Gabilly v. City Of New York
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-11884
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Gabilly v. City of New York, Judge Abrams ruled on competing pleadings motions, but the opinion conflicts over Plaintiff’s motion’s disposition.
Julien Gabilly’s federal conspiracy and New York negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims were dismissed. His abuse-of-process claim was allowed to proceed at this stage, and the opinion refers to his excessive-force and assault-and-battery claims as surviving claims. The City of New York and the individual officers remained defendants on claims not dismissed in the order.
What happened
In Gabilly v. City of New York, Julien Gabilly alleged that New York police officers used excessive force during his arrest and later submitted false accounts. He brought federal and state claims against the officers and the City of New York.
Gabilly asked for judgment based on his complaint, arguing that the court should accept his allegations and reject the defendants’ denials. The defendants sought judgment on the pleadings dismissing several claims, arguing that those claims were legally insufficient.
Judge Ronnie Abrams denied the defendants’ request to dismiss Gabilly’s abuse-of-process claim but dismissed his federal conspiracy and negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims. The opinion says Gabilly’s motion was denied in the discussion and introduction, but the conclusion says it was granted; the defendants’ motion was granted in part and denied in part.
The detailed version
- Gabilly v. City Of New York · No. 1:19-cv-11884
- Ronnie Abrams
- Aug. 16, 2021
Background
Julien Gabilly sued the City of New York and New York Police Department officers Rahul Dass, Maribel Sarante, and Lateef Stinson. He asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force, failure to intervene, and conspiracy, along with New York-law claims for abuse of process, assault and battery, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. He also sought to hold the City liable under Monell and state-law vicarious-liability theories.
Gabilly alleged that, after he stopped his vehicle in Manhattan on January 1, 2019, Officers Dass and Sarante directed him to stand against the vehicle. He alleged that, although he was compliant, the officers forcibly arrested him after he moved slightly away from the vehicle, throwing him to the ground and hitting him. He further alleged that Officer Stinson filed a criminal complaint falsely accusing him of punching at Officer Dass, that Officer Dass submitted a sworn affidavit containing false statements, and that the officers filed false reports to justify the force as self-defense and a response to resistance. The opinion states that Gabilly admitted he had been drinking and driving and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for doing so.
Motions and legal standards
After the defendants answered the amended complaint and denied most of the factual allegations, Gabilly moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings. The defendants filed a cross-motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. The court explained that when a plaintiff makes a Rule 12(c) motion, the court must accept well-pleaded factual allegations in the answer and draw reasonable inferences in favor of the defendants, who are the nonmoving parties. The court concluded that the case would require development of a factual record concerning Gabilly’s conduct and the officers’ responses, so Gabilly was not entitled to judgment at that stage.
For the defendants’ motion, the court applied the standard used for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss: accepting the complaint’s factual allegations as true and deciding whether they plausibly stated claims for relief.
Rulings on individual claims
The court dismissed Gabilly’s § 1983 conspiracy claim. That claim alleged that the officers coordinated their accounts to cover up excessive force and accuse Gabilly of resisting arrest. The court held that the use of similar language in the officers’ reports, without additional facts showing a meeting of the minds or agreement, did not plausibly establish a conspiracy.
The court declined to dismiss Gabilly’s New York abuse-of-process claim. Gabilly alleged that the officers used a criminal complaint falsely accusing him of resisting arrest to cover up an unconstitutional use of force. The court held that concealing alleged misconduct could qualify as an improper collateral purpose. It also held that Gabilly’s guilty plea for driving while intoxicated did not necessarily establish probable cause for the separate accusation that he violently resisted arrest. Whether that accusation was supported by probable cause therefore remained a disputed factual question.
The court dismissed Gabilly’s negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim. It explained that New York law treats that claim as a limited remedy unavailable when the alleged conduct falls within the scope of more traditional tort claims. The court found that the alleged conduct was covered by Gabilly’s other claims, including excessive force, assault and battery, and abuse of process.
Disposition and ambiguity
The introduction and discussion state that Gabilly’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied, and the discussion states that the motion was denied in its entirety. The conclusion, however, says that “Plaintiff’s motion” was granted, while also stating that the defendants’ motion was granted in part and denied in part. The conclusion expressly states that the § 1983 conspiracy and negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims were dismissed. The court also scheduled a telephone status conference and directed the parties to provide a joint update on discovery and settlement efforts.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.