Dejesus v. City of Yonkers

Background

Evelyn Dejesus, Xavier O. Puntiel, and Joshua Dejesus sued the City of Yonkers, Officer Jason Parillo, and unidentified Yonkers police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows people to sue state or local officials for violating constitutional rights. The complaint asserted claims involving false arrest, excessive force, lack of due process, and malicious prosecution.

The dispute arose from a police response to the plaintiffs’ apartment on April 6, 2019, after a report of a domestic dispute involving a knife. The officers knocked repeatedly, announced that they were police, and eventually forced open the apartment door after roughly 40 to 50 minutes. The parties disagreed about what the officers told the plaintiffs before entering and about what happened during the arrests. The defendants said officers gave directions that Joshua and Xavier did not follow. The plaintiffs said they were not given a meaningful opportunity to comply, were thrown to the floor, and had officers place knees on their backs or necks. The plaintiffs were arrested and charged with obstructing governmental administration and resisting arrest; Evelyn was also charged with second-degree assault. All charges were dismissed on August 17, 2021.

Claims and parties remaining at summary judgment

The plaintiffs abandoned their claims against the City of Yonkers, their due-process claim, and their state constitutional or tort claims. The court therefore treated the remaining claims as false arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution against Parillo and the unidentified officers. The plaintiffs had not identified or served the John Doe officers, and discovery had closed. The court dismissed the claims against those officers without prejudice. Parillo was the only remaining defendant for the claims addressed on their merits.

False arrest

The court denied summary judgment on the false-arrest claim. Probable cause—facts that would lead a reasonable officer to believe a crime had been committed—is a complete defense to false arrest. The defendants argued that they had probable cause to arrest the plaintiffs for obstructing governmental administration and resisting arrest.

The court found disputed facts about whether the plaintiffs were told why the officers sought entry, whether the officers were legally entitled to enter without a warrant, and whether emergency circumstances justified the entry. Because those facts affected whether the plaintiffs could have criminally intended to interfere with a lawful police function, the court could not decide as a matter of law that probable cause existed for obstructing governmental administration. Under the court’s analysis, resisting arrest could not independently establish probable cause because a person cannot be guilty of resisting an arrest that was not itself authorized by probable cause. The court also found unresolved factual issues concerning the basis for Evelyn’s assault charge.

Malicious prosecution

The court denied summary judgment on the malicious-prosecution claim. The court found that Parillo initiated the criminal proceedings because he signed the sworn charging documents. It also found that the dismissal of all charges was sufficient to show that the proceedings ended in the plaintiffs’ favor.

The court concluded that factual disputes prevented it from deciding whether there was probable cause to believe the plaintiffs could be successfully prosecuted for obstructing governmental administration, resisting arrest, or assault. The court further explained that the lack of probable cause could support an inference of malice, meaning an improper motive. The defendants did not identify an absence of evidence concerning any post-arraignment loss of liberty, so the court did not grant summary judgment on that ground.

Excessive force

The court denied summary judgment on the excessive-force claim. Excessive force during an arrest is evaluated under the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard, which asks whether the force was objectively reasonable in light of the circumstances.

The plaintiffs had scratches and bruises and received medical treatment. More importantly, the parties disputed whether officers placed knees on the plaintiffs’ backs or necks and whether the plaintiffs resisted or were given directions before force was used. The record included evidence that at least some officers placed knees on plaintiffs during the arrests. Because a reasonable jury could find that the force was not warranted, the court concluded that the claim could not be resolved on summary judgment.

Qualified immunity

The defendants also sought summary judgment based on qualified immunity, a legal protection for government officials unless their conduct violated a clearly established right that a reasonable official would have understood. The court denied that request because the same disputed facts affected whether the officers had probable cause or arguable probable cause and whether their conduct was objectively reasonable. The court therefore could not resolve qualified immunity as a matter of law for the false-arrest or malicious-prosecution claims.

Disposition

Judge Karas denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Separately, the court dismissed the claims against the unidentified John Doe officers without prejudice. The City of Yonkers was dismissed because the plaintiffs explicitly abandoned their claims against it. The false-arrest, excessive-force, and malicious-prosecution claims against Parillo were not dismissed or resolved in the defendants’ favor by this order.