Grytsyk v. Morales

Background

Petro Grytsyk brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law, against the City of New York and New York City Police Department officers. He alleged that he sold artwork on a sidewalk at 701 Seventh Avenue, between West 47th and West 48th Streets, and that officers arrested him on April 18, 2016, injured his right hand by tightly handcuffing him, seized his artwork, and issued summonses connected to his vending.

Grytsyk alleged that officers later issued him numerous additional summonses between 2016 and 2020, many of which were dismissed. He asserted claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, excessive force, deprivation of property without due process, and malicious abuse of process. He also sought to hold the City liable for an allegedly unconstitutional policy or practice.

The City and individual defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint adequately states a legally plausible claim. Officer Henry later joined that motion. Grytsyk had voluntarily dismissed his claims against Times Square District Management Association, Inc., also known as Times Square Alliance, without prejudice, making that entity’s motion to dismiss moot.

Court’s analysis

False arrest. The court denied dismissal of Grytsyk’s false-arrest claim against Lieutenant Sujat Khan and Officer Anthony Morales. The court held that the complaint did not establish, at the pleading stage, probable cause or “arguable probable cause,” which can provide police officers qualified immunity, for the arrest. The allegations that Grytsyk verbally objected to a summons issued to his wife and protested an order to close his display did not, as pleaded, establish the physical interference required for obstructing governmental administration. The complaint also did not establish the facts needed to determine whether there was probable cause for disorderly conduct or violations of vending regulations. The court stated that defendants could raise those arguments again after discovery if the facts supported them.

Malicious prosecution. The court also allowed the malicious-prosecution claim against Khan and Morales to continue. The criminal charges arising from the arrest had been dismissed on speedy-trial grounds. Relying on controlling Second Circuit precedent, the court held that such a dismissal can qualify as a favorable termination for purposes of a malicious-prosecution claim. The court rejected defendants’ argument that a speedy-trial dismissal categorically could not satisfy that requirement.

Excessive force. The court dismissed Grytsyk’s excessive-force claim against Morales. The complaint alleged that the handcuffs aggravated a preexisting right-hand condition, caused extreme pain, and required medical attention, but it did not allege that Grytsyk told officers he was in pain, that officers ignored such a complaint, that he remained handcuffed for an extended period, or specific facts describing the injury. The court held that these allegations were insufficient.

Deprivation of property. The court dismissed the claims concerning the seizure of Grytsyk’s artwork in 2016 and 2018. It held that the complaint did not allege that the property loss resulted from an established government policy or procedure, or that a high-ranking official with final authority caused the deprivation. The court therefore treated the alleged deprivation as random and unauthorized and concluded that available state-law remedies, such as negligence, replevin, or conversion, defeated the federal due-process claim.

Malicious abuse of process. The court allowed the malicious-abuse-of-process claim to continue against Sergeant Brendan McGurran, Officer David Lachmenar, Sergeant Jeffrey Murphy, Lieutenant Sujat Khan, Officer Ricardo DiCandia, Sergeant Douglas Schack, Officer Juan Desalto, Officer Mathimohman Mohandes, Officer Jose Espinal, Sergeant Vincent Forlenza, Officer Rahman, and Officer Gao. The claim concerned twenty-one summonses issued between June 1 and October 14, 2018. The court found that the complaint plausibly alleged that defendants repeatedly used legal process not to enforce vending rules but to harm or interfere with Grytsyk’s business. Claims of malicious abuse of process against other individual defendants were deemed withdrawn or abandoned.

City liability. The court dismissed Grytsyk’s claim against the City under Monell v. Department of Social Services. The court explained that municipal liability requires an unconstitutional City policy or custom that caused a constitutional violation. Because the excessive-force and property claims failed, there could be no municipal liability based on those claims. The court also held that Grytsyk’s allegations of a City policy targeting vendors were conclusory and unsupported by sufficient facts.

Disposition

Judge Jesse M. Furman’s order granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. The surviving claims were: (1) false arrest against Khan and Morales; (2) malicious prosecution against Khan and Morales; and (3) malicious abuse of process against McGurran, Lachmenar, Murphy, Khan, DiCandia, Schack, Desalto, Mohandes, Espinal, Forlenza, Rahman, and Gao. The remaining claims were dismissed. The court declined to grant Grytsyk permission to amend again, directed the remaining defendants to answer, and directed the parties to appear for a pretrial conference. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and several dismissed defendants, including the City and Officer Henry.