# Mateo v. City of New York

> New York Supreme Court, New York County · October 1, 2024 · 2024 NY Slip Op 33451(U)

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10612534

## Case

- **Court:** New York Supreme Court, New York County
- **Decided:** October 1, 2024
- **Citations:** 2024 NY Slip Op 33451(U)
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion by Hasa A. Kingo
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10612534

## Opinion text

Mateo v City of New York
2024 NY Slip Op 33451(U)
October 1, 2024
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 156884/2020
Judge: Hasa A. Kingo
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
State and local government sources, including the New
York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
publication.
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/01/2024 12:58 P~ INDEX NO. 156884/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/01/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. HASA A. KINGO PART 05M
Justice
----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X INDEX NO. 156884/2020
CHRISTOPHER R. MATEO,
MOTION DATE 04/22/2024
Plaintiff,
MOTION SEQ. NO. 002
- V -

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE
DECISION + ORDER ON
DEPARTMENT, NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICERS
MOTION
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49, 50,51, 52
were read on this motion for SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter comes before the court on a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants,
the City of New York ("City") and the New York City Police Department ("NYPD") (collectively
"Defendants"), pursuant to CPLR § 3212, seeking dismissal of the claims asserted by Plaintiff
Christopher Mateo ("Plaintiff'). Plaintiff brings claims of malicious prosecution, false arrest, civil
rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and negligent hiring, training, and supervision, among
others. Defendants argue, inter alia, that Plaintiffs federal claims under § 1983 are procedurally
barred, that there was probable cause for the arrest, and that the NYPD is not a suable entity.
Plaintiff opposes the motion. For the reasons stated herein, the motion is granted.

BACKGROUND

On March 23, 209, Plaintiff was arrested at Mamajuana Cafe, a restaurant with a lounge
located at 247 Dyckman Street, New York, New York (NYSCEF Doc No. 27, Statement of
Material Facts ,i 1). Prior to the arrest, Plaintiff argued with and then punched the complaining
witness, identified by the City as S.A. (id. ,i,i 3-5). S.A. was knocked to the ground and the
restaurant's security responded, asking Plaintiff to leave (id. ,i,i 5, 7). Plaintiff concedes he threw
the first punch in the incident, but contends it was in self-defense because "he thought the man
was going to swing at him first" (NYSCEF Doc No. 51, Counter Statement of Material Facts ,i 6).
NYPD officers Stabile, Perez, and Ramos responded to a call about an assault in progress at the
restaurant (id. ,i 11). Plaintiff encountered the police as he was leaving the restaurant (id. ,i 9).
Plaintiff told the officers that he hit S.A. in self-defense and told them to view the restaurant's
camera footage (id. ,i 13). The officers spoke to the complaining witness, who advised them that
he did not know who had hit him, but he was struck in the face by an unknown male, causing him
to hit his head on the floor which resulted in a one in laceration to the back of his head, causing
pain and injuries (id. ,i 15). S.A. was then removed to the hospital (id.). The officers then reviewed
security footage of the incident, which showed Plaintiff punching S.A., and placed Plaintiff under

156884/2020 MATEO, CHRISTOPHER R. vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 1 of 5
Motion No. 002

1 of 5
[* 1]
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/01/2024 12:58 P~ INDEX NO. 156884/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/01/2024

arrest (id. ,i,i 16-17). A gravity knife was recovered from Plaintiff in a search performed after he
was arrested (id. ,i 18). Plaintiff was arraigned and charged with assault in the 3rd Degree and
Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the 3rd Degree (id. ,i 21). The case was dismissed on May 30,
2019 (id. ,i 22).

Plaintiff then filed a notice of claim and commenced this action by filing a summons and
complaint on August 28, 2020 (NYSCEF Doc No. 1). Issue was joined when the City filed an
answer on October 28, 2020, on behalf of itself and the NYPD (NYSCEF Doc No. 5). The
complaint interposes causes of action for ( 1) malicious prosecution, (2) false arrest, (3) civil rights
violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (4) respondeat superior, (5) failure to provide adequate training
and supervision, (6) failure to supervise. The City now moves pursuant to CPLR §§ 3212 and 3211
for summary judgment and to dismiss all causes of action. Plaintiff opposes.

ARGUMENTS

In support of the motion, the City argues that (i) Plaintiff's federal causes of action asserted
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to name an individual officers
in the complaint and the statute oflimitations has expired and because these causes of action cannot
proceed under a theory of respondeat superior, (ii) that the cause of action for negligent hiring,
training, and retention must be dismissed because defendants were acting within the scope of their
employment, (iii) the Monell claims are insufficiently plead, (iv) the causes of action for
constitutional violations must be dismissed because alternate remedies are available, (v) the causes
of action for false arrest and false imprisonment fail because there was probable cause for the arrest
and prosecution, (vi) causes of action against Doe defendants are time-barred, and (vii) the NYPD
is a non-suable entity.

Plaintiff opposes the motion and asserts that the City's submissions raise triable issues of
fact. Relying on Wiggins v. City of New York (201 AD3d 22 [1st Dept 2021]), Plaintiff argues
extensively that the failure to name individual officers is not fatal to the 1983 claims. Plaintiff also
argues that the NYPD did not have probable cause for the arrest because they never spoke to
Plaintiff prior to arresting him and because he felt threatened by S.A. and acted in self-defense
when he struck him. Finally, Plaintiff contends that the Monell claims are adequately pleaded.

DISCUSSION

In order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the proponent must make a prima
facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, through admissible evidence
demonstrating the absence of any material issue of fact (Ayotte v. Gervasio, 81 NY2d 1062 [1993]).
Once the moving party has satisfied these standards, the burden shifts to the opponent to rebut that
prima facie showing, by producing contrary evidence in admissible form sufficient to require a
trial of material factual issues (Amatulli v. Delhi Constr. Corp., 77 NY2d 525 [1999]).

Summary judgment is a drastic remedy. Therefore, the court's function on a motion for
summary judgment is issue finding rather than issue determination (Stillman v Twentieth Century
Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395 [1957]). Since summary judgment is a drastic remedy, it should not
be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence of a triable issue (Rotuba Extruders v

156884/2020 MATEO, CHRISTOPHER R. vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 2 of 5
Motion No. 002

2 of 5
[* 2]
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/01/2024 12:58 P~ INDEX NO. 156884/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/01/2024

Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223 [1978]). The burden on the movant is a heavy one, and the facts must be
viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party (Jacobsen v New York City Health &
Hasps. Corp., 22 NY3d 824 [2014]).

Likewise, on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action under CPLR §3211
(a)(7), courts afford the pleadings a liberal construction, accept the facts as alleged in the complaint
as true, and give the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference. (Leon v Martinez,
84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]; JF Capital Advisors, LLC v Lightstone Group, LLC, 25 NY3d 759, 764
[2015].) Ordinarily, the court's inquiry is limited to assessing the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs
pleadings (JF Capital Advisors, 25 NY3d at 764, supra). However, where the complaint consists
of bare legal conclusions with no factual specificity (Godfrey v Spano, 13 NY3d 358, 373 [2009])
or where the statements in a pleading are not sufficiently particular to give the court and parties
notice of the transactions and/or occurrences intended to be proven (CPLR §3013; Mid-Hudson
Val. Fed Credit Union v Quartararo & Lois, PLLC, 31 NY3d 1090, 1091 [2018]), the motion to
dismiss should be granted. Indeed, "allegations consisting of bare legal conclusions as well as
factual claims flatly contradicted by documentary evidence are not entitled to any such
consideration" (Garber v Board of Trustees of State Univ. of NY, 38 AD3d 833, 834 [2d Dept
2007], quoting Maas v Cornell Univ., 94 NY2d 87, 91 [1999]).

Here, at the outset, the court observes that the allegations set forth in the complaint are
pleaded in a cursory manner and the causes of action are not labeled. It is difficult to discern several
of the causes of action. In particular, the fourth cause of action appears to be for respondeat
superior, but this is unclear as it also pleads language associated with false arrest and malicious
prosecution.

I. NYPD as a Non-Suable Entity

Notwithstanding these deficiencies, at the outset, the court finds that the NYPD is a non-
suable entity pursuant to Chapter 17, section 396 of the New York City Charter and that the
complaint must be dismissed as against the NYPD accordingly (Troy v City of New York, 160
AD3d 410,411 [1st Dept 2018]).

II. Civil Rights Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Next, Defendants have set for a prima facie showing that Plaintiffs § 1983 claims are
fatally flawed. Indeed, when it comes to the 1983 claims, 42 U.S.C. §1983 provides that "[e]very
person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage ... subjects, or
causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured"
(42 U.S.C. § 1983). Individuals may be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for their own actions, but
local governments are only responsible for "their own illegal acts" ( Connick v Thompson, 563 US
51, 60 [2011]). Liability may only be imposed on the City for its own alleged violations of a
plaintiffs constitutional rights by establishing a direct causal link between a municipal policy or
custom and the alleged constitutional deprivation" (Holland, 90 AD3d at 847, citing Canton v
Harris, 489 US 378, 385 [1989]; Connick, 563 US 51 [2011]; Monell v New York City Dept. of

156884/2020 MATEO, CHRISTOPHER R. vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 3 of 5
Motion No. 002

3 of 5
[* 3]
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/01/2024 12:58 P~ INDEX NO. 156884/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/01/2024

Social Servs., 436 US 658, 694 [1978]). Whereas there are no individually named defendants in
this action, Plaintiff may only proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with a Monell claim. 1

Indeed, the failure to name individual defendants in the complaint is a significant defect.
Personal involvement of the defendants in the alleged constitutional violations is a necessary
element of a § 1983 claim. Plaintiff's reliance on Wiggins v. City ofNew York (201 AD 3d 22 [1st
Dept 2021 ]), is misplaced because Wiggins addresses whether individuals must be named in the
notice of claim, not the complaint.

To establish a Monell cause of action, a plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of: "(1) a
formal policy, (2) actions or decisions made by policymakers that resulted in the violation of
plaintiff's rights, (3) a practice so persistent and widespread that it constitutes a 'custom or usage,'
or (4) a failure to properly train or supervise municipal employees" (Boddie v City of New York,
2016 WL 1466555, *4 [SDNY April 13, 2016, No. 1:15-CV-4275-GHW], citing Moray v City of
Yonkers, 924 F Supp 8, 12 [SDNY 1996]; see also Holland v City ofNew York, 90 AD3d 841,847
[2d Dept 2011]["The plaintiff must show that the action alleged to be unconstitutional either
implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted
and promulgated by the body's officers, or has occurred pursuant to a practice so permanent and
well-settled as to constitute a custom or usage with the force of law"][intemal citations omitted]).

To establish liability under a theory of failure to train, a plaintiff must "identify a specific
deficiency in the city's training program and show that the deficiency is closely related to the
ultimate injury, such that it actually caused the constitutional deprivation" (Amnesty Am. v Town
of W Hartford, 361 F3d 113, 130 [2d Cir 2004], citing City of Canton, 489 US 378, 390-391
[1989]).

Here, Defendants have adequately set for that Plaintiff's complaint contains only
conclusory allegations that "Defendants conspired to violate Plaintiff's statutory civil rights in
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983"; that the City and NYPD's "failure to provide adequate training
and supervision to DOE [sic] constitutes a willful and wanton indifference and deliberate disregard
for human life and the rights of private citizens, including Plaintiff'; and that the City and NYPD
"maintained a system of police conduct which was so untimely and cursory that it was ineffective
and permitted and tolerated the unreasonable detention of Plaintiff' (NYSCEF Doc No. 1,
complaint ,i,i 28, 37, 39).

These allegations are insufficient to support a Monell claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as
they fail to allege specific facts demonstrating the existence of any formal policy, custom, or
practice. Instead, they merely offer conclusory statements, which are insufficient to survive a
motion for summary judgment (Ashcroft v Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 [2009]). Accordingly, summary
judgment is granted, and Plaintiff's Monell claim is dismissed.

III. False Arrest and Malicious Prosecution Claims

For the purposes of false arrest and malicious prosecution, here Defendants have made a
prima facie showing that the arrest was privileged because it was supported by probable cause (De
1
Plaintiff conceded this point at oral argument before the court on October 1, 2024.
156884/2020 MATEO, CHRISTOPHER R. vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 4 of 5
Motion No. 002

4 of 5
[* 4]
!FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/01/2024 12:58 PM! INDEX NO. 156884/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/01/2024

Lourdes Torres v Jones, 26 NY3d 742, 759 [2016] ["For purposes of the privilege element of a
false arrest and imprisonment claim, an act of confinement is privileged if it stems from a lawful
arrest supported by probable cause"]; Lawson v City ofNew York, 83 AD 3d 609 [1st Dept 2011]
[existence of probable cause constitutes a complete defense to a claim of malicious prosecution]).
Indeed, the statement of the complaining witness and the restaurant video footage provided
sufficient probable cause to arrest Plaintiff. Self-defense is an affirmative defense available at trial
but does not negate probable cause for an arrest (Penal Law§ 35.15; People v Petty, 7 NY3d 277
[2006]). The defense is also not available where the actor was the initial aggressor and did not
attempt to withdraw from the encounter (id.; People v Petty, 7 NY3d 277 at 285). Likewise, the
evidence that supported the arrest and Plaintiffs possession of a gravity knife also constituted
probable cause for the prosecution. Additionally, there is no evidence of malice, a required element
for malicious prosecution (Broughton v. State, 37 NY2d 451 [1975]). Accordingly, Plaintiff has
failed to rebut Defendants' prima facie showing and Plaintiffs false arrest and malicious
prosecution claims are dismissed.

IV. Negligent Hiring, Training, and Retention

Plaintiffs claim for negligent hiring, training, and retention must also be dismissed.
"[W]here an employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment, thereby rendering the
employer liable for any damages caused by the employee's negligence under a theory of
respondeat superior, no claim may proceed against the employer for negligent hiring or retention"
(Karoon v New York City Transit Auth., 241 AD2d 323, 324 [1st Dept 1997]). Here, Defendants
have agreed that the officers were acting within the scope of their employment, and thus, this claim
must fail. To the extent that Plaintiff asserts a cause of action for constitutional violations, New
York courts only infer a private right of action under the state constitution when no alternative
remedy is available (Martinez v City ofSchenectady, 97 NY2d 78, 83 [2001] [Constitutional cause
of action only available where "necessary and appropriate to ensure the full realization of the rights
they state"]). As that is not the case here, Plaintiff has failed to set forth any triable issues of fact
to disturb Defendants' prima facie showing that they are entitled to dismissal of Plaintiffs claim
for negligent hiring, training, and retention. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that Defendants' motion is granted in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in Defendants' favor
and dismissing this case in its entirety accordingly.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

10/1/2024
DATE

~
CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

GRANTED □ DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE

156884/2020 MATEO, CHRISTOPHER R. vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 5 of 5
Motion No. 002

5 of 5
[* 5]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10612534. Public record. Not legal advice.