Lazar v. City of New York

Background

Sorin Lazar, a former superintendent and employee of the Aurora Condominium, alleged that he had permission to store belongings in an unused storage room. After Lazar was discharged in January 2020 and instructed to leave his apartment by the end of February, he went to the storage room on February 28, 2020, to remove his belongings. Cyris Jewels, a condominium board member, called the police. Police Officer Jasmine Nunezramos arrested Lazar, and Jewels reported to the New York Police Department that Lazar had entered a locked supply closet and removed items.

Lazar was charged with petit larceny, criminal possession of stolen property, and criminal trespass. He alleged that the Aurora Defendants also published a newsletter falsely identifying him as a thief. The charges were dismissed in January 2021. Lazar’s Second Amended Complaint asserted federal and state claims against the Aurora Defendants—the Aurora Condominium and Jewels—and the City Defendants—Nunezramos and the City of New York. The Aurora Defendants moved to dismiss.

Section 1983 conspiracy claim

The complaint asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a conspiracy among all Defendants, apparently based on false arrest, false imprisonment, excessive force, and malicious prosecution. Section 1983 permits claims for constitutional injuries caused by people acting under state authority. A private party can be liable under a conspiracy theory only if the complaint plausibly alleges that the private party acted jointly with a state actor to commit an unconstitutional act.

The court dismissed this claim against the Aurora Defendants. It found that the complaint alleged, at most, that the Aurora Defendants misled police by withholding information about Lazar’s permission to use the storage space. It did not allege a plausible agreement or “meeting of the minds” between the Aurora Defendants and the police to violate Lazar’s constitutional rights.

Negligence claims against Jewels

The court dismissed Lazar’s negligence claim against Jewels. Lazar alleged that Jewels owed him a duty because Jewels was a condominium board member and that Jewels was negligent by filing a false police report and publishing the newsletter.

The court found no legal basis for concluding that Jewels owed Lazar, an employee or former employee, the claimed duty of care. It also found that the complaint did not plausibly allege that Jewels was acting in his formal capacity as a board member when he called the police. The court further explained that merely providing information to law enforcement generally does not establish liability for abuse of process, false arrest, false imprisonment, or malicious prosecution, and that the complaint did not allege the additional facts needed for those claims.

The newsletter allegations also did not support a simple negligence claim. The court stated that Lazar might be able to seek permission to assert a defamation claim if he could provide more facts about who wrote and published the newsletter, to whom and when it was published, and why Jewels knew or should have known the statement was false.

Negligence claim against the Aurora Condominium

The court dismissed the negligence claim against the Aurora Condominium. The complaint did not identify legal authority establishing the claimed duty to protect Lazar from the alleged conduct, harassment, or false statements. To the extent Lazar alleged negligent hiring, training, supervision, discipline, or control, the court found that the complaint did not show a duty concerning condominium board members, did not plausibly allege negligence, and did not allege an employee-employer relationship between the Condominium and Jewels.

The court also found no facts imputing liability to the Condominium for Jewels’s conduct. As with the claim against Jewels, the allegations about the newsletter were improperly pleaded as simple negligence rather than as a possible defamation claim.

Emotional-distress claims

The court dismissed the negligent infliction of emotional distress and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against the Aurora Defendants. Under New York law, negligent infliction of emotional distress requires, among other things, a breach of duty, emotional harm, a causal connection, and circumstances providing a reliable basis for finding genuine harm. Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires extreme and outrageous conduct, the required intent or disregard, causation, and severe emotional distress.

The court found that filing a false police report and publicizing it, as alleged, did not meet the demanding requirement that conduct be extreme and outrageous. The court also stated that these allegations sounded in false arrest and defamation rather than supporting the emotional-distress claims.

Disposition

The court granted the Aurora Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The order states that all claims remained against the City Defendants, who had not moved to dismiss. The court did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. Instead, it allowed Lazar, within fourteen days, to seek permission to file a red-lined proposed Third Amended Complaint and explain how the amended pleading would cure the identified deficiencies.