Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

STUDIFIN v. N.Y. CITY POLICE DEPT.

January 4, 1990

RICHARD S. STUDIFIN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT — LICENSE DIVISION — FIREARMS CONTROL SECTION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: William C. Conner, District Judge:

OPINION AND ORDER

This pro se civil rights action is presently before the Court on the motion of defendant YMCA of Greater New York — Prospect Park Branch ("YMCA") to dismiss the amended complaint as against it for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P. For the following reasons, YMCA's motion is granted.

FACTS

Plaintiff Richard S. Studifin brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1985(3) to redress the deprivation of his civil rights by numerous defendants. In his amended complaint, pro se plaintiff alleges that he and his YMCA room were subject to an illegal search and seizure. He also charges defendants with false arrest, threat with a firearm, malicious prosecution, denial of a jury trial and denial of appellate review.

Plaintiff implicates YMCA three times in his amended complaint, stating:

  2. That in or around March 1985, Sergeant Heekin,
  shield 2865 of the New York City Police Department
  Firearms Control Section, License Division —
  together with Gussie Sanzillo, (Executive Director
  of YMCA) stood in the lobby waiting for me to leave
  the premises, thereafter, broke and entered my room
  attempting to secure my firearms.
  11. That the YMCA commenced a Hold-Over proceeding
  in the landlord-tenant Part of the Civil Court
  located at 141 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, New
  York 11201., for "NO REASON".
  12. That the YMCA brought in an Executive from the
  main branch of the herein-mentioned located in the
  borough of Manhattan, (a black man) so the case
  would not have racial overtones, moreover, their
  activities were performed under color of State law
  or State Authority they conspired and involved
  itself in the Constitutional deprivation of my
  rights. [sic]

Pursuant to New York law, YMCA brought a hold-over proceeding in the Landlord/Tenant Part of Kings County Civil Court to evict plaintiff and to collect rent arrearages and fair value for the period after which the lease had expired. YMCA also believed plaintiff unlawfully possessed firearms in his YMCA room. Although plaintiff contested the proceeding, a final judgment of possession was rendered in favor of YMCA.

DISCUSSION

When considering a motion to dismiss, a court must accept plaintiff's allegations as true. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1686, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). The test is whether, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in his favor, the complaint states any valid ground for relief. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Clay v. Martin, 509 F.2d 109 (2d Cir. 1975). A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond a doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of a claim that would entitle him to relief. See Dahlberg v. Becker, 748 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1084, 105 S.Ct. 1845, 85 L.Ed.2d 144 (1985). Additionally, in a case brought by a pro se plaintiff, the court must construe the complaint broadly, holding it to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by counsel. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972).

YMCA's motion to dismiss challenges the sufficiency of plaintiff's claims under each of the civil rights statutes.

42 U.S.C. § 1983*fn1


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.