United States District Court, S.D. New York
ORDER AND OPINION
G. SCHOFIELD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Orlando Collazo brings this action against Defendants the
City of New York (“City”), Detective Joseph
Cirigliano and CVS Caremark Corporation (“CVS”)
seeking money damages and other relief arising from
Plaintiff's arrest at Defendant CVS' store and his
subsequent criminal prosecution. Defendants move for judgment
on the pleadings. For the reasons below, the motion is
facts below are drawn from the Complaint and the Criminal
Court Complaint, of which the Court is entitled to take
judicial notice. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2);
see Int'l Star Class Yacht Racing Ass'n v. Tommy
Hilfiger, U.S.A., Inc., 146 F.3d 66, 70 (2d Cir. 1998);
accord Ackerman v. Local Union, 363, Intern.
Broth. of Elec. Workers, 423 F.Supp.2d 125, 128
(S.D.N.Y. 2006). For purposes of this motion, the allegations
in the Complaint are assumed to be true and are construed in
the light most favorable to Plaintiff as the non-moving
party. See Spak v. Phillips, 857 F.3d 458, 463 n.2
(2d Cir. 2017).
October 1, 2015, Plaintiff was shopping at a CVS store in
Manhattan. Two CVS employees forcibly escorted Plaintiff to a
back room of the store for allegedly having stolen three
shampoo bottles from the store on September 17, 2015. The
employees restrained Plaintiff and prevented him from leaving
until Defendant Cirigliano arrived. The CVS employees told
Detective Cirigliano that they had witnessed Plaintiff
stealing shampoo on September 17, 2015. Plaintiff explained
to Defendant Cirigliano that he could not have stolen shampoo
on that date because he had been incarcerated at the time.
Without investigating the veracity of Plaintiff's
explanation, Defendant Cirigliano arrested and transported
Plaintiff to the police station, where he was detained. Later
the same day, Plaintiff was transported to the Criminal Court
and charged with one count of robbery in the second degree
and was further detained for an additional six days.
day of Plaintiff's arrest, Defendant Cirigliano prepared
the Criminal Court Complaint in which he swore in part that
Plaintiff “forcibly stole property and in the course of
the commission of the crime and immediate flight therefrom,
[and that Plaintiff] caused physical injury to [a CVS
employee].” Defendant Cirigliano also swore that
“[t]he factual basis for this charge” was that a
CVS employee had told him that on September 17, 2015,
“he observed [Plaintiff] take three shampoos off of the
shelf and place them into a bag he brought into the
store.” Defendant Cirigliano's statements were
forwarded to the New York County District Attorney, who then
criminally prosecuted Plaintiff for the alleged robbery.
Plaintiff was made to return to court once before October 6,
2015, when Plaintiff's criminal charge was dismissed.
Court reviews a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) under the same
standard as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Bank of
N.Y. v. First Millennium, Inc., 607 F.3d 905, 922 (2d
Cir. 2010). The Court accepts as true all of the non-moving
party's well-pleaded factual allegations and draws all
reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.
See Standard Inv. Chartered, Inc. v. Nat'l Ass'n
of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 637 F.3d 112, 115 (2d Cir. 2011).
To survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the
plaintiff's complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face. Hayden v. Paterson, 594 F.3d
150, 160 (2d Cir. 2010).
Rule 12(c) motion, the Court may consider “the
complaint, the answer, any written documents attached to
them, . . . any matter of which the court can take judicial
notice for the factual background of the case[, ] . . . any
written instrument attached . . . as an exhibit, materials
incorporated . . . by reference, and documents that, although
not incorporated by reference, are integral” to the
pleadings. L-7 Designs, Inc. v. Old Navy, LLC, 647
F.3d 419, 422 (2d Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks
Complaint alleges assault and false imprisonment under New
York law against Defendant CVS. The Complaint alleges false
arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution under 28
U.S.C. § 1983 and New York law against Defendants City
and Cirigliano. Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings
on all counts. Because Plaintiff concedes that his claims
against CVS and his state law claims against all Defendants
are time barred, only Plaintiff's § 1983 claims
against Defendants City and Cirigliano are addressed below.
§ 1983 Claims against the City
City's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted
under the Monell doctrine. Monell v. Dep't
of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). A
municipality can be held liable under § 1983 only if a
plaintiff's injury is the result of municipal policy or
custom, id. at 694, and a municipality is “not
vicariously liable under § 1983 for [its] employees'
actions, ” Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51,
60 (2011). The Complaint does not allege that Plaintiff's
arrest and prosecution were the result of a custom or policy.
Plaintiff also concedes that there is no vicarious liability
claim against the City. Consequently, Plaintiff's claims
under § 1983 against the City are dismissed.
§ 1983 Claims against ...