Mayes v. City of Yonkers

Background

Angelo Mayes brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Yonkers, Yonkers Police Officer Ford, and ten John/Jane Doe defendants. He alleged unlawful search and seizure, false arrest, excessive force, malicious prosecution, malicious abuse of process, denial of a fair trial, denial of equal protection, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, failure to intervene, municipal liability, and related New York state-law claims.

On March 17, 2019, Mayes went to Macy’s at the Cross County Mall in Yonkers, selected clothing, and took the items to a dressing room. He said he left the clothes on a rack in the dressing room and left the store. Macy’s loss-prevention officers approached him outside, escorted him to their office, placed him in a holding cell, and called Yonkers Police.

Ford responded and spoke with loss-prevention officer Anthony Gordon. The defendants said Gordon told Ford that Mayes had taken merchandise into a dressing room, left without it, and had three pairs of jeans or pants concealed under his jacket; they also said Ford saw the recovered merchandise. Mayes gave a different account. He said he overheard Gordon tell Ford that the officers called police because they believed Mayes was going to steal, and that no stolen property had been recovered.

Ford obtained Mayes’s identifying information, handcuffed him, transported him to Central Booking, and prepared an incident report stating that the merchandise had been concealed under Mayes’s jacket and recovered. Mayes was arraigned the next day on a misdemeanor petit-larceny charge involving $488 in merchandise. He was released with a court appearance ticket. Two weeks later, the charge was dismissed because a Macy’s representative did not appear to sign the accusatory instrument.

The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. Summary judgment is granted when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Claims the Court Granted

The court granted summary judgment on the Sixth, Eighth, Tenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Seventeenth, and Nineteenth Causes of Action because Mayes did not respond to the defendants’ arguments concerning those claims. The court deemed those claims abandoned and therefore did not reach the merits of the defendants’ arguments against them. The claims included excessive force, malicious prosecution, malicious abuse of process, denial of equal protection, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, failure to intervene, and municipal liability.

The court also granted the motion on Mayes’s New York state-law claims—the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Eleventh, Thirteenth, Sixteenth, and Eighteenth Causes of Action. New York law requires timely service of a notice of claim before certain tort claims may be pursued against a municipality or its officers. The court found that Mayes did not timely serve notice of any of his state-law claims and did not oppose the defendants’ argument on that issue. It granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss those claims for failure to comply with New York’s notice requirement.

In the conclusion, the court stated that summary judgment was granted with respect to the First, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth, Seventeenth, Eighteenth, and Nineteenth Causes of Action against all defendants. It stated that those claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Claims the Court Allowed to Continue

The court denied summary judgment on the Second and Fourth Causes of Action, involving unlawful search and seizure and false arrest, against Ford and the John/Jane Doe defendants. The court treated the search claim as based on the arrest because Mayes’s alleged search occurred incident to the arrest.

The defendants argued that Ford had probable cause—a legally sufficient basis—to arrest and search Mayes because Gordon reported that Mayes had stolen clothing and Ford saw recovered property. Mayes argued that Ford was told no property had been recovered and that the officers called police only because they believed he might steal in the future.

The court held that this conflict created a genuine dispute of material fact about what information Ford relied on when he arrested Mayes. Viewing the evidence in Mayes’s favor, a jury could find that Ford lacked probable cause. The court declined to disregard Mayes’s testimony as self-serving because deciding witness credibility and weighing conflicting evidence are generally jury functions at the summary-judgment stage. The court therefore did not decide the defendants’ alternative arguments concerning arguable probable cause or qualified immunity.

The court also denied summary judgment on the Twelfth Cause of Action, Mayes’s claim that Ford denied him a fair trial by fabricating evidence. The court found a factual dispute about whether Ford falsely reported that stolen merchandise had been concealed under Mayes’s jacket and recovered, and whether that information was provided to prosecutors and caused Mayes’s loss of liberty. If a jury believed Mayes’s account, it could find that Ford fabricated evidence and forwarded it to prosecutors.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The First, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth, Seventeenth, Eighteenth, and Nineteenth Causes of Action were dismissed with prejudice. Summary judgment was denied on the Second, Fourth, and Twelfth Causes of Action against Ford and the John/Jane Doe defendants. The Clerk was directed to terminate the City of Yonkers as a defendant, and the case was set for a pretrial conference.