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.

Bradley v. Golphin

United States District Court, E.D. New York

January 17, 2018

JAMES BRADLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
YANIRA GOLPHIN and ERIC DELMAM, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM & ORDER

          NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff James Bradley brings this prose action against Defendants Yanira Golphin and Eric Delmam[1] pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988, the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and certain state tort laws. (Am. Compl. (Dkt. 13).)[2]Defendants Golphin and Delmam filed a motion for partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs equal protection, deprivation of property, and supplemental state tort law claims. (Defs. Mot. for Summ. J. ("Defs. Mot.") (Dkt. 73).) Plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition and cross-motion to compel discovery. (Pl. Mem. in Opp'n ("Pl. Mem.") (Dkt. 73-5).) Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy denied Plaintiffs cross-motion for discovery. (Apr. 27, 2017, Min. Entry.)

         For the following reasons, Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. Factual Background

         The following facts are not in dispute for the purpose of this motion.[3]On April 14, 2013, in Brooklyn, New York, Plaintiff was arrested by Defendants, who are police officers, for unlawful imprisonment and sexual abuse. (Defs. R. 56.1 Statement (Dkt 73-1) ¶ 3.) Plaintiff alleges that during the course of the arrest, a diamond watch, a title to a car, and $8, 000 in cash went missing from a safe in his apartment. (Id. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff also alleges that $78 was taken from his pants pocket by police at the precinct and was never returned. (Id. ¶ 6.)

         The Comptroller's Office of the City of New York received a notice of claim from Plaintiff referencing the April 14th arrest on July 11, 2013. (Id. ¶ 9.) On September 20, 2013, the Comptroller's Office sent a notice of a hearing under New York General Municipal Law § 50-h ("50-h Hearing"), scheduling the 50-h Hearing for November 21, 2013. (Id. ¶¶ 11, 13.) See also N.Y. Gen. Mun. L. § 50-h. While the notice stated that Plaintiff was allowed one adjournment without cause, Plaintiffs attorney requested two adjournments "due to scheduling conflict[s]" which the City obliged. (Id. ¶¶ 16, 18-22.) The Plaintiff did not appear for the final scheduled 50-h Hearing on April 23, 2014. (Id. ¶ 23.) On July 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant action. (Id. ¶ 1.)

         B. The Amended Complaint and the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

         Plaintiffs Amended Complaint lists eleven causes of action. (Am. Compl.) Eight of the eleven causes of action are pursuant to federal statutes and the United States Constitution, and three of the causes of action are pursuant to state tort laws. (Id.) Inter alia. Plaintiffs claims are for excessive force, equal protection, deprivation of property, failure to intervene, unlawful entry, supervisory liability, municipal liability, assault, and battery. (Id.)

         In their motion for partial summary judgment, Defendants move for summary judgment only with respect to Plaintiffs (1) equal protection claim, (2) deprivation of property claim, and (3) supplemental state tort law claims. (Defs. Mot.)

         II. LEGAL STANDARDS

         Summary judgment must be granted when "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). "A 'material' fact is one capable of influencing the case's outcome under governing substantive law, and a 'genuine' dispute is one as to which the evidence would permit a reasonable juror to find for the party opposing the motion." Figueroa v. Mazza, 825 F.3d 89, 98 (2d Cir. 2016) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).

         The moving party bears the initial burden to show an absence of genuine factual dispute. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). Summary judgment will be granted if the opposing party then "fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). To defeat summary judgment, the opposing party must do more than demonstrate "some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, " Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zanith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986), and may not rely on "conclusory allegations." Twin Labs., Inc. v. Weider Health & Fitness, 900 F.2d 566, 568 (2d Cir.1990); see Joseph v. N. Shore Univ. Hosp., 473 Fed.Appx. 34, 36 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order) ("Conclusory allegations, conjecture, and speculation, ... are insufficient to create a genuine issue of fact." (quoting Shannon v. N.Y.City Transit Auth., 332 F.3d 95, 99 (2d Cir. 2003)). "[T]he Court 'must construe the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and must resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences against the movant."' Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 822 F.3d 620, 631 n.12 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Beyer v. Cty. of Nassau, 524 F.3d 160, 163 (2d Cir. 2008)).

         III.DISCUS ...


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.