Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COUNTY OF BRONX
-------------------------------------------------------------------X
ROBERT TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT
-against-
Index No.
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, P.O. LAURENT MEDE,
Shield No. 6673, Individually and in his Official Capacity, BASIS FOR VENUE:
P.O. MARIO ALMONTE, Shield No. 3355, Individually
and in his Official Capacity and P.O.’s “JOHN DOE” #1- Location of Incident
10, Individually and in their Official Capacity (the name
John Doe being fictitious, as the true names are presently
unknown),
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------X
Plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR, by his attorneys, COHEN & FITCH LLP, complaining of
FACTS
2. Defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, was and is a municipal corporation duly
organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.
3. Defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, maintains the New York City Police
Department, a duly authorized public authority and/or police department, authorized to perform
all functions of a police department as per the applicable sections of the New York State
Criminal Procedure Law, acting under the direction and supervision of the aforementioned
4. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the individually named defendants P.O.
LAURENT MEDE, P.O. MARIO ALMONTE, and P.O.s “JOHN DOE” #1-#10 were duly
sworn police officers of said department and were acting under the supervision of said
through their employees, were acting under color of state law and/or in compliance with the
official rules, regulations, laws, statutes, customs, usages and/or practices of the State or City of
New York.
6. Each and all of the acts of the defendants alleged herein were done by said
defendants while acting within the scope of their employment by defendant THE CITY OF NEW
YORK.
7. Each and all of the acts of the defendants alleged herein were done by said
defendants while acting in furtherance of their employment by defendant THE CITY OF NEW
YORK.
was lawfully present on the southbound Freeman Street subway platform for the number 2 train
9. At the aforesaid time and place, plaintiff was taking a photograph of an incoming
10. As the train approached, plaintiff began walking toward the edge of the platform
plaintiff and stated to him in sum and substance “YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TAKE
12. Plaintiff immediately explained to the police officer that he was a Metropolitan
Transit Authority (“MTA”) station agent and he showed the police officer his employment
identification.
13. Plaintiff then explained to the defendant police officer that he was very familiar
with the MTA rules and that photography was not prohibited in the subway system.
14. Another defendant police officer approached plaintiff and told him he had to
15. Plaintiff refused and explained to the defendant police officers that they were
making a mistake.
16. One of the defendant police officers then stated in sum and substance: “THE TA
17. Defendants then handcuffed plaintiffs’ arms tightly behind his back, took him
18. Defendants issued plaintiff three summonses charging him with two counts of
Disorderly Conduct and one violation of Transit Authority Rules of Conduct (Section 1050.9(c)).
19. Notwithstanding that Section 1050.9(c) of the Transit Rules of Conduct explicitly
permits photography on the subway system and that plaintiff was not acting in a disorderly
20. As a result of his unlawful arrest, plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR spent several
hours in jail.
21. As a result of his unlawful arrest, plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR made two (2)
22. On or about February 19, 2009 the Transit Adjudication Bureau dismissed the
transit summons against plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR and on April 16, 2009 the disorderly
23. On or about February 19, 2009, and within (90) days after the claim herein
accrued, the plaintiff duly served upon, presented to and filed with defendant THE CITY OF
NEW YORK, a Notice of Claim setting forth all facts and information required under the
24. Defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK has wholly neglected or refused to make
an adjustment or payment thereof and more than thirty (30) days have elapsed since the
25. Defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK conducted a hearing pursuant to General
26. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent to maintaining the instant
action.
27. This action falls within one or more of the exceptions as outlined in C.P.L.R. §
1602.
28. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in
paragraphs numbered “1" through “27" with the same force and effect as if fully set forth
herein.
29. All of the aforementioned acts of defendants, their agents, servants and
30. All of the aforementioned acts deprived plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR of the
rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed to citizens of the United States by the First, Fourth,
Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America,
31. The acts complained of were carried out by the aforementioned individual
defendants in their capacities as police officers, with all the actual and/or apparent authority
attendant thereto.
32. The acts complained of were carried out by the aforementioned individual
defendants in their capacities as police officers, pursuant to the customs, usages, practices,
procedures, and the rules of the City of New York and the New York City Police Department, all
33. Defendants, collectively and individually, while acting under color of state law,
engaged in conduct which constituted a custom, usage, practice, procedure or rule of the
34. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in
paragraphs numbered “1” through “33” with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
illegal, improper and false arrest by the defendants and taken into custody and caused to be
falsely imprisoned, detained, and confined, without any probable cause, privilege or consent.
36. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff’s liberty was restricted for an extended
period of time, he was put in fear for his safety, and he was humiliated and subjected to
37. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in
paragraphs numbered “1" through “36" with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
38. Defendants misrepresented and falsified evidence before the District Attorney.
39. Defendants did not make a complete and full statement of facts to the District
Attorney.
41. Defendants were directly and actively involved in the initiation of criminal
ROBERT TAYLOR.
43. Defendants acted with malice in initiating criminal proceedings against ROBERT
TAYLOR.
44. Defendants were directly and actively involved in the continuation of criminal
ROBERT TAYLOR.
ROBERT TAYLOR.
47. Defendants misrepresented and falsified evidence throughout all phases of the
criminal proceedings.
48. Notwithstanding the perjurious and fraudulent conduct of defendants, the criminal
proceedings were terminated in ROBERT TAYLOR’s favor on or about April 16, 2009 when all
49. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff’s liberty was restricted for an extended
period of time, and he was put in fear for his safety, was humiliated and subjected to
50. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in
paragraphs “1" through “49" with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
51. Defendants issued legal process to place plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR under
arrest.
52. Defendants arrested plaintiff in order to obtain a collateral objective outside the
53. Defendants acted with intent to do harm to plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR, without
excuse or justification.
54. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff’s liberty was restricted for an extended
period of time, he was put in fear for his safety, and he was humiliated and subjected to
55. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in
paragraphs “1" through “54" as if the same were more fully set forth at length herein.
58. Defendants misled the prosecutors by creating false evidence against plaintiff
ROBERT TAYLOR and thereafter providing false testimony throughout the criminal
proceedings.
false evidence and information to prosecutors, and in providing false and misleading sworn
statements, defendants violated plaintiff’s constitutional right to a fair trial under the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
60. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff’s liberty was restricted for an extended
period of time, he was put in fear for his safety, and he was humiliated and subjected to
61. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in
paragraphs “1" through “60" with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
62. Plaintiff’s unjustified arrest and detention was not authorized by law but rather
was the defendant officers’ response to plaintiff’s verbal challenge to the officers understanding
that is entirely protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States.
65. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff’s liberty was restricted for an extended
period of time, and he was put in fear for his safety, was humiliated and subjected to
paragraphs numbered “1” through “65” with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
67. Defendants, collectively and individually, while acting under color of state law,
engaged in conduct that constituted a custom, usage, practice, procedure or rule of the respective
68. The aforementioned customs, policies, usages, practices, procedures and rules of
the City of New York and the New York City Police Department included, but were not limited
to, a) arresting individuals regardless of probable cause, b) utilizing excessive force in executing
said arrests, c) falsifying evidence to cover up police misconduct, and d) arresting civilian
69. The foregoing customs, policies, usages, practices, procedures and rules of the
City of New York and the New York City Police Department constituted deliberate indifference
70. The foregoing customs, policies, usages, practices, procedures and rules of the
City of New York and the New York City Police Department were the direct and proximate
71. The foregoing customs, policies, usages, practices, procedures and rules of the
City of New York and the New York City Police Department were the moving force behind the
72. As a result of the foregoing customs, policies, usages, practices, procedures and rules
of the City of New York and the New York City Police Department, plaintiff ROBERT
TAYLOR was subjected to unlawful and excessive force resulting in permanent and disabling
injuries.
73. Defendants, collectively and individually, while acting under color of state law,
74. Defendants, collectively and individually, while acting under color of state law,
directly responsible for the violation of plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR’s constitutional rights
B. To be free from seizure and arrest not based upon probable cause;
76. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in
paragraphs numbered “1" through “75" with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
78. As a result of defendants’ conduct, plaintiff has suffered physical pain and mental
79. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in
paragraphs numbered “1" through “78" with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
80. Defendant police officers touched plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR in a harmful and
offensive manner.
81. Defendant police officers did so without privilege or consent from plaintiff.
82. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR sustained, inter alia,
physical injuries.
83. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in
paragraphs numbered “1" through “82" with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
84. Defendant police officers arrested plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR in the absence of
was subjected to an illegal, improper and false arrest by the defendants and taken into custody
and caused to be falsely imprisoned, detained, confined, incarcerated and prosecuted by the
86. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in
paragraphs numbered “1" through “85" with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
87. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR was falsely imprisoned,
his liberty was restricted for an extended period of time, was put in fear for his safety, was
88. Plaintiff was conscious of said confinement and did not consent to same.
89. The confinement of plaintiff was without probable cause and was not otherwise
privileged.
90. As a result of the aforementioned conduct, plaintiff has suffered physical and
mental injury, together with embarrassment, humiliation, shock, fright and loss of freedom.
91. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in
paragraphs numbered “1" through “90" with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
93. Defendants lacked probable cause to commence said criminal proceeding against
95. From February 12, 2009 through April 16, 2009, plaintiff was forced to
repeatedly make appearances in Criminal Court to defend himself against the unlawful
96. On April 16, 2009, the criminal prosecution against plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR
was terminated in his favor when all charges against him were dismissed.
97. As a result of the aforementioned conduct, plaintiff suffered physical and mental
injury, together with embarrassment, humiliation, shock, fright, and loss of freedom.
98. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in
paragraphs numbered “1" through “97" with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
99. The aforementioned conduct was extreme and outrageous, and exceeded all
100. The aforementioned conduct was committed by defendants while acting within
102. The aforementioned conduct was intentional and done for the sole purpose of
distress, physical and mental injury, together with embarrassment, humiliation, shock, fright and
loss of freedom.
104. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in
paragraphs numbered “1" through “103" with the same force and effect as if fully set forth
herein.
105. Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK selected, hired, trained, retained, assigned and
supervised all members of said its Police Department, including the defendants individually
named above.
106. Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK was negligent and careless when it selected,
hired, trained, retained, assigned, and supervised all members of its Police Department including
107. Due to the negligence of the defendants as set forth above, plaintiff suffered
physical and mental injury, pain and trauma, together with embarrassment, humiliation shock,
D. Any further relief as the Court may find just and proper.
sum of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) and is further entitled to punitive damages against the
punitive damages, plus attorney’s fees, costs, and disbursements of this action.
BY:________________________
GERALD COHEN
COHEN & FITCH LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
225 Broadway, Suite 2700
New York, N.Y. 10007
(212) 374-9115
ATTORNEY'S VERIFICATION
That he is a member of the law firm of COHEN & FITCH, LLP the attorneys for
That your deponent has read the foregoing COMPLAINT and knows the
contents thereof, and that the same is true to his own knowledge, except as to the matters
therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, he
believes it to be true.
That the source of the deponent’s information are investigation and records in the
file.
That the reason why the verification is made by deponent and not by the plaintiff
is that the plaintiff is not within the county wherein deponent maintains his office.
Deponent affirms that the foregoing statements are true under the penalties of
perjury.
______________________________________
GERALD COHEN