Dubois v. Detective Jim Tassone

Background

Timothy Dubois asserted federal claims under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments through 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, along with state constitutional and common-law claims, against the City of White Plains, Detective Jim Tassone, and Police Officer Jahmar Cunningham. In a March 31, 2021 Opinion and Order, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ summary-judgment motions and denied Dubois’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The claims remaining at that stage included false-arrest claims against Cunningham and state-law abuse-of-process claims against Cunningham and Tassone, based on the issuance of process before the felony hearing.

Cunningham filed an interlocutory appeal. In a July 8, 2022 Summary Order, the Second Circuit reversed the earlier ruling insofar as it denied Cunningham qualified immunity on the false-arrest and abuse-of-process claims and directed this court to enter judgment for Cunningham. The Second Circuit reasoned that Cunningham had arguable probable cause to authorize Dubois’s arrest. The court explained that the Second Circuit’s ruling also stated that probable cause, including arguable probable cause, completely defeats an abuse-of-process claim under New York law.

Motion for reconsideration

Tassone moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) for reconsideration of the court’s earlier summary-judgment ruling and dismissal of Dubois’s remaining abuse-of-process claim against him. Although Local Civil Rule 6.3 generally requires a reconsideration motion within fourteen days, Tassone first sought permission to file the motion more than a year after the March 31, 2021 ruling. The court stated that it could disregard that deadline when justice required, including to address an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice.

The court granted reconsideration. It found that the same reasoning applied to Tassone with equal or greater force because Tassone lacked personal involvement in the arrest, and the court had previously dismissed the false-arrest claims against him. The record did not distinguish the information relied on by Cunningham from the information relied on by Tassone in establishing probable cause. The court therefore concluded that, to the extent Tassone was involved in the arrest, he reasonably relied on Inspector Chow’s observations and had arguable probable cause to authorize Dubois’s arrest. The court held that Tassone was entitled to qualified immunity on the abuse-of-process claim.

Disposition

The court granted Tassone’s motion for reconsideration. It dismissed with prejudice all of Dubois’s claims against Tassone. Pursuant to the Second Circuit’s Summary Order, it also dismissed with prejudice all claims against Cunningham. The clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of Tassone and Cunningham and close the case.