Corso v. City of New York

Background

Matthew Corso brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing suits for certain constitutional violations, based on his February 24, 2016 arrest. The opinion states that officers Jose Calle-Palomeque and an unidentified NYPD officer arrested Corso after removing a knife from his pocket. Corso alleged that the officers knew the knife was not a gravity knife but nevertheless represented that it was, and that false evidence and statements were later provided to prosecutors.

Corso’s criminal case ended with an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, or ACD. An ACD is a disposition in which criminal charges are dismissed after an agreed period or arrangement, without the court deciding the defendant’s guilt. In earlier rulings, the court dismissed most of Corso’s claims. The opinion states that the remaining claims included a fair-trial claim and an unlawful-stop-and-search claim against Calle-Palomeque, an unlawful-stop-and-search claim against the unidentified officer, and a related failure-to-intervene claim against that officer.

The present order addressed two motions. First, Corso sought permission to replace the unidentified “Jane Doe” officer with NYPD Lieutenant Angela Morris. Second, Calle-Palomeque filed a partial motion to dismiss Corso’s fair-trial claim after the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonough v. Smith.

Motion to Amend

The court held that New York’s three-year limitations period for § 1983 claims had expired as to Corso’s proposed unlawful-stop-and-search claim against Morris. The arrest occurred on February 24, 2016, so the limitations period expired on February 24, 2019.

Corso argued that stays of discovery had paused the limitations period. The court rejected that argument, explaining that equitable tolling—an exceptional extension of a filing deadline—was not justified because Corso had not shown that the discovery stays prevented him from identifying Morris. The court noted that records produced in response to Corso’s Freedom of Information Law requests identified “LT MORRIS” and “LT MORRIS ANGELA” in connection with the arrest, nearly two years before the limitations period expired.

Corso also argued that the proposed amendment should relate back to the original complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c). The court found that submitting two substantially identical information requests did not show sufficient diligence in identifying Morris before the deadline. It therefore held that the proposed claim against Morris was time-barred and denied Corso’s motion for leave to amend.

Motion to Dismiss the Fair-Trial Claim

The court considered whether Corso’s § 1983 fair-trial claim based on allegedly fabricated evidence required a favorable termination of the criminal proceeding. Relying on McDonough, the court concluded that favorable termination is required when the claim challenges the integrity or validity of the criminal prosecution itself.

The court then held that Corso’s acceptance of an ACD was not a favorable termination for this type of claim. It reasoned that McDonough treated fabricated-evidence claims as analogous to malicious-prosecution claims, and that an ACD is a bargained-for resolution that does not establish the defendant’s innocence. The court concluded that Corso’s acceptance of the ACD barred his fair-trial claim as a matter of law.

The court granted Calle-Palomeque’s partial motion to dismiss Corso’s fair-trial claim. In its conclusion, the court denied the motion for leave to amend and granted the partial motion to dismiss, then directed the parties to submit information about what steps, if any, remained to fully resolve the case.