Barkai v. Nuendorf

Background

Ariel Dan Barkai, proceeding without a lawyer, sued law-enforcement officers and government offices based on events following his mother’s death. He alleged that a hospital employee complained about his emails, that charges and a restraining order were issued, that he was taken to a hospital under New York Mental Hygiene Law § 9.41, and that he was later arrested after statements about threats. He also alleged that officials failed to investigate his complaints and counter-complaints.

The operative complaint asserted federal and state claims against the Rockland Defendants, Clarkstown defendants, and Orangetown Defendants. The pending motions were filed by the Rockland Defendants, Jeff Wanamaker, and the Orangetown Defendants.

Previously Dismissed Claims

The court applied the law-of-the-case doctrine, which generally requires a court to follow legal decisions it already made earlier in the same case. The court concluded that Barkai had repeated previously dismissed claims without adding materially different facts or showing an exceptional reason to revisit the earlier decision.

The court therefore dismissed with prejudice the previously dismissed federal claims against the Rockland Defendants arising from the August 31, 2020 seizure and August 24, 2021 arrest, including claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, First Amendment retaliation, and due process violations. It also dismissed with prejudice all § 1983 claims against the Clarkstown Defendants.

Rockland Defendants

The court dismissed Barkai’s state-law false-arrest claims against Robert Neuendorf and John Leonard because those claims failed for the same reasons as the previously rejected § 1983 false-arrest claim. It dismissed the state-law harassment claim against Neuendorf because New York does not recognize a civil cause of action for harassment and because Barkai did not address the claim in his opposition papers.

The court dismissed the trespass claim against Neuendorf because Barkai did not allege that Neuendorf entered his property. It dismissed the conspiracy claim against Neuendorf because Barkai did not plausibly allege an underlying constitutional violation, an agreement to violate his rights, or specific coordinated conduct.

Wanamaker

The court dismissed Barkai’s § 1983 conspiracy claim against Jeff Wanamaker for the same reasons. Barkai did not plausibly allege an underlying constitutional violation or provide specific facts showing an agreement or coordinated action to violate his rights.

Orangetown Defendants

The court found that Barkai’s intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim was timely because the amended complaint related back to his original complaint. However, the court dismissed the claim without prejudice because the alleged conduct did not meet New York’s high standard for extreme and outrageous conduct, and Barkai did not adequately allege that the defendants caused the claimed delay in dropping the charges.

The court dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claim against Donald Butterworth, Anthony Palazolo, and Dan Ryan because Barkai did not allege their personal involvement in advancing the charges. The court also dismissed the claim against Ben Gorcynzski because the allegations showed that he had probable cause to advance a sworn complaint from the alleged victim, and Barkai did not allege specific facts undermining the complaint’s reliability.

The court dismissed the Fourth Amendment unlawful-seizure claim because Barkai alleged no physical detention or other restraint of liberty based on being served with charges and a restraining order. It dismissed the due process claim because there is no constitutional right to have government officials investigate a complaint, or investigate it in a particular way.

The court dismissed the claim under New York Public Health Law § 2803-c because that provision does not itself provide a private cause of action and the hospital involved was not a residential health-care facility covered by the related private-action provision. The court also noted that the Orangetown Defendants did not bring the charges; the Rockland County District Attorney’s Office did.

Disposition

The court granted all three motions to dismiss in full. It dismissed the previously adjudicated federal claims with prejudice. It dismissed the newly adjudicated state and federal claims without prejudice because this was the first adjudication of those claims on the merits.

The court gave Barkai 30 days to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the existing complaint. The court stated that failure to meet the deadline could result in dismissal with prejudice. It also terminated the pending motions and scheduled a status conference for March 19, 2024.