Andrew Rosa v. The City of New York and New York City Police Officers - U.S. District Court, SDNY

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 1 of 21
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
______________________________
ANDREW ROSA,
PLAINTIFF
11 Civ 02942 (LBS)(TK)
vs COMPLAINT [JURY TRIAL]
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, a

municipal entity, NEW YORK
CITY POLICE OFFICER VINCENT
KONG, Shield # 01661, NEW
YORK CITY POLICE SERGEANT
CHRISTOPHER KOCH, Shield #
2875, NEW YORK CITY POLICE
LIEUTENANT “JOE” COSTELLO,
NEW YORK CITY POLICE CAPTAIN
STEVEN BRAILLE, NEW YORK CITY
POLICE CHIEF BRIAN CONROY,
NEW YORK CITY UNDERCOVER POLICE
OFFICER 293 (previously known
as NEW YORK CITY UNDERCOVER
POLICE OFFICER 2948, and
prior to that as NEW YORK
CITY UNDERCOVER POLICE OFFICER
4325), NEW YORK CITY POLICE
OFFICERS ”JOHN DOES”, each of
the identified and non-identified
persons in his/her individual
and official capacities,
DEFENDANTS
________________________________
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This litigation arises out of the custodial arrest

of the Plaintiff on the late evening of Thursday, July 17,
2008 and the early morning of Friday, July 18, 2008 at the
Hot Lap Dance Club, 344 West 38th Street, New York City, New
York and the preferral of criminal charges and the
prosecution of the Plaintiff associated therewith.
2. The Plaintiff was detained in custody for

approximately twenty seven hours until at or about 2:30
A.M. in the morning of Saturday, July 19, 2008 when the

Plaintiff appeared at an arraignment in the Criminal Court
of the City of New York, County of New York, and State of
New York and was then released without bail and directed to
return to Court for further proceedings on September 25,
2008.
3. The Plaintiff appeared in Court on September 25,

2008 where and when, on the motion of the New York County
District Attorney’s Office, the Criminal Court charge
against the Plaintiff was dismissed and the matter sealed.
4. This is an action in which the Plaintiff seeks

relief for the violation of his rights as guaranteed under
the laws and Constitution of the United States.
5. The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and such

other relief, including injunctive relief and declaratory
relief [if appropriate], as may be in the interest of
justice and as may be required to assure that the Plaintiff
secures full and complete relief and justice for the
violation of his rights.
II. JURISDICTION
6. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to

and under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1343 in conjunction
with the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983,
and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution.
7. The Plaintiff also invokes the jurisdiction of

this Court in conjunction with the Declaratory Judgment
Act, 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201, et seq., this being an action
in which the Plaintiff seeks, in addition to monetary
damages, whatever other relief is needed to provide full
and complete justice including, if appropriate, declaratory
and injunctive relief.
8. This is an action in which the Plaintiff seeks

relief for the violation of his rights as guaranteed under
the laws and Constitution of the United States.
2
III. THE PARTIES
9. The Plaintiff is an American citizen and resident

of the State of New York, the City of New York, and the
County of Kings.
10. The Defendant City of New York is a municipal

entity which was created under the authority of the laws
and Constitution of the State of New York and which is
authorized with, among other powers, the power to maintain
a police department for the purpose of protecting the
welfare of those who reside in the City of New York.
11. Defendants Christopher Koch, Shield # 2875,

Vincent Kong, Shield # 01661, “Joe” Costello, Steven
Braille, Brian Conroy, New York City Undercover Police
Officer 293 (previously known as New York City Undercover
Police Officer 2948, and prior to that as New York City
Undercover Police Officer 4325), and “John Does” are New
York City Police Department line and command Officers and
agents and employees of the City of New York.
12. Although their actions and conduct herein

described were unlawful and wrongful and otherwise
violative of the Plaintiff’s rights as guaranteed under the
laws and Constitution of the United States, they were taken
in and during the course of their duties and functions as
New York City Police Department line and command Officers
and as agents and employees of the City of New York and
incidental to the otherwise lawful performance of their
duties and functions as New York City Police Officers and
agents and employees of the City of New York.
IV. ALLEGATIONS
13. This litigation arises out of the Plaintiff’s

custodial arrest on Thursday night, July 17, 2008 and on
Friday morning July 18, 2008 at the Hot Lap Dance Club
which is located at 344 West 38th Street, New York, New York
14. The Plaintiff was employed at the Hot Lap Dance

Club on a part time basis as an elevator operator.
Plaintiff had been employed thereat only since around or
about July 8, 2008.
15. The Plaintiff was released from custody without

bail at an arraignment at or about 2:30 A.M. on July 19,
3
2008 and he was directed to return to the Court on

September 25, 2008 for further proceedings in connection
with his arrest allegedly for promoting prostitution.
16. The Plaintiff appeared in Court on September 25,

2008 where and when, on the motion of the New York County
District Attorney’s Office, the charges, which had been
preferred against the Plaintiff, were dismissed and the
matter sealed.
17. The Plaintiff, who is an American citizen and

resident of the City of New York, County of Kings, State of
New York, is thirty three [33] years of age.
18. The Plaintiff’s birth date is December 7, 1977.
19. The Plaintiff is married. He has been married

since 2001. The Plaintiff does not have any children.
20. The Plaintiff resides with his wife on St. Marks

Avenue in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn, New York.
He has resided at his present residence since approximately
2002.
21. The Plaintiff was born and raised in Brooklyn, New

York.
22. The Plaintiff attended and graduated from the

Lowell High School, a private academy, in Flushing, Queens,
New York.
23. The Plaintiff has attended Kingsborough Community

College where he is approximately one semester’s credits
short of an associate’s degree.
24. The Plaintiff is presently employed, part time, by

United Parcel Services [UPS].
25. The Plaintiff commenced his employment with UPS on

approximately November 20, 2008.
26. The Plaintiff was initially employed by UPS in a

“pre-loader” position.
27. Since approximately October of 2010, the Plaintiff

has been employed by UPS in the position of “operations
supervisor”.
4
28. At the time of the arrest the Plaintiff was

employed as a full time security police officer by the
gated private community known as Seagate in the far reaches
of the Coney Island area of Brooklyn, New York.
29. The Plaintiff was employed by the Seagate

community Police Department in his position as a security
police officer in or about October, 2006.
30. He continued in his employment as a Seagate

community Police Department security police officer until
July 19, 2008 or thereabouts when, after his arrest, he was
suspended from his position as a Seagate community Police
Department security police officer by the Seagate
community.
31. Eventually the Plaintiff resigned his position on

or about November 20, 2008 because, notwithstanding that on
or about September 25, 2008 the charge, on which the
Plaintiff was arrested on July 17, 2008 [as more fully
described hereinafter] was dismissed and the records
sealed, the Seagate Police Department and the Seagate
community Board were refusing to allow the Plaintiff to
return to work as a security police officer in the Seagate
community Police Department.
32. Prior to being employed by the Seagate community

Police Department as a security police officer the
Plaintiff was employed in or about January 2003 by the
Hunts Point Department of Public Safety as a security
officer.
33. The Plaintiff worked as a Hunts Point Department

of Public Safety security officer, where in or about April
2006 he was certified as peace officer with the power under
New York State law to arrest individuals, until he obtained
his position with the Seagate community Police Department
as a security police officer [with the power, as a duly
certified peace officer, to arrest individuals].
34. In order to obtain his peace officer’s

certification, which allowed him to arrest individuals
which he could not do as a security officer without peace
officer certification, the Plaintiff took a course, which
consisted of approximately forty seven hours of training,
and passed an examination at the conclusion of which he was
5
duly certified as a peace officer with the power, under the

laws of the State of New York, to arrest individuals.
35. While employed by the Seagate community Police

Department [with certification as a peace officer], the
Plaintiff applied to the New York City Police Department
for a gun license and obtained a gun license to bear and
carry a gun.
36. Prior to his employment as a security officer by

the Hunts Point Department of Public Safety in or about
January, 2003, the Plaintiff was employed by Bryne Security
International as a security officer and was assigned to
perform his duties and functions at Kingsborough Community
College where he did so for approximately eight or nine
months.
37. Before being employed at Kingsborough Community

College, the Plaintiff attended Kingsborough Community
College as a student.
38. On the date of his July 17, 2008 arrest, the

Plaintiff was, in addition to being employed as a security
police officer in the Brooklyn, New York Seagate community
Police Department, also employed, part time, at the Hot Lap
Dance Club [hereinafter referred to as “Club”] which was
located at 344 West 38th Street, New York City, New York.
39. The Plaintiff’s part time position at the afore-

mentioned Club was that of elevator operator.
40. In his position as part time elevator operator at

the afore-mentioned Club, the Plaintiff brought patrons of
the Club from the ground floor level of the building in
which the Club was located to an upper floor where the Club
was situated and the Plaintiff returned patrons from the
Club on an upper floor of the building to the ground floor.
41. The elevator was a freight type elevator.
42. The Plaintiff had been employed in his part time

position for only approximately a week or thereabouts and,
on the date of the Plaintiff’s arrest, the Plaintiff was
working a shift for only the third time.
43. On the date of the Plaintiff’s arrest, the

Plaintiff was working in his part time position at the
6
afore-described location doing the functions of an elevator

operator as described.
44. The only thing of which the Plaintiff was aware

about the Club, where he was functioning part time as an
elevator operator and had done so on only two occasions
prior to July 17, 2008, was that the Club was a lap dancing
club.
45. The Plaintiff understood the Club was owned and

operated by one Lou Posner whom the Plaintiff had met only
in passing when he had worked as the elevator operator on
the two occasions prior to the July 17, 2008.
46. The Plaintiff was aware that the Club employed

woman as lap dancers.
47. The Plaintiff did not know most of the individuals

employed at the Club.
48. The Plaintiff was hardly ever in the Club on the

upper floor of the building when employed on the two prior
occasions when he worked except to go to the bathroom on an
occasion.
49. When the Plaintiff brought patrons of the Club in

the elevator to the floor on which the Club was situated,
the patrons were deposited on the floor in a hallway which
the patrons then traversed to the Club entrance on said
floor. When the Plaintiff brought patrons who had been in
the Club back to the ground floor in the elevator, the
Plaintiff received the patrons in the hallway by the
entrance to the elevator.
50. The Plaintiff was working as a part time employee

at the Club location because the Plaintiff was in need of
more income to supplement the salary which he was receiving
as a Seagate community Police Department security police
officer.
51. On July 17, 2008, the Plaintiff commenced his job

as part time elevator operator at or about 8:00 P.M.
52. At or about 11:30 P.M., while working in his

position as part time elevator operator at the Club and as
the Plaintiff was to learn, plain clothes Police Officers,
entered into the Club as part of what turned out to be an
7
on- going New York City Police Department undercover field

operation at the Club.
53. At that time and while the Plaintiff was working

the elevator in his capacity as a part time elevator
operator, two plain clothes individuals, subsequently
learned to be New York City Police Officers, entered into
the elevator.
54. The Plaintiff took the two white male plain

clothes New York City Police Officers in the elevator from
the ground floor of the building to the upper floor on
which the Club was situated.
55. One of the individuals, who appeared to have a

badge on display that appeared to the Plaintiff to identify
him as a police officer, asked the Plaintiff who his boss
was and the Plaintiff responded that Lou Posner was the
owner and operator of the Club.
56. As the two individuals exited the elevator into

the hallway on the upper floor where the Club was situated,
they directed the Plaintiff to get against the wall.
57. The Plaintiff, being a police officer himself and

it appearing to the Plaintiff that one of the individuals
was wearing a badge, asked the individuals whether he was
under arrest.
58. One of the Officers indicated to the Plaintiff to

“shut up” and not to think about running.
59. Together they walked to the entrance to the Club

and into the Club.
60. Once in the Club, the Officer stated to the

Plaintiff to slowly walk toward where his boss was.
61. The Plaintiff informed the Officer that he did not

know where “his boss” was and that he might be in a back
room pointing to a room in the loft area which described
the Club.
62. The Officers and the Plaintiff began to walk

toward the back room at which time the Officer said to the
Plaintiff not to move fast.
8
63. The Plaintiff responded that he was not moving

fast.
64. As they walked, the Officer directed the Plaintiff

to stay by a wall.
65. The Plaintiff did as directed and stayed by a wall

along with one of the two Officers.
66. The Club was crowded with patrons.
67. The Plaintiff stayed by the wall and the Plaintiff

observed what appeared to him to be additional plain
clothes officers in the Club.
68. The Plaintiff remained by the wall, as directed,

for approximately five minutes or perhaps more.
69. Individuals were directed by persons who appeared

to be plain clothes officers to sit down.
70. Individuals were sitting, some sat, and some still

remained standing.
71. As the arrest operation commenced and took place,

patrons of the Club were rounded up and located in one area
of the Club while the employees of the Club, including
dancers employed in the Club, were gathered together by the
police in another area within the Club location.
72. The Plaintiff was placed by the police in the area

with other employees of the Club.
73. Individuals, including the Plaintiff, were asked

to provide identification.
74. Eventually those individuals, who were identified

as patrons, were informed that they could leave.
75. During the period, police officers would go to the

area where the employees of the Club had been situated and
would, then, from what appeared to be a list of the
employees, identify some of the employees from their list,
and take all the employee arrestees to the office in the
Club and handcuff the individuals and place the individuals
under arrest.
9
76. When the Plaintiff was informed that he was under

arrest and was then handcuffed and arrested, the Plaintiff
indicated that he had done nothing improper, that he was a
part time employee, and that he had only just started to
work at the Club location recently.
77. When the Plaintiff asked why he was being

arrested, he received no response.
78. Along with other individuals who were arrested at

the time and at the location, the Plaintiff was transported
to the 7th Precinct where he was processed.
79. The Plaintiff had no information or idea

whatsoever as to the basis for his arrest as he had only
been working in the Club location for about a week or
thereabouts and was only on his third part time employment
shift as an elevator operator.
80. When the Plaintiff questioned why he had been

arrested, he was directed by a police officer to “keep
quiet”.
81. During the period that he was being arrested at

the Club, the Officers examined the Plaintiff’s wallet,
which was in his pocket, and they observed the Plaintiff’s
peace officer badge, which the Plaintiff carried in his
wallet, and the identification which described him as a
security police officer at the Seagate community Police
Department in Brooklyn, New York.
82. The Plaintiff had no idea about any unlawful or

illegal conduct, if any, which was alleged, as part of the
police operation, was on-going at the Club location.
83. As noted and because the Plaintiff had only just

commenced to work at the Club, he hardly knew any of the
employees, whether they be dancers at the Club or others
employed at the Club; and he did not know Lou Posner
although he knew of him and who he was.
84. The Plaintiff tried to tell the police officers

that he had only just been employed at the Club and that he
was unaware of any alleged unlawful activity in the Club
but the police simply told the Plaintiff to “keep quiet”.
10
85. After several hours at the 7th Precinct to which

the Plaintiff and other of the Club employees had been
transported, the Plaintiff, along with others, was
transported to Manhattan Central Booking in the morning
hours of July 18, 2008.
86. At or about 2:30 A.M. on Saturday, morning, July

19, 2008, the Plaintiff was presented at an arraignment in
the Criminal Court of the City of New York, County of New
York, and the State of New York.
87. The Plaintiff was charged with promoting

prostitution.
88. The Plaintiff never promoted prostitution or other

unlawful conduct, ever, in the Club location or otherwise;
and he was unaware of any unlawful conduct whatsoever in
the Club location.
89. The Plaintiff never engaged in any criminal

conduct or other unlawful while employed part time at the
Club.
90. As of the time of his arrest, the Plaintiff had no

prior criminal record.
91. The Plaintiff’s arrest on the night in question,

in front of employees and others, was humiliating and
embarrassing and stress and anxiety inducing.
92. In fact, subsequent to his arrest, an article,

referring to him as a Seagate community Police Department
security police officer, appeared in the New York Post
indicating that he, among others, had been arrested in a
New York City Police Department operation in the Hot Lap
Dance Club and that he had been charged in the field
operation with a prostitution related charge.
93. The inclusion in the New York Post article was

enormously embarrassing to the Plaintiff and had serious
ramifications for him with respect to his employment by the
Seagate community Police Department as a security police
officer in the Seagate community where he had been employed
for a considerable period of time prior thereto.
11
94. At his arraignment, the Plaintiff was released

without bail and on his own recognizance and directed to
return to Court on September 25, 2008.
95. When the Plaintiff was released, the Plaintiff

called his supervisor at the Seagate community Police
Department to inform the Seagate community Police
Department that he had been arrested.
96. The Plaintiff was informed that he was suspended.
97. The Plaintiff learned that, when he had been

arrested and the police had learned that the Plaintiff was
a security police officer in the Seagate community Police
Department in the Coney Island area of Brooklyn, New York,
the 7th Precinct called the Seagate community Police
Department office and informed the office that the
Plaintiff had been arrested as part of the undercover vice
squad field operation at the Club.
98. The Plaintiff learned, moreover, that, unbeknownst

to the Plaintiff while he was at the 7th Precinct, Seagate
community Police Department Lieutenant Eugene Moyce had
actually traveled to the 7th Precinct, while the Plaintiff
was in custody at the 7th Precinct, and unsuccessfully
sought to obtain the release of the Plaintiff.
99. While at the 7th Precinct, Lieutenant Moyce was

given the Plaintiff’s peace officer badge and the Seagate
community Police Department identification which the
Plaintiff carried with him in his wallet.
100. The Plaintiff returned to Court on September 25,

2008 when and where, upon the Motion of the New York County
District Attorney’s Office, the case was dismissed and the
matter sealed.
101. The Plaintiff immediately informed the Seagate

community Police Department that the charge had been
dismissed.
102. The Plaintiff spoke with, among others, Jeffrey

Fortunano, the Chief of the Seagate community Police
Department about his suspension and about securing the re-
activation of his active duty security police officer
status in the Seagate community Police Department.
12
103. The Plaintiff was informed by Chief Fortunano that

he was not bringing the Plaintiff back because the
Plaintiff had brought great embarrassment to the Seagate
community Police Department and to the Seagate community at
large and that the Seagate community Board would not permit
the Plaintiff to be re-employed, from his suspension, in
his previously held position as a Seagate community
security police officer.
104. Eventually on or about November 20, 2008, the

Plaintiff was able to find some part time employment with
the UPS [as described above].
105. Because the Plaintiff was still not being re-

activated by the Seagate Police Department into his Seagate
community Police Department security police officer
position, the Plaintiff resigned his position under duress.
106. The pendency of the Criminal Court proceeding,

until it was dismissed, was stress and anxiety inducing,
emotionally distressful, and otherwise publically
humiliating and embarrassing.
107. Because of his arrest and the publicity generated

about such, generally, and particularly and specifically as
to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff lost his job as a security
officer.
108. Furthermore and because of his arrest and

notwithstanding the dismissal of the charge and the sealing
of the records, the likelihood that the Plaintiff can ever
be employed in what the Plaintiff had hoped to be his
chosen field of security and law enforcement, is minimal if
existent at all.
109. Furthermore and as a consequence of his arrest,

the Plaintiff’s gun license was cancelled.
110. The Plaintiff committed no criminal offense or

other offense whatsoever and no reasonable police officer
could have reasonably and objectively believed that the
Plaintiff committed any criminal offense or any other
offense under the law to justify even a stop yet alone an
arrest, a custodial arrest, incarceration and detention,
the preferral of any charge, including but not limited to
promotion of prostitution charge, against him, and his
criminal prosecution associated with the preferral of
13
criminal charges including but not limited to the promotion

of prostitution charge.
111. It is believed that Defendants “Does”, Costello,

Braille, Koch, Kong, New York City Undercover Police
Undercover Police Officer 4325), and Conroy were involved
in the pre-planning and/or the execution of the Hot Dance
Lap Club field operation on July 17, 2008.
112. It is believed that, among the Defendants, all or

some had been in the Hot Lap Dance Club as part of a pre-
July 17, 2008 undercover operation which was taking place
in said Club.
113. Among other efforts in which some or all of the

Defendants engaged was an undertaking and effort to secure
a search warrant for the premises where the Hot Lap Dance
Club was located.
114. Notwithstanding that it is believed that a search

warrant was obtained for the search of the Hot Lap Dance
Club, no pre-July 17, 2008 arrest warrant was obtained from
a Court for the Plaintiff.
115. It is believed that no pre-July 17, 2010 arrest

warrant was obtained for the arrest of the Plaintiff
notwithstanding undercover operations which the Defendants
had taken in the Club prior to July 17, 2008 because the
Defendants lacked an objectively reasonable probable cause
fact and information basis on which to believe that the
Plaintiff was engaged in any criminal conduct prior to July
17, 2008 just as, on July 17, 2008, there was no such
objectively reasonable probable cause fact basis for the
Defendants to believe that the Plaintiff was engaged in any
kind of criminal conduct to justify the Plaintiff’s arrest.
116. There was no basis for the stop, arrest and

custodial arrest of the Plaintiff by the New York City
Police Officers, each of whom is an agent and employee of
the City of New York.
117. In addition to the lack of any basis for the

stop, arrest and custodial arrest of the Plaintiff, there
was no reasonable basis to believe that the Hot Lap Dance
club was a brothel or promoted any sort of systemic
14
prostitution business, as New York City Undercover Police

Undercover Police Officer 4325) - as well as his partner,
named Detective Rijos, Shield No. 3026 - have testified
that in the course of their undercover operation at the
club there were a number of times where they reached
“negative results” in their attempts to reach prostitution
agreements with the dancers at the club.
118. There is, in fact, significant doubt as to

whether they in fact reached those prostitution agreements
with those particular dancers with whom they claim to have
reached agreement. Their investigatory techniques and
procedures were rife with incompetence and it is believed
fabricated accounts.
119. There was no justification to handcuff the

Plaintiff, frisk search the Plaintiff, or to detain the
Plaintiff in custody for the period of time he was held in
custody until he appeared at his arraignment when and where
he was released without bail and required to return to
Court thereafter when and where, upon the motion of the New
York County District Attorney’s Office, the charge
preferred against the Plaintiff was dismissed.
120. The Plaintiff was simply rounded up as part of a

collective group of employees at the Club without any
specific and particularized objectively reasonable fact and
information basis to believe that the Plaintiff had engaged
in any unlawful conduct.
121. The Plaintiff was rounded up and left to be sorted

out as part of a wholesale New York City collective
probable cause arrest policy and without any objectively
reasonable specific and particular fact and information
basis to believe that the Plaintiff was involved in any
criminal conduct associated with the Club.
122. The Defendants, per the policy of the City of New

York, “employed a ‘shoot ‘em all, and let God sort ‘em out’
arrest psychology” which is “abhorrent to the Fourth
Amendment”, by arresting the Plaintiff simply because he
was present in the Club as an employee [part-time] of the
Club without possessing any specific and particularized
conduct by the Plaintiff that linked the Plaintiff to any
15
alleged unlawful conduct supposedly taking place in the

Club.
123. Employment at the Club and by the Club in and of

itself and without any specific and particular independent
fact and information basis to believe that the Plaintiff
even knew about any alleged unlawful conduct at the Club,
let alone was involved in any such alleged unlawful
conduct, is not a crime.
124. While the actions and conduct of the New York City
Police Department line and command Officers were unlawful
they were taken in the course of their duties and functions
and incidental to the otherwise lawful performance of those
duties and functions as New York City Police Department
line and command Officers and as agents and employees of
the City of New York. Among others involved in the
challenged actions and conduct herein were New York City
Police line and command Officers “John Does”, Vincent Kong,
Shield # 1661, Brian Conroy, Steven Braille, “Joe”
Costello, New York City Undercover Police Officer 293
(previously known as New York City Undercover Police
Officer 2948, and prior to that as New York City Undercover
Police Officer 4325), and Christopher Koch, Shield # 2875.
125. There was no probable cause for the arrest of the

Plaintiff or for the preferral of any — any - charges
against the Plaintiff or for the criminal prosecution of
the Plaintiff.
126. The Plaintiff was subjected to a Fourth Amendment

offensive probable cause lacking stop, false arrest and
unlawful custodial detention and imprisonment, and he was
subjected to excessive, unreasonable and unnecessary force
in the form of his handcuffing. Moreover, he was subjected
to an unlawful frisk search and to malicious prosecution,
and to a malicious abuse of criminal prosecution.
127. The actions and conduct herein described were

propelled by the vice crime offense enforcement initiatives
of the City of New York which are grounded in the
philosophy of the “ends justifies the means” and which
propel New York City Police Officers to make unlawful and
otherwise unjustified arrests.
128. Such vice crime offense enforcement initiatives,

for which the City provided inadequate training, propelled
16
the Defendant officers to make custodial arrests in this

situation, including the Plaintiff’s arrest, where there
was no specific and particular Plaintiff linked objectively
reasonable probable cause factual basis to believe that the
Plaintiff was engaged in unlawful conduct to justify the
arrest of the Plaintiff.
129. The Plaintiff was falsely arrested and subjected

to an excessive and unreasonable and unnecessary force [in
the form of handcuffing] and excessive detention and an
unlawful frisk search and a malicious abuse of criminal
process and to a malicious prosecution.
130. The actions, conduct, policies and practices and

customs herein described violated the Plaintiff’s rights as
guaranteed under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of
1871, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
131. The Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages

including loss of liberty, fear, anxiety, mental distress,
emotional anguish, and psychological trauma and physical
pain and suffering.
132. The Plaintiff suffered public humiliation and

embarrassment.
133. The Plaintiff suffered the loss of his employment

as a security officer in the Seagate community Police
Department specifically because of his arrest and all
associated therewith.
134. The Plaintiff has not yet placed a monetary value

on the damages which he incurred although he believes them
to be substantial and to include compensatory and punitive
damages.
135. The Plaintiff has no other adequate remedy of law

other than for the institution of this litigation.
V. CAUSES OF ACTION
A. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
136. The Plaintiff reiterates Paragraph #’s 1 through

135 and incorporates such by reference herein.
17
137. The Plaintiff was unlawfully and falsely arrested

and falsely and excessively imprisoned and detained and
subjected to excessive force and unreasonable terms and
conditions of confinement in violation of his rights as
guaranteed under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of
1871, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
138. The Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages.
B. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

140. The Plaintiff was subjected to malicious

prosecution in violation of his rights as guaranteed under
the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983.
C. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

143. The Plaintiff was arrested for collateral

objectives other than legitimate law enforcement functions
including, as a collateral justification, that it was
simply easier to arrest someone and sort it out later than
it was to utilize the power of arrest in its proper,
probable cause grounded form and fashion based on an
objective and reasonable belief of the arresting law
enforcement officer at the time of the arrest that the
individual was engaged in unlawful conduct.
144. Simply being present at a location and being

employed by the entity which does business at the location
is not a sufficient basis on which to form the required
objectively reasonable probable cause fact based and
information belief to arrest an individual thereby
propelling a belief that a non legitimate, ancillary
purpose was the basis on which the arrest of the individual
was grounded.
18
145. The Plaintiff was subjected to malicious abuse of

criminal process in violation of his rights as guaranteed
under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983.
D. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

148. The policies, practices and customs herein

described, including the vice crime offense enforcement
initiatives and the inadequate training policy associated
therewith, propelled the actions and conduct herein. Those
policies, practices, and customs violated the Plaintiff’s
rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of
1871, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
E. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

151. If the City of New York elects to represent its

officers as it does in the overwhelming number of cases
brought against its officers [it is believed that the City
of New York elects to represent its officers in
approximately 99 percent of the cases brought against its
officers in the federal courts for alleged police officer
misconduct], the City of New York uniformly and as a matter
of policy and practice and custom pays the judgments
awarded against its represented officers [both compensatory
and punitive damages] and otherwise pays any settlements,
all without requiring contribution from the Officers.
152. The named and unnamed individual Defendants are

employees and agents of the City of New York and their
conduct, as described, was taken in the course of their
duties and functions as New York City Police Officers and,
in their capacities as such, as agents and employees of the
City of New York.
19
153. Their actions and conduct, while unlawful and

unconstitutional, nonetheless were actions and conduct
taken in connection with the otherwise lawful performance
of their duties and functions as agents and employees of
the City of New York.
154. The Plaintiff is entitled to recover directly

against the City of New York for the conduct of its named
and unnamed officers under the federal claim jurisdiction
and/or against the City pursuant to the doctrine of
respondeat superior as the City is, as a matter of fact and
law and policy and practice and custom, the real party in
interest in this litigation.
20
WHEREFORE and in light of the foregoing, it is

respectfully requested that the Court assume jurisdiction
and:
[a] Invoke pendent party and pendent claim

jurisdiction.
[b] Award appropriate compensatory and

punitive damages.
[c] Award appropriate declaratory and

injunctive relief.
[d] Empanel a jury.
[e] Award attorney’s fees and costs.
[f] Award such other and further relief as

the Court deems to be in the interest
of justice.
DATED: New York, New York

May 1, 2011
Respectfully submitted,
/s/James I. Meyerson_____
JAMES I. MEYERSON
64 Fulton Street @ Suite # 502
New York, New York 10013
[212] 226-3310
[212] 513-1006/FAX
jimeyerson@yahoo.com
JEFFREY A. ROTHMAN
315 Broadway @ Suite # 200
New York, New York 10007
[212] 227-2980
[212] 591-6343/FAX
rothman.jeffrey@gmail.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

BY:_______________________
21

Andrew Rosa v. The City of New York and New York City Police Officers - U.S. District Court, SDNY

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Andrew Rosa v. The City of New York and New York City Police Officers - U.S. District Court, SDNY

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 1 of 21

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, a

1. This litigation arises out of the custodial arrest

2. The Plaintiff was detained in custody for

A.M. in the morning of Saturday, July 19, 2008 when the

3. The Plaintiff appeared in Court on September 25,

4. This is an action in which the Plaintiff seeks

5. The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and such

6. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to

7. The Plaintiff also invokes the jurisdiction of

8. This is an action in which the Plaintiff seeks

III. THE PARTIES

9. The Plaintiff is an American citizen and resident

10. The Defendant City of New York is a municipal

11. Defendants Christopher Koch, Shield # 2875,

12. Although their actions and conduct herein

13. This litigation arises out of the Plaintiff’s

14. The Plaintiff was employed at the Hot Lap Dance

15. The Plaintiff was released from custody without

2008 and he was directed to return to the Court on

16. The Plaintiff appeared in Court on September 25,

17. The Plaintiff, who is an American citizen and

18. The Plaintiff’s birth date is December 7, 1977.

19. The Plaintiff is married. He has been married

20. The Plaintiff resides with his wife on St. Marks

21. The Plaintiff was born and raised in Brooklyn, New

22. The Plaintiff attended and graduated from the

23. The Plaintiff has attended Kingsborough Community

24. The Plaintiff is presently employed, part time, by

25. The Plaintiff commenced his employment with UPS on

26. The Plaintiff was initially employed by UPS in a

27. Since approximately October of 2010, the Plaintiff

28. At the time of the arrest the Plaintiff was

29. The Plaintiff was employed by the Seagate

30. He continued in his employment as a Seagate

31. Eventually the Plaintiff resigned his position on

32. Prior to being employed by the Seagate community

33. The Plaintiff worked as a Hunts Point Department

34. In order to obtain his peace officer’s

duly certified as a peace officer with the power, under the

35. While employed by the Seagate community Police

36. Prior to his employment as a security officer by

37. Before being employed at Kingsborough Community

38. On the date of his July 17, 2008 arrest, the

39. The Plaintiff’s part time position at the afore-

40. In his position as part time elevator operator at

41. The elevator was a freight type elevator.

42. The Plaintiff had been employed in his part time

43. On the date of the Plaintiff’s arrest, the

afore-described location doing the functions of an elevator

44. The only thing of which the Plaintiff was aware

45. The Plaintiff understood the Club was owned and

46. The Plaintiff was aware that the Club employed

47. The Plaintiff did not know most of the individuals

48. The Plaintiff was hardly ever in the Club on the

49. When the Plaintiff brought patrons of the Club in

50. The Plaintiff was working as a part time employee

51. On July 17, 2008, the Plaintiff commenced his job

52. At or about 11:30 P.M., while working in his

on- going New York City Police Department undercover field

53. At that time and while the Plaintiff was working

54. The Plaintiff took the two white male plain