Adams v. The Co Op City Department of Public Safety

Background

Edward P. Adams, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Riverbay Corporation, Co-Op City Department of Public Safety, and officers employed or previously employed by that department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that officers used excessive force against him in March 2018, that an officer entered his home without a warrant in January 2018, and that a Co-Op City officer entered and searched his home without permission in March 2020. He also alleged that officers fabricated evidence and made false statements that contributed to three felony prosecutions, all of which ended in his favor.

The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that some claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that Adams could not bring a claim based on perjury. The court treated arguments in the defendants’ opposition to Adams’s proposed second amended complaint as part of the motion to dismiss that pleading.

Statute of Limitations

Section 1983 claims in New York generally have a three-year limitations period. The court held that Adams’s claims arising from the January 2018 incident were filed outside that period and dismissed those claims with prejudice. The court held that claims arising from the March 25, 2018 incident and the March 20, 2020 incident fell within the limitations period. It therefore granted the motion to dismiss on statute-of-limitations grounds as to the January 2018 incident and denied it as to the later incidents.

March 2020 Home Entry

The defendants argued that Adams could not state a claim concerning the March 2020 incident because a nonparty New York City Police Department officer, rather than a defendant, ultimately arrested him. The court rejected that argument. It concluded that Adams plausibly alleged that Co-Op City officers unlawfully entered and searched his home before the New York City officers arrived. The court considered witness affidavits submitted with Adams’s opposition papers.

The court denied the motion to dismiss as to Wells, Riverbay, and Co-Op City concerning the March 2020 incident. It granted the motion as to Pasquale, Thomas, Lugo, and Ahmed because the complaints and Adams’s later submissions did not allege that those individuals participated in that incident.

Evidence-Fabrication Claims

The defendants argued that Adams’s allegations concerning officers’ allegedly false testimony and fabricated evidence should be dismissed because there was no private right of action for perjury and the officers were immune as witnesses. The court concluded that Adams was asserting a possible § 1983 claim for fabrication of evidence, not merely seeking criminal punishment for perjury. Relying on controlling precedent, the court held that such a claim may proceed if the plaintiff can establish it without relying on the officers’ protected testimony.

The court held that Adams plausibly stated evidence-fabrication claims against Pasquale, Smith, Lugo, Ahmed, Co-Op City, and Riverbay. It also held that the limitations period for these claims did not begin until the related criminal proceedings ended in Adams’s favor, which Adams alleged occurred as late as September 20, 2022. The court dismissed the evidence-fabrication claim against Wells because Adams did not allege that Wells was connected to the fabrication of evidence.

The court did not decide whether Co-Op City or its officers were private individuals rather than state actors for purposes of § 1983, noting that the defendants had not raised that issue in their Rule 12 filings.

Disposition

Judge J. Paul Oetken ordered that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Defendants were ordered to answer the surviving claims within 21 days after the opinion and order.