, 82 F.3d at 573 (malice may be proven by showing that the prosecutor had a wrong or improper motive, something other than a desire to see the ends of justice served (internal quotation marks omitted)). Malice on the part of Agostini could easily be inferred in light of the evidence in the present case of, inter alia, Agostini's apparently myopic focus on Manganiello, to the exclusion of all other suspects; Agostini's otherwise seemingly inexplicable false statements about Manganiello's conduct that were contrary to the reported first-hand knowledge of others; Agostini's willingness to coerce an inculpatory statement from one unwilling person in exchange for not reporting that person's known criminal activities; and his willingness to have Manganiello indicted on the basis of testimony of another person who was known to have lied to Agostini at least once in this very matter and who was evidently willing to intimidate others into falsely providing the evidence Agostini sought. The jury was entitled to find that Agostini's adherence to the view that Alston, in producing Damon, had given Agostini the right information (Tr. 248), while Agostini admitted that Alston had asked Damon to lie about Anthony Manganiello ( id. at 330), was reflective of, in the words of Lowth, something other than a desire to see the ends of justice served. It was also understandably difficult for the jury to fathom an appropriate explanation for Agostini's misrepresentation, in the course of the criminal proceeding, of the contents of the note he had found in Manganiello's locker. To testify that Manganiello's note stating I pray every day I will never have to kill someone instead said I feel like killing somebody (Tr. 266-67) cannot be viewed as better than a reckless disregard of Manganiello's rights. Although that statement was made after the initiation of the criminal proceeding, the jury was entitled, especially in light of the other evidence as to Agostini's conduct of the investigation, to view that misrepresentation as indicative of Agostini's state of mind all along.
A government official sued in his individual capacity is entitled to qualified immunity (1) if the conduct attributed to him was not prohibited by federal law, see, e.g., County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 841 n. 5, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998); Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991); or (2) where that conduct was so prohibited, if the plaintiff's right not to be subjected to such conduct by the defendant was not clearly established at the time it occurred, see, e.g., Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817-19, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982); or (3) if the defendant's action was objective[ly] legal[ly] reasonable[] ... in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted).... Munafo v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 285 F.3d 201, 210 (2d Cir.2002). Only the third aspect of the qualified immunity doctrine was genuinely at issue in the present case, for [f]reedom from malicious prosecution is a constitutional right that has long been clearly established. Kinzer v. Jackson, 316 F.3d 139, 143 (2d Cir.2003). Whether a defendant officer's conduct was objectively reasonable is a mixed question of law and fact. Zellner, 494 F.3d at 367. The factfinder must determine any disputed material facts, and on the basis of the facts permissibly found, the court must decide whether it was objectively reasonable for the officer to believe that his conduct did not violate a clearly established right, i.e., whether officers of reasonable competence could disagree as to the lawfulness of such conduct. Id. Although a mere mistake in the performance of an official duty may not deprive the officer of qualified immunity, the doctrine does not shield performance that either (a) was in violation of clearly established law, or (b) was plainly incompetent. See, e.g., Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 229, 112 S.Ct. 534, 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991) (The qualified immunity standard `gives ample room for mistaken judgments' by protecting `all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.' (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 343, 341, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986))). With respect to both the legal question and the matter of competence, the officials' actions must be evaluated for objective reasonableness. Thus, the doctrine shields officers from suit for damages if `a reasonable officer could have believed' his action `to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information [he] possessed.' Hunter, 502 U.S. at 227, 112 S.Ct. 534 (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987)). That is, [e]ven if the right at issue was clearly established in certain respects ... an officer is still entitled to qualified immunity if `officers of reasonable competence could disagree' on the legality of the action at issue in its particular factual context. Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d 139, 154 (2d Cir.2007) (quoting Malley, 475 U.S. at 341, 106 S.Ct. 1092). In the present case, given the jury's findings that Agostini misrepresented the evidence to the prosecutors, or failed to pass on material information, or made statements that were false, and engaged in such misconduct knowingly, and given the ample evidentiary support for those findings, the district court correctly concluded that no reasonable officer could have believed Agostini's actions to be lawful. Agostini's motion for judgment as a matter of law based on qualified immunity was properly denied.