Marom v. Town of Greenburgh

Background

Michael Marom, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for certain violations of constitutional rights by people acting under state authority. The remaining defendants were the Town of Greenburgh and Detective Edgar DeMelo. Marom asserted a malicious-prosecution claim under § 1983 and New York law, and a municipal-liability claim against the Town concerning an alleged violation of his speedy-trial right.

The claims arose from criminal proceedings involving Marom’s statements to a neighbor. Three witnesses told DeMelo that Marom threatened to kill the neighbor while acting aggressively. DeMelo also knew about prior disputes between Marom and his neighbors, reviewed related police reports, and learned about an earlier incident in which Marom allegedly struck another neighbor. Marom was later charged with second-degree harassment. He was convicted, but that conviction was reversed on appeal because the evidence was legally insufficient. He was also convicted of second-degree criminal contempt for violating an order of protection, and that conviction was affirmed on appeal.

Motion to Add a Party

Marom sought to add former Town Police Chief Christopher McNerney as a defendant. The scheduling order required amended pleadings to be filed by May 7, 2021, and discovery closed on September 15, 2021. Marom moved to add McNerney on June 6, 2022, without providing an adequate explanation for the delay. The court found that adding McNerney would require reopening discovery and would prejudice the existing defendants. Because Marom did not show the required good cause to modify the scheduling order, the court denied his motion to add McNerney.

Malicious Prosecution

For a malicious-prosecution claim under § 1983, the plaintiff must show the elements of a New York malicious-prosecution claim, a favorable end to the criminal proceeding, and a restraint on liberty after arraignment sufficient to implicate the Fourth Amendment. The court explained that probable cause—the facts known to the officer that reasonably supported bringing the prosecution—is a complete defense.

The court held that DeMelo had probable cause to prosecute Marom for second-degree harassment. DeMelo had received signed statements from three eyewitnesses reporting that Marom threatened to kill the neighbor while appearing ready to fight. DeMelo also knew about prior violent or threatening incidents involving Marom and his neighbors. The court stated that Marom’s dispute with the witnesses about what actually happened did not defeat probable cause because the relevant question was what information was available to DeMelo when the prosecution began.

The court also held that Marom could not recover damages based on the criminal-contempt conviction because that conviction had been affirmed. Under the rule discussed by the court, a civil-rights damages claim cannot be used to challenge an existing criminal conviction. The court therefore granted summary judgment in Defendants’ favor on Marom’s malicious-prosecution claim. The court did not address Defendants’ qualified-immunity arguments.

Municipal-Liability Claim

The court construed Marom’s claim against the Town as a municipal-liability claim, commonly called a Monell claim. Such a claim requires an underlying constitutional or statutory violation caused by an official municipal policy or practice. Marom did not respond to Defendants’ arguments concerning this claim, so the court treated it as abandoned.

The court alternatively held that the claim failed as a matter of law. It explained that the sole remedy for a violation of the constitutional speedy-trial right is dismissal of the criminal charges, not a civil damages award. The court further found that Marom had not established an underlying constitutional violation for which § 1983 provides a civil remedy. It also noted that the claim lacked facts showing a municipal policy or practice because Marom described only his own experiences.

Disposition

The court denied Marom’s motion to add a party, denied Marom’s motion for summary judgment, and granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed Marom’s municipal-liability claim against the Town and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.