Eposito v. City of New York et al
Filing
102
MEMORANDUM & ORDER: Plaintiff's motion 94 for judgment as a matter of law is denied. There is evidence that, before plaintiffs arrest, Delprete witnessed: (1) suspicious behavior from individuals in an SUV that led him to believe an arranged m eeting was about to take place in a drug-prone area, and (2) plaintiff exchange a piece of folded pink paper for what Delprete believed was money with one of the individuals from the SUV. This is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to rely on in concluding that there was probable cause to arrest plaintiff, and therefore that defendants are not liable for false arrest. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 6/14/2017. (Innelli, Michael)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------x
MAYLINE ESPOSITO,
Plaintiff,
-against-
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
15-278 (FB)
CITY OF NEW YORK, GERARD
DELPRETE, Individually, and JOHN
RYAN, Individually,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------x
Appearances:
For the Plaintiff
BRETT H. KLEIN
Klein Civil Rights
305 Broadway, Suite 600
New York, New York 10007
For the Defendant
KIMBERLY JOYCE
JORGE MARQUEZ
Corporation Counsel of
the City of New York
100 Church Street
New York, New York 10007
BLOCK, Senior District Judge:
Following a jury verdict in favor of defendants the City of New York, Gerard Delprete
(“Delprete”), and John Ryan (“Ryan”), plaintiff Mayline Esposito motioned for judgment
as a matter of law, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, on her false arrest claim.1
The motion is DENIED.
Under Rule 50, the Court may “enter judgment as a matter of law against a party on
1
At trial, plaintiff alleged claims of false arrest, excessive force, and illegal search against
Ryan, and claims of false arrest, failure to intervene to prevent an unlawful strip search, and
failure to intervene to prevent use of excessive force against Delprete. The jury found for
defendants on all claims.
an issue only if ‘there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find
for that party on that issue.’” Nadel v. Isaksson, 321 F.3d 266, 271–72 (2d Cir. 2003)
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)). The motion must be denied “unless, viewed in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party, the evidence is such that . . . there can be but one
conclusion as to the verdict that reasonable persons could have reached.” Id. at 272 (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiff argues that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on her false arrest
claim because “it was unreasonable for the jury to conclude that there was legally sufficient
evidence to support a finding that Delprete possessed probable cause to arrest plaintiff at the
moment he arrested her.” Plaintiff’s Motion at 7. The Court disagrees. There is evidence
that, before plaintiff’s arrest, Delprete witnessed: (1) suspicious behavior from individuals
in an SUV that led him to believe an arranged meeting was about to take place in a drugprone area, and (2) plaintiff exchange a piece of folded pink paper for what Delprete believed
was money with one of the individuals from the SUV. This is sufficient evidence for a
reasonable jury to rely on in concluding that there was probable cause to arrest plaintiff, and
therefore that defendants are not liable for false arrest.
SO ORDERED
_/S/Frederic Block___________
FREDERIC BLOCK
Senior United States District Judge
Brooklyn, New York
June 14, 2017
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?