Amigon v. Dylan J. Luzon

Background

On July 16, 2025, the court granted summary judgment for the Village of Dobbs Ferry, Officer Dylan J. Luzon, and Officer Michael Digilio. Summary judgment is a decision entered without a trial when the court determines that the record does not present a dispute requiring a trial. The Clerk then entered judgment for the defendants and closed the case.

Anthony Amigon, who was proceeding without a lawyer, moved for reconsideration of that ruling. His motion did not identify a specific legal basis, so the court treated it as a motion under Local Civil Rule 6.3 and/or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The defendants opposed the motion. The court declined to consider a declaration submitted by the defendants because Local Civil Rule 6.3 generally bars affidavits in this type of motion unless the court gives permission, and the defendants had not requested or received that permission.

Arguments and Analysis

Amigon raised three grounds for reconsideration:

1. He argued that the court had failed to consider Officer Luzon’s statement, “but now he’s suspended so now he has no choice,” when deciding that the automobile exception justified the search. The automobile exception permits a warrantless vehicle search when officers have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime. The court said it had considered all admissible facts, including the dash-camera video, and had already determined that the total circumstances provided probable cause.

2. Amigon argued that defense counsel had made a judicial admission—an admission binding on a party—through a leading question about whether marijuana had been used as a basis for the search. The court rejected that argument because a lawyer’s question is not evidence. It also noted that the earlier order had already found the record insufficient to establish a judicial admission and that dissatisfaction with the earlier ruling was not a proper reason for reconsideration.

3. Amigon argued that the court had incorrectly found that he consented to the vehicle search. The court said he had not identified controlling decisions or factual material that it had overlooked. It also explained that the earlier order did not decide whether his statement, “OK, no problem,” amounted to consent to search the entire vehicle. Instead, because the court had found probable cause under the automobile exception, it did not need to reach that issue. The earlier order separately found that Amigon voluntarily consented to a search of the vehicle’s trunk.

Ruling

Judge Philip M. Halpern denied Amigon’s motion for reconsideration. The court concluded that he had not shown an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent manifest injustice. The court also declined to consider a new argument raised only in the conclusion of Amigon’s brief about the use of marijuana odor as probable cause. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion.