Wilson v. City Of New York
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:21-cv-00479
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Wilson v. City of New York, Judge Gardephe dismissed claims against two officers, denied summary judgment without prejudice, and ordered filing, service, and notice-of-claim steps.
Rhashawn Wilson; the City of New York; William Dunn and Karl Rugg, whose claims were dismissed; and Justin Rogonzinsky, Brian Hartigan, and Bryan Carney, whose service and pleading status were addressed.
What happened
In Wilson v. City of New York, Rhashawn Wilson brought claims against the City of New York and police officers concerning his January 14, 2020 arrest. The defendants filed an unopposed motion for summary judgment.
The court had approved Wilson’s request to replace William Dunn and Karl Rugg with Justin Rogonzinsky, Brian Hartigan, and Bryan Carney, but Wilson never filed the amended complaint on the docket. The record also did not show that the newly named officers had been served. The defendants’ motion addressed the original complaint instead of the approved amended complaint.
Judge Gardephe dismissed the claims against Dunn and Rugg and denied the summary-judgment motion without prejudice. He ordered Wilson to file the amended complaint, provide proof of service on the three newly named officers, and provide proof that he timely served a required notice of claim for his state-law claims or explain why those claims should not be dismissed.
The detailed version
- Wilson v. City Of New York · No. 1:21-cv-00479
- Paul Gardephe
- Sept. 20, 2023
Background
Rhashawn Wilson asserted numerous claims against the City of New York and individual New York City police officer defendants concerning his January 14, 2020 arrest. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment was unopposed and remained pending.
Amended Complaint and Defendants
On April 8, 2022, Wilson requested permission to replace previously named defendants William Dunn and Karl Rugg with Justin Rogonzinsky, Brian Hartigan, and Bryan Carney. The court approved that request and the proposed amended complaint the same day. Wilson, however, never filed the amended complaint on the docket as a standalone document. The docket also contained no indication that Rogonzinsky, Hartigan, or Carney had been served.
The defendants’ summary-judgment motion addressed the original complaint rather than the approved amended complaint. Because the approved amended complaint changed the defendants and was not the document filed on the docket, the court dismissed the claims against Dunn and Rugg and denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment without prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate Dunn and Rugg as defendants and to terminate the summary-judgment motion.
State-Law Claims
The court explained that New York law requires a plaintiff bringing certain claims against New York City or its employees to serve a notice of claim within 90 days after the claim arises. The plaintiff must also plead compliance with that requirement. Neither the original complaint nor the amended complaint mentioned a notice of claim, and the record contained no evidence that one had been filed.
The court ordered Wilson, by September 29, 2023, to file proof of timely notice of claim or show cause—give a legally sufficient explanation—why his state-law claims should not be dismissed. It also ordered him to file the amended complaint and proof of service on Rogonzinsky, Hartigan, and Carney by that date. If he failed to file proof of service, the court stated that it would consider a motion to dismiss those claims for failure to prosecute. The court scheduled a conference for October 12, 2023.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.