Harry v. The City of New York

Background

Rilton Harry sued The City of New York, P.O. Jose Fernandez, Sergeant Sharette Delisser, P.O. Jessica Torres, and unnamed defendants. He alleged fourteen federal and state causes of action arising from his May 21, 2018 arrest and subsequent prosecution.

Shortly before 5:00 p.m. on May 21, an Urban Outfitters loss-prevention officer called 9-1-1 to report that a group had stolen merchandise and fled toward First Avenue. The caller described one person as a tall Black male wearing a white-and-blue sweater and carrying an H&M bag. Officers Delisser and Fernandez encountered Harry, who matched that description and was near the area. The loss-prevention officer later identified Harry as someone he believed was part of the shoplifting group, and Harry was arrested.

Fernandez filed a criminal complaint stating that the loss-prevention officer had observed Harry and others remove merchandise, place it in an H&M bag, and leave without paying. The officer later signed a supporting deposition stating that the facts attributed to him were based on his personal knowledge. The criminal charges were dismissed and sealed on February 6, 2019. The defendants moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

False-arrest claims

The court granted summary judgment on Harry’s federal and state false-arrest claims, the First and Tenth Causes of Action. False arrest requires an arrest without probable cause. The court held that probable cause existed because Harry matched the specific description given to police and was found near the direction in which the suspected shoplifters had fled shortly after the 9-1-1 call. The court stated that the relevant question was whether the officers were reasonably told that Harry was involved, not whether Harry actually shoplifted.

The court noted a dispute about whether Harry was arrested before or after the identification, but found that dispute irrelevant to the motion. It also rejected Harry’s argument that the loss-prevention officer identified him only as someone present at the store, finding that the evidence showed the officer identified Harry as part of the group he believed had shoplifted.

Malicious-prosecution claims

The court granted summary judgment on the federal and state malicious-prosecution claims, the Second and Eleventh Causes of Action. Because probable cause existed at the time of arrest, Harry needed evidence of an intervening fact that later made the charges groundless. The court found no such evidence. Instead, it found that the identification and supporting deposition supported continuing the prosecution. The court also held that Harry offered no evidence of malice, meaning an improper motive apart from pursuing justice.

Fabrication-of-evidence claim

The court granted summary judgment on the fair-trial claim based on alleged fabrication of evidence, the Third Cause of Action. Harry alleged that defendants falsely reported that the loss-prevention officer identified him as the perpetrator, that his H&M bags were lined with aluminum foil, and that none of the stolen merchandise was recovered. The court rejected these arguments, finding that the evidence supported the identification, that a prosecutor’s data sheet stated that some merchandise had been recovered, and that Harry offered no evidence that the bag was not lined with aluminum foil. The court also noted that the Amended Complaint did not identify fabricated evidence, providing an additional reason for dismissal.

Search-and-seizure claim

The court granted summary judgment on the Fourth Cause of Action, which alleged an unlawful stop and frisk and unreasonable search and seizure. Because the arrest was supported by probable cause, the court held that reasonable searches incident to that arrest were lawful.

Excessive-force, conspiracy, and battery claims

Harry did not oppose the motion as to his excessive-force, conspiracy, and battery claims, including his argument that handcuffs were too tight. The court deemed the Fifth, Seventh, and Twelfth Causes of Action abandoned and dismissed them.

Failure-to-intervene and municipal-liability claims

The court granted summary judgment on the Sixth Cause of Action for failure to intervene and the Eighth Cause of Action against the City based on failure to train. The court held that these claims could not stand because Harry had not established an underlying constitutional violation. It explained that municipal liability does not create an independent claim without an underlying constitutional violation.

New York Constitution claims

The Ninth Cause of Action alleged violations of several provisions of the New York Constitution. The court dismissed Harry’s state constitutional claims against the individual officers because he had an alternative remedy under federal civil-rights law. The court separately analyzed the claims against the City because federal civil-rights law does not impose respondeat-superior liability—automatic employer liability for an employee’s conduct—on municipalities.

The court dismissed the Ninth Cause of Action against the City as well. It rejected the unreasonable-search claim for the same reasons given earlier and found no facts supporting the alleged violations of free speech, equal protection, due process, protection against cruel and unusual punishment, or protection against discrimination. The court dismissed the Ninth Cause of Action in its entirety.

Negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim

The court granted summary judgment on the Thirteenth Cause of Action. Under New York law, a plaintiff may not use a general negligence claim to recover for injuries arising from an arrest or prosecution when traditional false-arrest or malicious-prosecution theories apply. Because Harry’s emotional-distress claim was based on the same facts as those claims, it failed.

Negligent-hiring and retention claim

The court granted summary judgment on the Fourteenth Cause of Action, which alleged negligent hiring and retention or inadequate training. The court held that such a claim cannot proceed when employees acted within the scope of their employment. It found that the undisputed facts showed the defendant officers were acting within that scope when they arrested and prosecuted Harry.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion and the case.