Meisel v. County of Nassau et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 21 Motion for Summary Judgment; For the reasons set forth herein, defendants motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. It is granted as to Mangano and denied as to Nassau County and Ciampoli. (Ordered by Judge Leonard D. Wexler on 3/7/2013.) (Fagan, Linda)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------X
BRAD MEISEL,
Plaintiff,
-against-

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CV 11-2473 (LDW) (GRB)

COUNTY OF NASSAU, et al.,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------X
WEXLER, District Judge
Plaintiff Brad Meisel (“Meisel”) brings this action against defendants County of
Nassau (“Nassau County”), Nassau County Supervisor Edward Mangano (“Mangano”),
and Nassau County Attorney John Ciampoli (“Ciampoli”) claiming that he was
terminated from his employment as a deputy county attorney (“DCA”) in violation of his
First Amendment right of intimate association. Defendants move for summary judgment
pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Meisel opposes the motion.
Meisel argues that the evidence is sufficient for a jury to find that his termination
violated his First Amendment right of intimate association. See Adler v. Pataki, 185 F.3d
35, 44 (2d Cir. 1999). In this respect, he maintains that the evidence shows that he was
terminated in retaliation for his relationship with his mother, Esther Miller (also a former
DCA), who with two other former DCAs brought a lawsuit against Nassau County and
Ciampoli (concerning health insurance contributions) approximately one week before
Ciampoli’s decision to terminate Meisel. Defendants maintain that the evidence is
insufficient to show that Ciampoli knew of Meisel’s relationship to Miller, or that

Miller’s participation in the lawsuit was the basis for his termination; rather, they
maintain that Meisel was terminated due to a downsizing and reorganization in the
Nassau County Attorney’s Office. In addition, defendants maintain that the evidence is
not sufficient to show that Mangano was involved in the decision to terminate Meisel.
Upon consideration, the Court finds that genuine disputes of material fact exist as
to the claims against Nassau County and Ciampoli, precluding the entry of summary
judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (party seeking summary judgment must demonstrate
that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law”); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Gallo
v. Prudential Residential Servs. Ltd. P’ship, 22 F.3d 1219, 1223-24 (2d Cir. 1994).
However, the evidence is not sufficient to show that Mangano was involved in the
decision to terminate Meisel. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed as against
Mangano.
Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted in part and
denied in part. It is granted as to Mangano and denied as to Nassau County and Ciampoli.
SO ORDERED.
/s/
LEONARD D. WEXLER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: Central Islip, New York
March 7, 2013