Lenzo v. City of New York

Background

Tory Lenzo brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of New York arising from his arrest and prosecution. He was arrested on December 6, 2018, after his then-girlfriend told the New York City Police Department that she had asked him to stop contacting her but then received approximately 15 phone calls per day and approximately 100 text messages per day from him for several days. He was charged with stalking in the third degree, aggravated harassment in the second degree, stalking in the fourth degree, and harassment in the second degree.

The charges were dismissed on or about June 18, 2019, through an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, a procedure that postpones a case and can lead to dismissal. Lenzo filed this federal case on January 13, 2021. His amended complaint asserted claims for malicious prosecution, malicious abuse of process, and “deprivation of federal civil rights.” The City moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.

Court’s Analysis

The court did not reach the City’s argument that Lenzo failed to allege a city policy or practice required for municipal liability. Instead, it concluded that Lenzo had not plausibly alleged an underlying constitutional violation.

For the malicious-prosecution claim, the court held that Lenzo could not plausibly allege that the prosecution lacked probable cause. The information provided by his former girlfriend was enough to support probable cause for the arrest and charges, and Lenzo alleged no circumstances that should have caused police to doubt her truthfulness. The court also rejected Lenzo’s criticism that police and prosecutors failed to verify the information through phone records, explaining that probable cause does not require officers to eliminate every possible claim of innocence before making an arrest. Lenzo also did not allege that probable cause disappeared after his arrest.

The court separately held that the criminal case’s resolution through an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal was not a favorable termination for purposes of a federal malicious-prosecution claim. It therefore concluded that the malicious-prosecution claim failed for at least those two independent reasons.

The court dismissed the malicious-abuse-of-process claim because Lenzo merely alleged, without supporting facts, that the City caused his arrest to obtain an improper collateral objective. The court also found that the general “deprivation of federal civil rights” claim, which referred broadly to the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments without explaining which rights were violated, was legally insufficient. Lenzo did not respond to the City’s arguments against that claim, so the court treated it as abandoned. His attempt to raise a false-arrest claim in his opposition brief did not amend the complaint, and the court added that probable cause would defeat such a claim in any event.

Disposition

The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss. It denied Lenzo leave to amend because the problems with his claims were substantive, he did not request amendment or identify facts that could cure the problems, and he had already received permission to amend once with a warning that he would not receive another opportunity. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of the City and close the case.