Garnes v. City of New York

Background

Mark Garnes, representing himself, sued the City of New York and Highway Patrolman Nikodemus Petrone over a November 26, 2020 traffic stop and arrest. He asserted claims for false arrest and imprisonment, denial of access to counsel, malicious prosecution, and municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously dismissed claims against the New York City Police Department because it is a City agency that cannot be sued as a separate entity.

Petrone stopped Garnes after observing him speeding and weaving between marked lanes. Garnes agreed to take a preliminary breath test after denying that he had been drinking. The first three tests produced invalid readings, but the fourth indicated a blood alcohol level of 0.162 percent. Petrone arrested Garnes. At the precinct, Garnes was asked to take additional chemical testing. He asked to speak with a specific attorney, David Zeitlin, but the request was denied, and Garnes refused the additional testing after being warned that refusal could lead to license suspension and revocation. Criminal charges were later filed, and the complaint against Garnes was dismissed about four months after the arrest.

False Arrest and Imprisonment

The court held that probable cause justified the arrest. Probable cause means facts known to the officer that would lead a reasonable person to believe a crime was committed. The court relied on Petrone’s observations of erratic driving, the preliminary breath-test result, and Garnes’s refusal to submit to further chemical testing. It found Garnes’s unsupported assertions insufficient to create a material factual dispute about probable cause.

The court also ruled, alternatively, that Petrone was entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity generally protects public officials from personal liability when their conduct did not violate a clearly established right or when a reasonable officer could have believed the conduct was lawful. The court found that, at minimum, Petrone had “arguable probable cause,” meaning a reasonable officer in the same circumstances could have believed probable cause existed.

The defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the false-arrest and imprisonment claim was granted.

Malicious Prosecution

The court held that the probable cause supporting the arrest continued through the prosecution because Garnes identified no intervening fact that undermined it. The court again considered his refusal to submit to chemical testing as evidence supporting probable cause. It also held, alternatively, that Petrone had qualified immunity because there was arguable probable cause to charge Garnes and no new information made the charge manifestly unreasonable.

The defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the malicious-prosecution claim was granted.

Denial of Access to Counsel

The court recognized a limited New York right to consult an attorney before deciding whether to take a chemical test in an alcohol-related motor-vehicle case. The request must be clear, and access may be denied if consultation would unduly delay the testing.

The court found a genuine dispute of material fact about this claim. Garnes said he specifically requested to speak with an attorney before deciding whether to consent to or refuse the additional chemical test, and he identified the attorney he wanted to contact. The defendants did not argue that his request was unclear, but they argued that contacting an attorney would have delayed the test. The court found that Petrone did not appear to take steps to help Garnes promptly reach counsel and that the defendants had not sufficiently shown that consultation would have caused an undue delay.

The defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the denial-of-access-to-counsel claim was denied.

Municipal Liability

Garnes claimed that the City was liable because Petrone’s conduct resulted from a municipal policy or custom. To establish municipal liability under § 1983, a plaintiff must show both a City policy or custom and a connection between that policy or custom and the alleged violation.

The court ruled that the claim based on false arrest failed because there was no underlying constitutional violation. The claim based on denial of access to counsel failed because Garnes did not show that Petrone’s conduct resulted from a City policy or custom. The court also held that alleged violations of NYPD rules, regulations, or the patrol guide did not by themselves establish a violation of the Constitution or federal law. The court declined to consider a “ghost plates” policy raised for the first time in Garnes’s opposition and found the newspaper article and report he offered inadmissible for purposes of opposing summary judgment.

The defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the municipal-liability claim was granted.

Conclusion

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It granted the motion on the false-arrest and imprisonment, malicious-prosecution, and municipal-liability claims, and denied it on the denial-of-access-to-counsel claim. Judge Edgardo Ramos directed the parties to appear for a conference on March 13, 2025, and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion.