Egan v. New York City et al
Filing
45
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: For the reasons stated above, in its September 30, 2018 Order, this Court denied (1) Defendant Polanco's motion for summary judgment; and (2) Defendant Chittum's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's false arrest and malicious prosecution claims. (Sept. 30, 2018 Order (Dkt. No. 44)) Defendant Chittum's motion was granted as to Plaintiff's denial of fair trial claim, however. (Id.) Plaintiff's counsel is directed to submit a lette r by October 17, 2018, stating whether Plaintiff will voluntarily dismiss as to the City of New York. The parties will make their pretrial filings in accordance with the schedule set forth in the September 30, 2018 Order and, as stated in that Order, trial will commence at 9:30 a.m. on January 28, 2019, in Courtroom 705, United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 10/10/2018) (cf)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
USDCSDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
DATE FILED: _ _ _ _ __
FRANK EGAN,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM
OPINION & ORDER
- against 16 Civ. 1479 (PGG)
NEW YORK CITY, POLICE OFFICER
MELVIN CHITTUM and POLICE
OFFICER CESAR POLANCO,
individually, and in their capacity as
members of the New York City Police
Department,
Defendants.
PAUL G. GARDEPHE, U.S.D.J.:
Plaintiff Frank Egan brings claims under Section 1983 against the City of New
York (the "City") and two officers of the New York City Police Department ("NYPD")- Melvin
Chittum and Cesar Polanco - for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and denial of fair trial
rights. Plaintiffs claims arise out of his arrest on March 9, 2015, for allegedly shining a laser
pointer at aircraft landing and departing from LaGuardia Airport.
Officer Chittum and Sergeant Polanco ("Defendants") have moved for summary
judgment arguing, inter alia, that they had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff pursuant to the
doctrine of constructive possession. 1 In a September 30, 2018 short form order, this court denied
Defendant Polanco's motion as to Plaintiffs false arrest, malicious prosecution, and denial of
fair trial claims, and denied Defendant Chittum's motion as to Plaintiffs false arrest and
1
The City represents that Plaintiffs counsel has stated that he will move for voluntary dismissal
as to the City. (Def. Br. (Dkt. No. 35) at 10 n.1) Plaintiff has not responded to this assertion,
and neither side has briefed Plaintiff's claims as to the City.
malicious prosecution claims. The Court granted Defendant Chittum's motion as to Plaintiffs
denial of fair trial claim. The purpose of this memorandum opinion is to set forth the Court's
reasoning.
BACKGROUND
I.
FACTS 2
A.
Unlawful Use of a Laser Pointer
At the time of the incident at issue, Plaintiff Frank Egan was 36 and resided at
2801 Coddington Avenue in the Bronx. (See Siddiqi Deel., Ex. F (Egan Dep.) (Dkt. No. 34-6) at
18, 28)
Defendant Melvin Chittum has been an NYPD officer since 2006. (Siddiqi Deel.,
Ex. E (Chittum Dep.) (Dkt. No. 34-5) at 3-4) Defendant Cesar Polanco has been an NYPD
officer since 2003. (Anderson Deel., Ex. 1 (Polanco Dep.) (Dkt. No. 40-1) at 3)
On March 9, 2015, NYPD Detective Richard Mardarello and Police Officer
Royce Charles were assigned to the NYPD's Aviation Unit and were on patrol in an NYPD
helicopter. (Def. R. 56.1 Stmt. (Dkt. No. 36) ~ 1; see Siddiqi Deel., Ex. A (Mardarello Dep.)
(Dkt. No. 34-1) at 8) Detective Mardarello was piloting the helicopter, and Officer Charles was
the co-pilot. (Id.
~
2) The officers received a radio report that there was a laser being pointed at
commercial aircraft landing and departing from LaGuardia Airport. At 8:05 p.m., the captain of
2
To the extent that this Court relies on facts drawn from a party's Local Rule 56.1 statement, it
has done so because the opposing party has either not disputed those facts or has not done so
with citations to admissible evidence. See Giannullo v. City of New York, 322 F.3d 139, 140
(2d Cir. 2003) ("If the opposing party ... fails to controvert a fact so set forth in the moving
party's Rule 56.1 statement, that fact will be deemed admitted.") (citations omitted). Where
Plaintiff disputes Defendants' characterization of cited evidence, and has presented an
evidentiary basis for doing so, the Court relies on Plaintiffs characterization of the evidence.
See Cifra v. Gen. Elec. Co., 252 F.3d 205,216 (2d Cir. 2001) (court must draw all rational
factual inferences in non-movant's favor in deciding summary judgment motion). Unless
otherwise irn;iiY~t~
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?