You are here: / / STOP AND ARREST OF PLAINTIFF PURSUANT TO NYC’S STOP AND FRISK POLICY...
, ,

STOP AND ARREST OF PLAINTIFF PURSUANT TO NYC’S STOP AND FRISK POLICY STATED VALID CAUSES OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 42 USC 1983 AGAINST THE POLICE OFFICERS AND THE CITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the allegations describing the stop and arrest of the plaintiff pursuant to NYC’s stop and frisk policy stated causes of action pursuant to 42 USC 1983 against the individual officers and the city:

The complaint, as amplified by plaintiff’s opposition papers, alleges that, on February 13, 2013, plaintiff and a friend, both black men, were driving in a luxury sports car in the Bronx. They were not driving recklessly or violating any traffic laws. Nevertheless, they were pulled over by the police, and five or six officers, including the individual defendants, removed them from the car and searched them and the car. The police found marijuana in the friend’s pocket, but recovered no other contraband, either in the car or on plaintiff’s person. Nevertheless, plaintiff was arrested and held for two days. Charges against him were dismissed in October 2013.

The complaint alleges further that, during this time period, the New York City Police Department employed a “stop and frisk” policy, pursuant to which every year the police stopped hundreds of thousands of overwhelmingly and disproportionately minority persons, including black men, and subjected them to searches, for no reason other than that they were in supposedly high-crime areas. The complaint alleges that the “stop and frisk” policy, rather than some constitutionally cognizable cause, was the reason plaintiff was detained, searched, and arrested. To prove the existence of this policy, plaintiff submitted, among other things, the New York City Bar Association’s 24-page “Report on the NYPD’s Stop-and-Frisk Policy,” dated May 2013, which examined the policy and made recommendations for its reform and the protection of city residents’ civil liberties.

The foregoing states a cause of action under 42 USC § 1983 against the individual defendants … . At this procedural juncture, it is not necessary for plaintiff to allege that any of the individual defendants did any more than participate in his unlawful arrest.

By alleging the existence of an extraconstitutional municipal “stop and frisk” policy, and that the individual defendants unlawfully arrested plaintiff pursuant to that policy, the complaint states a cause of action under 42 USC § 1983 against the City … . Smith v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 01828, First Dept 3-14-19

 

You might also like
Injury While Lowering a Heavy Tank Entitled Plaintiff to Summary Judgment on His Labor Law 240 (1) Claim—Party’s Cross Motion Should Not Have Been Denied for Failure to Attach Pleadings—the Pleadings Had Been Provided to the Court by Other Parties
TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON A PATIENT’S FAILURE TO SHOW UP FOR AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION (IME), THE NO-FAULT INSURER MUST SHOW BOTH THAT THE PATIENT DID NOT SHOW UP AND THE REQUEST FOR THE IME AND THE SCHEDULING OF THE IME COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIRED TIME-FRAMES (FIRST DEPT).
BOTH PARTIES MOVED TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR FILING A NOTE OF ISSUE BECAUSE DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETE; DENYING THE MOTION MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE CASE TO PROGRESS; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIES EVEN WHERE A NEW ACTION HAS BEEN COMMENCED AND CONSOLIDATED WITH A PRIOR ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
MOTION IN LIMINE CANNOT BE USED TO DETERMINE AN ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT, THE MOTION WAS ACTUALLY AN UNTIMELY MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR, DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE COMPANY IN WHICH PLAINTIFF INVESTED AND PURCHASED A CONTROLLING INTEREST, PLAINTIFF HAD THE MEANS TO DISCOVER THE TRUTH BEHIND ANY ALLEGED FALSE CLAIMS.
DEFENDANT FOUND NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY CAN BE SUED FOR WRONGFUL DEATH UNDER THE EPTL, BOTH FOR THE STABBING DEATH OF HIS MOTHER AND THE RELATED SUICIDE OF HIS BROTHER.
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY AN AIR CONDITIONER WHEN TWO OF THE FOUR RODS ATTACHING THE AIR CONDITIONER TO THE CEILING DETACHED AND ONE END OF THE UNIT FELL; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE AIR CONDITIONER WAS A FALLING OBJECT WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SECURED WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FAILURE TO PROVIDE SEATBELTS IN A TAXICAB VIOLATES THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW... THE 30-DAY NOTICE PROVISION IN THE MORTGAGE DID NOT PRECLUDE ACCELERATING THE...