Jessamy v. Jackasal

Background

Carlos Jessamy brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, and New York law. He alleged false arrest and malicious prosecution against the Town of Greenburgh, Greenburgh police officer Davey Jakasal, TJX Companies, Inc., and TJX employee Jason Froatz. Jessamy represented himself. The parties consented to Paul E. Davison deciding the case.

The dispute arose from several theft investigations involving TJ Maxx and Marshalls stores. On March 16, 2015, Officer Jakasal and Detective Foster Shaw stopped Jessamy after observing him drive a minivan with a Massachusetts license plate connected to the investigation. Jakasal recognized Jessamy as the person shown in Marshalls surveillance videos. After the arrest, officers found identification matching Jessamy and clothing resembling clothing described in reports about the thefts. They also reviewed information from store employees, police reports, surveillance videos, and a Facebook page believed to belong to Jessamy.

Officer Jakasal initiated charges concerning four store thefts. Jason Froatz, a TJX loss-prevention employee, provided written statements about two TJ Maxx thefts based on his review of the store’s surveillance videos. The Marshalls charges later resulted in convictions. The TJ Maxx charges were dismissed in the interest of justice on April 17, 2017.

Summary judgment standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Because Jessamy was representing himself, the court reviewed his submissions liberally and independently reviewed the record despite problems with his required factual statements.

False arrest

Jessamy claimed that Officer Jakasal falsely arrested him on March 16, 2015. The court explained that probable cause—reasonable grounds to believe a person committed an offense—is a complete defense to a false-arrest claim under both New York law and § 1983. It further stated that a conviction on any charge arising from the arrest conclusively establishes probable cause for the arrest.

Because Jessamy was convicted of charges arising from the March 16 arrest, the court held that his false-arrest claims were barred as a matter of law. It therefore held that Officer Jakasal was entitled to summary judgment on those claims.

Malicious prosecution involving the Marshalls thefts

Jessamy alleged that Officer Jakasal improperly initiated proceedings concerning the March 2 and March 13, 2015 Marshalls thefts. A malicious-prosecution claim requires, among other things, that the criminal proceeding ended favorably for the plaintiff. The court held that Jessamy’s September 28, 2016 convictions for charges arising from the Marshalls thefts were not favorable terminations. His malicious-prosecution claims therefore could not be based on those charges.

Malicious prosecution involving the TJ Maxx thefts

Officer Jakasal argued that he had probable cause to initiate the TJ Maxx proceedings. Unlike a false-arrest claim, malicious prosecution requires probable cause for each offense charged. The court concluded that Jakasal had probable cause based on the information available to him, including information from TJX loss prevention, reports of the February thefts, Froatz’s statements based on the surveillance videos, photographs from the “Los Bro” Facebook page, clothing similarities, the proximity of the stores, and the similar method used in the thefts.

The court held that these facts and circumstances gave Jakasal probable cause to believe Jessamy committed petit larceny at TJ Maxx on February 3 and February 7, 2015. It therefore granted Jakasal summary judgment on the malicious-prosecution claims based on those charges. The court also stated that Jessamy’s federal malicious-prosecution claim based on the TJ Maxx charges failed because he did not show a post-arraignment loss of liberty resulting solely from those charges.

Claims against Jason Froatz and TJX Companies, Inc.

Jessamy argued that Froatz fabricated statements by saying he had observed the February 3 and February 7 thefts even though he had not personally watched them as they occurred. The court held that Froatz had a reasonable basis for the statements because he had reviewed the store’s surveillance videos using the store’s playback system. The court also found that Jessamy offered no evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Froatz did more than provide information to Jakasal, who independently decided whether to bring charges.

The court therefore granted Froatz and TJX summary judgment on Jessamy’s malicious-prosecution claims.

Disposition

The court denied Jessamy’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment. It directed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of all defendants, terminate the pending motions, and close the case. Judge Paul E. Davison signed the decision and order.