Lazar v. City of New York

Background

Sorin Lazar was a former superintendent for the Aurora Condominium. He alleged that he had permission to use an unused storage room and went there on February 28, 2020, to remove his belongings after being instructed to vacate his apartment. Cyris Jewels, a member of the Condominium’s Board of Managers, called the police and reported that Lazar had entered a locked supply closet and removed condominium property. Police Officer Jasmine Nunezramos arrested Lazar, and Lazar was charged with petit larceny, criminal possession of stolen property, and criminal trespass. The charges were dismissed in January 2021.

Lazar also alleged that, in March 2020, the Board sent condominium residents a newsletter stating that a former employee had been observed entering a storage closet and removing condominium property, and that the person had been arrested. Because Lazar was the only former employee at the relevant time, residents allegedly understood the newsletter to refer to him. Lazar brought federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City Defendants for false arrest and malicious prosecution, state claims against the City Defendants, and state-law claims for defamation and abuse of process against the Aurora Defendants.

Motion and Ruling

The Aurora Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) to dismiss both state claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. They also moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the defamation claim for failure to state a claim, arguing that the common-interest privilege protected the newsletter.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the motion. The court held that it had supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims because they arose from the same arrest as Lazar’s federal claims against the City Defendants. The court also held that the defamation claim was sufficiently pleaded. Although the newsletter fell within the common-interest privilege because it was sent to condominium residents sharing concerns about building security and privacy, the complaint plausibly alleged malice. The allegations included that the Aurora Defendants acted out of ill will and knew, or recklessly disregarded whether, the accusation of theft was false. The order denied the Aurora Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.