Brathwaite v. City of New York

Background

Grantley Brathwaite sued the City of New York, Detectives Ricardo Mantilla and Sean Haggerty, Undercover Officer No. 391, and John or Jane Does 1–10. He asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state actors for violating constitutional rights, along with related New York-law claims.

Brathwaite alleged that Undercover Officer No. 391 misidentified him as the person who sold marijuana during an undercover “buy and bust” operation in Washington Square Park. According to the officer, Brathwaite offered to obtain marijuana, received prerecorded money, left, and returned with two bags. Brathwaite testified that he did not participate in the sale and was sitting with his then-girlfriend when Mantilla and Haggerty arrested him. The officers later searched him, and the parties disputed whether the search recovered marijuana or only $13. The criminal charges against Brathwaite were dismissed and sealed in January 2019.

The defendants moved for partial summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision entered without a trial when the evidence shows that no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party on a legally important issue. The court considered Brathwaite’s opposition even though his separate statement of facts did not fully comply with the local rules.

Claims Brathwaite Did Not Oppose

The court found that Brathwaite abandoned the claims he expressly did not oppose: malicious abuse of process (Counts 9–10); denial of the right to a fair trial (Counts 11–12); deprivation of rights and denial of equal protection (Counts 14–15); conspiracy and failure to prevent a conspiracy under Sections 1983, 1985, and 1986 (Count 16); negligent hiring, training, retention, and supervision (Count 19); and municipal liability under the rule commonly called Monell liability (Count 20). The court also treated the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim (Count 13) as abandoned because Brathwaite did not address it in his opposition. The court granted judgment to the defendants on these claims and dismissed them.

False Arrest and False Imprisonment

The court granted judgment to Mantilla and Haggerty on the false-arrest and false-imprisonment claims under federal and state law. It held that the detectives had at least “arguable probable cause,” meaning it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that probable cause existed or reasonable officers could disagree about it. The detectives reasonably relied on Undercover Officer No. 391’s signal and identification shortly after the drug transaction. The court held that this protection applied even if the identification later proved mistaken, because the record did not show that Mantilla or Haggerty knew or should have known that it was false.

The court did not grant summary judgment to Undercover Officer No. 391. Brathwaite’s testimony that he was not involved in the transaction created a factual dispute about whether the officer had probable cause or arguable probable cause to identify him. Because the false-arrest claim against Undercover Officer No. 391 remained, the related claim against the City under a theory of employer responsibility also remained.

Malicious Prosecution

The court reached the same result on the federal and New York malicious-prosecution claims. It granted judgment to Mantilla and Haggerty because they had at least arguable probable cause and learned no later facts that would have undermined their belief that Brathwaite was involved in the sale. It denied summary judgment to Undercover Officer No. 391 because factual disputes remained about whether the officer had probable cause or arguable probable cause when identifying Brathwaite. The related City claim also remained under a theory of employer responsibility.

Search and Seizure

The court granted judgment to the defendants on the federal and state unlawful-search-and-seizure claims. Brathwaite did not dispute saying, “go ahead, search me.” The court held that a reasonable person would understand those words as consent to a search of his person and backpack, and that Brathwaite offered no evidence that his consent was coerced. The court also held, alternatively, that the searches were protected because the officers had at least arguable probable cause to arrest him and could search him as an incident of that arrest.

Assault, Battery, and Excessive Force

The court granted judgment to the defendants on the assault-and-battery and excessive-force claims. The undisputed evidence showed that Brathwaite did not resist, the officers used no force beyond handcuffing him, one officer loosened the handcuffs when Brathwaite complained, and Brathwaite suffered no physical injury. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could find the force objectively unreasonable. The court also dismissed any excessive-force or assault-and-battery claim against Undercover Officer No. 391 because there was no evidence that he was present for or personally involved in the arrest’s use of force.

Failure to Intervene

The court granted summary judgment on the failure-to-intervene claims. It explained that such a claim requires an underlying constitutional violation and a realistic opportunity for an officer to prevent it. The court found no basis for concluding that Mantilla or Haggerty could have intervened in Undercover Officer No. 391’s alleged misidentification, because they were not involved in the drug sale or the identification and reasonably relied on the information provided by the undercover officer.

Disposition

The court’s motion ruling was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It granted summary judgment and dismissed Counts 1, 2, 5, 6, 9–20, except that Counts 3, 4, 7, and 8 were granted as to Haggerty and Mantilla and denied as to Undercover Officer No. 391 and the City of New York. The parties were ordered to file a letter proposing next steps within 21 days.