Rich v. State of New York

Background

Benjamin Samuel Rich, formerly known as Samuel Guillaume, sued Detective Michael Miller and Sergeant Vincent Corrado of the New York City Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion’s caption spells the second defendant’s name “Corrando,” while the body and the defendant’s filings use “Corrado.” Rich alleged malicious prosecution, denial of a fair trial, and fabrication of evidence. He represented himself.

The case arose from a January 6, 2016 shooting at the Highline Ballroom in Manhattan. Detective Miller investigated the shooting. A bouncer, Avery Jackson, described the shooter and later identified Rich in a photo array and an in-person lineup. Other witnesses told Miller that Rich had argued with people at the club and had been asked to leave. The investigation also included a recorded phone call involving Rich and information connecting a white Rolls Royce to Rich’s company.

Rich was arrested in New Jersey, indicted in New York on attempted-murder, attempted-assault, and weapon-possession charges, and prosecuted. A state court judge found that the identification procedures were fair and that there was probable cause to arrest him. During trial, the court learned that Jackson had made inconsistent statements. At Rich’s request, the court declared a mistrial, and the government later dismissed the indictment.

Earlier in this federal case, the court dismissed Rich’s claims against several other defendants and allowed his § 1983 claims against Miller and Corrado for malicious prosecution and denial of a fair trial to continue. Rich later narrowed his amended complaint to three § 1983 claims. The court had previously denied an earlier summary-judgment motion based on a dispute over whether Rich signed a settlement agreement. The motion addressed in this order was the defendants’ later summary-judgment motion.

Malicious Prosecution

A § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim requires proof that a criminal proceeding was brought against the plaintiff, ended in the plaintiff’s favor, lacked probable cause, and was brought with malice. The court also explained that a plaintiff suing police officers must overcome the usual presumption that prosecutors independently decided to pursue the case, generally by showing that the officers created false information and sent it to prosecutors or withheld important information.

The court held that the dismissal of Rich’s indictment counted as a favorable end to the prosecution because the Supreme Court had since clarified that a plaintiff need only show that the prosecution ended without a conviction. But the court held that Rich had not shown a genuine dispute about probable cause. Jackson identified Rich twice, other witnesses confirmed that Rich had argued at the club and was asked to leave, Rich’s phone call supported parts of Jackson’s account, and a grand-jury indictment also supported probable cause.

Rich pointed to a 911-related report describing a car with a black top and to Jackson’s inconsistent statements. The court held that potentially conflicting evidence did not eliminate probable cause. It also found no evidence that Miller knew or should have known Jackson was lying, that Jackson’s statements were fabricated by Miller, or that Miller acted unreasonably or in bad faith. The court therefore granted summary judgment on the malicious-prosecution claim. As to Corrado, the court separately stated that Rich had not shown Corrado’s personal involvement in the investigation or prosecution.

Denial of a Fair Trial and Fabrication of Evidence

The court addressed Rich’s fabrication-of-evidence claim together with his denial-of-a-fair-trial claim because it considered the claims duplicative. To prove denial of a fair trial, Rich had to show that an investigating official fabricated information likely to influence a jury, sent that information to prosecutors, and thereby caused a deprivation of life, liberty, or property.

The court found that Rich presented no evidence that Miller or Corrado fabricated evidence, as opposed to Jackson. It therefore granted summary judgment on the denial-of-a-fair-trial claim as well.

Disposition

The court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It directed the clerk to terminate the motion, enter judgment for the defendants, mail the order to Rich, and close the case.