[{"case_id":"owens_troy","comparison":{"additional_findings":{"allegations":["Excessive force/assault and battery","Monell claim"],"defendant_types":["Individual Police Officer","City of New York"],"force_types":[],"locations":[],"officers":["john doe i","john doe ii"],"themes":["Race and/or ethnicity"]},"matches":{"allegations":["False arrest/False imprisonment","Malicious prosecution"],"defendant_types":["NYPD"],"force_types":["Non-weapon physical force"],"locations":["Street"],"officers":[],"themes":[]},"misses":{"allegations":["Other"],"defendant_types":["Other law enforcement"],"force_types":[],"locations":[],"officers":[],"themes":["Unknown"]},"scores":{"gt_coverage":0.4166666666666667,"recall":0.625,"total_additional":7,"total_gt_items":8,"total_matched":5}},"cost_per_page":0.0034471058333333335,"extract_usage":{"input_tokens":7348,"output_tokens":1749},"extraction":{"allegations":[{"provenance":{"page_number":3,"paragraph":"Second Cause of Action, Paragraph 10","source_text":"On or about December 9, 2015, between 2:00-3:00 a.m., the defendants, jointly and severally in their capacity as police officers, wrongfully touched, assaulted and battered the plaintiff, TROY OWENS..."},"type":"Excessive force/assault and battery"},{"provenance":{"page_number":4,"paragraph":"Third Cause of Action, Paragraph 13","source_text":"On or about December 9, 2015, between 2:00-3:00 a.m., the defendants, jointly and severally in their capacity as police officers... falsely arrested, falsely imprisoned, assaulted, and deprived of his Civil Rights."},"type":"False arrest/False imprisonment"},{"provenance":{"page_number":9,"paragraph":"Seventh Cause of Action, Paragraph 34","source_text":"The defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, intentionally and maliciously initiated, and actively continued, a criminal judicial proceeding against the plaintiff, TROY OWENS, without probable cause."},"type":"Malicious prosecution"},{"provenance":{"page_number":6,"paragraph":"Fifth Cause of Action, Paragraphs 24-25","source_text":"The defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, has grossly failed to train and adequately supervise its police officers... The defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, was negligent by failing to implement a policy with its Police Department..."},"type":"Monell claim"}],"county":{"name":"Bronx","provenance":{"page_number":1,"source_text":"SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX"}},"defendant_types":[{"provenance":{"page_number":2,"source_text":"THE CITY OF NEW YORK"},"type":"City of New York"},{"provenance":{"page_number":2,"source_text":"P. O. 'JOHN DOE I' and P. O. 'JOHN DOE II'"},"type":"Individual Police Officer"},{"provenance":{"page_number":3,"source_text":"New York City police officers"},"type":"NYPD"}],"extraction_confidence":{"notes":"The complaint provides detailed information about the incident and allegations. However, some details like exact officer ranks and precinct assignments are not mentioned.","overall":"high"},"force_types":[{"provenance":{"page_number":3,"paragraph":"Second Cause of Action, Paragraph 10","source_text":"the defendants, jointly and severally in their capacity as police officers, wrongfully touched, assaulted and battered the plaintiff, TROY OWENS..."},"type":"Non-weapon physical force"}],"incident_locations":[{"location_type":"Street","precinct":"46th Precinct","provenance":{"page_number":3,"paragraph":"Paragraph 8","source_text":"On or about December 9, 2015, the events that resulted in the plaintiff's arrest began at or near 2100 Jerome Avenue, in the County of Bronx, to the 201th Precinct, in the County of Bronx, and continued to Central Booking, in the County of Bronx and on to the Courts of Bronx, City and State of New York."},"specific_address":"2100 Jerome Avenue"}],"injuries":[{"description":"severe and permanent injuries of a psychological nature","provenance":{"page_number":5,"paragraph":"Paragraph 22","source_text":"The direct and proximate result of the defendants' acts are that the plaintiff, TROY OWENS, has suffered severe and permanent injuries of a psychological nature."},"severity":"serious"}],"key_dates":[{"date":"2015-12-09","event":"Incident date","provenance":{"page_number":3,"source_text":"On or about December 9, 2015"}},{"date":"2017-09-29","event":"Notice of Claim filed","provenance":{"page_number":2,"source_text":"heretofore and on September 29, 2017, plaintiff's Notice of Claim and Intention to Sue was served upon and filed with THE CITY OF NEW YORK."}},{"date":"2017-12-27","event":"Statutory hearing","provenance":{"page_number":2,"source_text":"That a statutory hearing was held in this matter on December 27, 2017"}},{"date":"2018-01-03","event":"Verified Complaint signed","provenance":{"page_number":10,"source_text":"Yours, etc., MICHAEL T. RIDGE, ESQ. Attorney for Plaintiff January 3, 2018"}}],"officers":[{"badge_number":"","name":"John Doe I","precinct":"","provenance":{"page_number":2,"source_text":"P. O. 'JOHN DOE I'"},"rank":"","tax_id":""},{"badge_number":"","name":"John Doe II","precinct":"","provenance":{"page_number":2,"source_text":"P. O. 'JOHN DOE II'"},"rank":"","tax_id":""}],"plaintiffs":[{"name":"Troy Owens","provenance":{"page_number":2,"source_text":"Plaintiff, TROY OWENS"},"relationship":"Plaintiff"}],"summary":{"provenance":{"key_sources":["Paragraphs 8-12, 19"],"pages_referenced":[3,5]},"text":"On December 9, 2015, Troy Owens was arrested by New York City police officers at or near 2100 Jerome Avenue in the Bronx. He alleges that the officers, P.O. 'JOHN DOE I' and P.O. 'JOHN DOE II', used excessive force during the arrest, falsely arrested him, and subjected him to racial profiling. Owens claims he suffered physical pain, mental suffering, and severe psychological injuries. The incident began at Jerome Avenue, continued to the 46th Precinct, Central Booking, and the Courts of Bronx."},"themes":[{"provenance":{"page_number":5,"paragraph":"Paragraph 19","source_text":"The plaintiff was stopped through a process of racial profiling employed by New York City Police Department and P.O. 'JOHN DOE I' and P.O. 'JOHN DOE II.'"},"type":"Race and/or ethnicity"}]},"extraction_elapsed_seconds":7.212532,"extraction_model":"llama4-scout","method":"two_step","num_pages":12,"ocr_elapsed_seconds":30.302132,"ocr_model":"qwen3-vl-235b","ocr_text_length":19099,"ocr_usage":{"estimated_cost_usd":0.03896177,"images":12,"input_tokens":45111,"output_tokens":5659},"pages":[{"page_number":1,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2018 10:43 AM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20131/2018E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2018\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nCOUNTY OF BRONX\n------------------------------------------X\nTROY OWENS,\nPlaintiff,\n-against-\nTHE CITY OF NEW YORK, P. O. \u201cJOHN DOE I\u201d\nand P. O. \u201cJOHN DOE II\u201d,\nDefendants.\n------------------------------------------X\n\nPlaintiff designates\nBronx County as\nthe place of trial.\n\nSUMMONS\n\nBasis of venue is\ncounty where cause\naction arose.\n\nTO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS:\n\nYOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action to serve a\ncopy of your answer, or if the complaint is not served with this Summons, to serve notice of\nappearance, on the plaintiff\u2019s attorney within twenty (20) days after the service of this\nSummons, (or within thirty (30) days after the service is complete if this Summons is not\npersonally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in the case of your failure to\nappear or answer judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the\nComplaint.\n\nDated: Bronx, New York\nJanuary 3, 2018\n\nYours, etc.,\n\nMICHAEL T. RIDGE, ESQ.\nAttorney for Plaintiff\n910 Grand Concourse, Suite 1D\nBronx, New York 10451\n(718) 590-5400\n\nDEFENDANTS\u2019 ADDRESS:\nZACHARY W. CARTER, ESQ.\nCorporation Counsel\nAttorney for Defendants\n100 Church Street\nNew York, New York 10007\n\nLAW OFFICES OF\nICHAEEL T. RIDGE\n0 GRAND CONCOURSE, STE. 1D\nBRONX, NY 10451\nTELEPHONE (718)\n590-5400\nFAX 681-0285\n\n1 of 12"},{"page_number":2,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2018 10:43 AM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\n\nINDEX NO. 20131/2018E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2018\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nCOUNTY OF BRONX\n---------------------------------------------X\nTROY OWENS,\nPlaintiff,\n-against-\nTHE CITY OF NEW YORK, P. O. \u201cJOHN DOE I\u201d\nand P. O. \u201cJOHN DOE II\u201d,\nDefendants.\n---------------------------------------------X\n\nVERIFIED COMPLAINT\n\nPlaintiff, TROY OWENS, by his attorney, MICHAEL T. RIDGE, ESQ.,\nrespectfully allege as follows:\n\nAS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF\nACTION IN FAVOR OF TROY OWENS\n\n1. That the cause of action herein complained of arose in the County of\nBronx, City and State of New York.\n\n2. At all times mentioned, the defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK,\nwas and is a municipal corporation duly organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the\nState of New York.\n\n3. That heretofore and on September 29, 2017, plaintiff\u2019s Notice of Claim\nand Intention to Sue was served upon and filed with THE CITY OF NEW YORK.\n\n4. That a statutory hearing was held in this matter on December 27, 2017,\nwhich was prior to the commencement of this action.\n\n5. That at least thirty (30) days have elapsed since the demand or claim\nupon which this action is predicated was presented to THE CITY OF NEW YORK for\nadjustment and that it has neglected and/or refused to make adjustment or payment thereof.\n\nLAW OFFICES OF\nMICHAEL T. RIDGE\n10 GRAND CONCOURSE, STE. 1D\nBRONX, NY 10451\nTELEPHONE (718)\n590-5400\nFAX 681-0285\n\n2 of 12"},{"page_number":3,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2018 10:43 AM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20131/2018E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2018\n\n6. That this action is commenced within one year and ninety (90) days after\nthe cause of action accrued.\n\n7. Upon information and belief, at all times mentioned, the defendants, P.\nO. \u201cJOHN DOE I\u201d and P. O. \u201cJOHN DOE II,\u201d were and are police officers of the defendant\nCity of New York, and at all times herein were acting in such capacity as the agents, servants\nand employees of the defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK.\n\n8. On or about December 9, 2015, plaintiff, TROY OWENS, was arrested\nby New York City police officers. The events that resulted in the plaintiff\u2019s arrest began at or\nnear 2100 Jerome Avenue, in the County of Bronx, to the 46th Precinct, in the County of Bronx,\nand continued to Central Booking, in the County of Bronx and on to the Courts of Bronx, City\nand State of New York.\n\nAS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF\nACTION IN FAVOR OF TROY OWENS\n\n9. The plaintiff, TROY OWENS, repeats, reiterates and re-alleges all of\nthe allegations contained in Paragraphs \u201c1\u201d through \u201c8\u201d with full force and effect as though set\nforth at length herein.\n\n10. On or about December 9, 2015, between 2:00-3:00 a.m., the defendants\njointly and severally in their capacity as police officers, wrongfully touched, assaulted and\nbattered the plaintiff, TROY OWENS, which began at or near 2100 Jerome Avenue, in the\nCounty of Bronx, to the 46th Precinct, in the County of Bronx, and continued to Central\nBooking, in the County of Bronx and on to the Courts of Bronx, City and State of New York\nand did so in an excessive manner about his person, causing him physical pain and mental\nsuffering necessitating him to seek medical/psychological treatment. At no time did the\n\nLAW OFFICES OF\nICHAEEL T. RIDGE\n10 GRAND CONCOURSE, STE. 1D\nBRONX, NY 10451\nTELEPHONE (718)\n590-5400\nFAX 681-0265\n\n3 of 12"},{"page_number":4,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2018 10:43 AM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20131/2018E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2018\n\ndefendants have legal cause to grab, handcuff, seize or touch the plaintiff, nor did the plaintiff\nconsent to this illegal touching nor was it privileged by law.\n\nAS AND FOR THE THIRD CAUSE OF\nACTION IN FAVOR OF TROY OWENS\n\n11. The plaintiff, TROY OWENS, repeats, reiterates and re-alleges all of\nthe allegations contained in Paragraphs \u201c1\u201d through \u201c10\u201d with full force and effect as though\nset forth at length herein.\n\n12. On or about December 9, 2015, between 2:00-3:00 a.m., plaintiff, TROY\nOWENS, was assaulted by New York City police officers. The events that resulted in the\nplaintiff\u2019s arrest began at or near 2100 Jerome Avenue, in the County of Bronx, to the 46th\nPrecinct, in the County of Bronx, and continued to Central Booking, in the County of Bronx\nand on to the Courts of Bronx, City and State of New York.\n\n13. The plaintiff, TROY OWENS, was at the aforementioned location\nwhen he was assaulted by members of the New York Police Department namely the\ndefendants, P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE I\u201d and P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE II.\u201d At the aforementioned time\nand place, the plaintiff, TROY OWENS, was falsely arrested, falsely imprisoned, assaulted,\nand deprived of his Civil Rights. The defendants, jointly and severally without any warrant,\norder or other legal process and without any legal right, wrongfully and unlawfully arrested\nthe plaintiff, restrained him and his liberty. The defendants intentionally confined the plaintiff\nwithout his consent and the confinement was not otherwise privileged by law and, at all times,\nthe plaintiff was conscious of his confinement.\n\nAS AND FOR THE FOURTH CAUSE OF\nACTION IN FAVOR OF TROY OWENS\n\n14. The plaintiff, TROY OWENS, repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges all of\n\nLAW OFFICES OF\nMICHAEL T. RIDGE\n10 GRAND CONCOURSE, STE. 10\nBRONX, NY 10451\nTELEPHONE (718)\n590-5400\nFAX 681-0285\n\n4 of 12"},{"page_number":5,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2018 10:43 AM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20131/2018E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2018\n\nthe allegations contained in paragraphs \u201c1\u201d through \u201c13\u201d as it set forth at length herein.\n\n15. The defendants, P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE I\u201d and P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE II,\u201d were at all times relevant, duly appointed and acting as officers of the City of New York Police Department.\n\n16. At all times mentioned herein, said police officers were acting under color of law, to wit: the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies and customs and usage of the State of New York and/or City of New York.\n\n17. The plaintiff, TROY OWENS, is and at all times relevant herein a resident of Bronx County in the State of New York and brings this cause of action pursuant to 42 United States Code, Section 1983 and 42 United States Code, Section 1988.\n\n18. The defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, is a municipality duly incorporated under the laws of the State of New York.\n\n19. On or about December 9, 2015, between 2:00-3:00 a.m., the defendants, armed police, while effectuating the seizure of the plaintiff, TROY OWENS, did search, seize, assault and commit a battery and grab the person of the plaintiff without a court authorized arrest or search warrant. They did physically seize the person of the plaintiff during the arrest process in an unlawful and excessive manner. The plaintiff was falsely arrested without the defendants possessing probable cause to do so. In arresting and detaining a claimant against his will by use of a quota system for arrest, which is practice and customary system used by the New York City Police Department. The plaintiff was stopped through a process of racial profiling employed by New York City Police Department and P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE I\u201d and P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE II.\u201d\n\n20. The above action of the defendants resulted in the plaintiff, TROY\n\nLAW OFFICES OF\nMICHAEL T. RIDGE\n10 GRAND CONCOURSE, STE. 1D\nBRONX, NY 10451\nTELEPHONE (718)\n590-5400\nFAX 681-0285\n\n5 of 12"},{"page_number":6,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2018 10:43 AM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20131/2018E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2018\n\nOWENS, being deprived of the following rights under the United States Constitution:\na. Freedom from summary punishment; and\nb. Freedom from cruel and inhuman punishment; and\nc. Freedom from illegal search and seizure; and\nd. Freedom from false arrest; and\ne. Freedom from the use of excessive force during the arrest\nprocess.\n21. The defendants subjected the plaintiff to such deprivations, either in a\nmalicious or reckless disregard of the plaintiff\u2019s rights or with deliberate indifference to those\nrights under the fourth and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution.\n22. The direct and proximate result of the defendants\u2019 acts are that the\nplaintiff has suffered severe and permanent injuries of a psychological nature. He was forced\nto endure pain and suffering, all to his detriment.\nAS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF\nACTION IN FAVOR OF TROY OWENS\n23. The plaintiff, TROY OWENS, incorporates, repeats and re-alleges all\nof the allegations contained in Paragraphs \u201c1\u201d through \u201c22\u201d with full force and effect as though\nset forth at length herein.\n24. The defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, has grossly failed to\ntrain and adequately supervise its police officers in the fundamental law of arrest, search and\nseizure especially when its police officers are not in possession of a court authorized arrest and\na search warrant and where an individual, especially as here, has not committed a crime and\nhas not resisted arrest, that its police officers should only use reasonable force to effectuate an\narrest and the arrest should be based on probable cause.\n\nLAW OFFICES OF\nICHAEEL T. RIDGE\n10 GRAND CONCOURSE, STE. 10\nBRONX, NY 10451\nTELEPHONE (718)\n590-5400\nFAX 681-0285\n6 of 12"},{"page_number":7,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2018 10:43 AM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20131/2018E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2018\n\n25. The defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, was negligent by failing\nto implement a policy with its Police Department and instruct police officers who, absent the\nconsent of the plaintiff (or similarly situated individuals) or without the possession of a court\nauthorized arrest search warrant, said police officers of THE CITY OF NEW YORK are not\nto arrest individuals such as the plaintiff here where probable cause is lacking and the use of\nforce should only be reasonable when an individual resists arrest and should not be used where\na criminal defendant is not resisting arrest.\n\n26. THE CITY OF NEW YORK is negligent due to its failure to\nimplement a policy with its Police Department or actively enforce the law, if any of the\nfollowing are lacking:\n1. Probable cause must be present before an individual such as\nthe plaintiff herein can be arrested.\n2. Force cannot be used against an individual who does not\nphysically resist arrest.\n3. An individual who sustains physical injury at the hands of\nthe police during the arrest process should receive prompt\nmedical attention.\n\n27. The foregoing acts, omissions and systemic failures are customs and\npolicies of the defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, which caused the police officers to\nfalsely arrest, seize illegally and search the plaintiff, commit an assault/battery to his person\nunder the belief that they would suffer no disciplinary actions for their failure to take proper or\nprudent steps in this case.\n\nLAW OFFICES OF\nICHAEI T. RIDGE\n0 GRAND CONCOURSE, STE. 1D\nBRONX, NY 10451\nTELEPHONE (718)\n590-5400\nFAX 681-0285\n7 of 12"},{"page_number":8,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2018 10:43 AM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20131/2018E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2018\n\nAS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF\nACTION IN FAVOR OF TROY OWENS\n\n28. The plaintiff, TROY OWENS, repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges all of\nthe allegations contained in paragraphs \u201c1\u201d through \u201c27\u201d as if set forth at length herein.\n\n29. The defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, was negligent in that\nprior to and at the time of the acts complained of herein, due to the prior history of the police\nofficer defendants, the defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, knew or should have known\nof the bad disposition of said defendants or had knowledge of facts that would put a reasonably\nprudent employer on inquiry concerning their bad disposition and the fact that these officers\nwere not suitable to be hired and employed by the defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK,\nand that due to their lack of training, these officers should have had adequate supervision so\nthat they would not arrest innocent individuals nor use excessive force during the arrest\nprocess.\n\n30. That by reason of the foregoing, this plaintiff was severely injured and\ndamaged, rendered sick, sore, lame and disabled, sustained severe nervous shock and mental\nanguish, great physical pain and emotional upset, has suffered and continued to suffer serious\nand extreme mental and emotional anguish, distress and psychological damages and\ndifficulties, some of which injuries are permanent in nature and duration, and the plaintiff will\nbe permanently caused to suffer pain, inconvenience and other effects of such injuries, the\nplaintiff incurred and in the future will necessarily incur further hospital and/or medical\nexpenses in an effort to be cured of said injuries; and the plaintiff has suffered and in the future\nwill necessarily suffer additional loss of time and earnings from employment; and plaintiff will\nbe unable to pursue the usual duties with the same degree of efficiency as prior to this\noccurrence, all to the plaintiff\u2019s great damage.\n\nLAW OFFICES OF\nICHAEEL T. RIDGE\n10 GRAND CONCOURSE, STE. 10\nBRONX, NY 10451\nTELEPHONE (718)\n590-5400\nFAX 681-0285\n\n8 of 12"},{"page_number":9,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2018 10:43 AM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20131/2018E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2018\n\n31. The defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, was negligent in that\nprior to and at the time of the acts complained of herein, due to the prior history of the police\nofficer defendants, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, knew or should have known of the bad\ndisposition of said defendants or had knowledge of facts that would put a reasonably prudent\nemployer on inquiry concerning their bad disposition and the fact that these officers were not\nsuitable to be hired and employed by THE CITY OF NEW YORK and that due to their lack\nof training, these officers should have had adequate supervision so that they would not arrest\ninnocent individuals nor use excessive force during the arrest process.\n\n32. That by reason of the aforesaid unlawful arrest, the plaintiff was\ndeprived of his liberty, was subjected to great indignity, humiliation, pain and great distress of\nmind and body and was held up to scorn and ridicule, was injured in his character and\nreputation, was prevented from attending his usual business and avocation, was injured in his\nreputation in the community and the said plaintiff has been otherwise damaged.\n\nAS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF\nACTION IN FAVOR OF TROY OWENS\n\n33. The plaintiff, TROY OWENS, repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges all\nof the allegations contained in paragraphs \u201c1\u201d through \u201c32\u201d as if set forth at length herein.\n\n34. The defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, intentionally and\nmaliciously initiated, and actively continued, a criminal judicial proceeding against the\nplaintiff, TROY OWENS, without probable cause.\n\n35. That the above mentioned criminal judicial proceeding commenced by\nthe defendants against the plaintiff, terminated in the plaintiff\u2019s favor.\n\nWHEREFORE, the plaintiff, TROY OWENS, demands judgment against the\ndefendants, together with the costs and disbursements of this action in the amount of damages\n\nLAW OFFICES OF\nICHAEEL T. RIDGE\n0 GRAND CONCOURSE, STE. 1D\nBRONX, NY 10451\nTELEPHONE (718)\n590-5400\nFAX 681-0285\n\n9 of 12"},{"page_number":10,"text":"greater than the jurisdictional limit of any lower court which would otherwise have jurisdiction.\nAdditionally, the Plaintiff demands in respect of all causes of action, punitive damages and\nattorney fees pursuant to 42 USC Section 1988.\nDated: Bronx, New York\nJanuary 3, 2018\nYours, etc.,\nMICHAEL T. RIDGE, ESQ.\nAttorney for Plaintiff\n910 Grand Concourse, Suite 1D\nBronx, New York 10451\n(718) 590-5400\nLAW OFFICES OF\nICHAEL T. RIDGE\n0 GRAND CONCOURSE, STE. 1D\nBRONX, NY 10451\nTELEPHONE (718)\n590-5400\nFAX 681-0285\n10 of 12\nFILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2018 10:43 AM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20131/2018E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2018"},{"page_number":11,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2018 10:43 AM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20131/2018E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2018\n\nVERIFICATION\n\nSTATE OF NEW YORK }\n} s.s.\nCOUNTY OF BRONX }\n\nTROY OWENS, being duly sworn deposes and says: that deponent is the plaintiff in the within action; that deponent has read the foregoing SUMMONS AND VERIFIED COMPLAINT and knows the contents therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and that as to those matters deponent believes it to be true.\n\nX Troy Owens\nTROY OWENS\n\nSworn to before me this\n3rd day of January, 2018\nNataliy McKinney\nNOTARY PUBLIC\n\nNATALIY S. MCKINNEY\nNotary Public, State of New York\nNo. 02MC6328087\nQualified in Suffolk County\nCommission Expires August 27, 2019\n\nLAW OFFICES OF\nICHAEEL T. RIDGE\n0 GRAND CONCOURSE, STE. 1D\nBRONX, NY 10451\nTELEPHONE (718)\n590-5400\nFAX 681-0285\n\n11 of 12"},{"page_number":12,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2018 10:43 AM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20131/2018E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2018\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nCOUNTY OF BRONX\nIndex No.:\n\nTROY OWENS,\nPlaintiff,\n-AGAINST-\nTHE CITY OF NEW YORK, P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\nI\u201d and P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE II\u201d\nDefendants,\n\nSUMMONS AND VERIFIED COMPLAINT\n\nMICHAEL T. RIDGE, ESQ.\nAttorney for Plaintiff(s)\n910 Grand Concourse Suite 1D\nBronx, New York 10451\n(718) 590-5400\n\nDated: Bronx, NY\nJanuary 3, 2018\n\nTo: As addressed on attached document.\n\nPLEASE TAKE NOTICE:\n\nNotice of Entry\n\u25a1 that the within is a (certified) true copy of a duly entered in the office of the clerk of\nthe within named Court on (dated) _______________.\n\nNotice of Settlement\n\u25a1 that the within order will be presented for settlement to the HON. _______________\none of the judges of the within named Court, at (addr) _______________ on (dated) _____.\n\n12 of 12"}],"total_cost_usd":0.04136527,"total_elapsed_seconds":37.514664},{"case_id":"hale_steven","comparison":{"additional_findings":{"allegations":["Violation of NY Civil Rights Law \u00a750-a"],"defendant_types":["Individual Police Officer","City of New York"],"force_types":["Tight handcuffs"],"locations":["Street"],"officers":[],"themes":[]},"matches":{"allegations":["Excessive force/assault and battery","False arrest/False imprisonment"],"defendant_types":[],"force_types":["Non-weapon physical force"],"locations":["Bus/Subway"],"officers":["jasmin rodriguez"],"themes":["Race and/or ethnicity"]},"misses":{"allegations":["Unlawful stop and/or search","Profiling/discrimination"],"defendant_types":["NYPD"],"force_types":[],"locations":[],"officers":[],"themes":[]},"scores":{"gt_coverage":0.5454545454545454,"recall":0.6666666666666666,"total_additional":5,"total_gt_items":9,"total_matched":6}},"cost_per_page":0.0030990960000000004,"extract_usage":{"input_tokens":9410,"output_tokens":1449},"extraction":{"allegations":[{"provenance":{"page_number":3,"paragraph":"Paragraph 9","source_text":"That, on October 16, 2017, the plaintiff, STEVEN HALE, was falsely arrested by the defendants, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, their officers, agents and/or employs and others including but not limited to defendant JASMIN RODRIGUEZ."},"type":"False arrest/False imprisonment"},{"provenance":{"page_number":3,"paragraph":"Paragraph 7","source_text":"That, on October 16, 2017, the plaintiff, STEVEN HALE, was viciously, abusively assaulted by the defendants, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, their officers, agents and/or employs and others including but not limited to JASMIN RODRIGUEZ."},"type":"Excessive force/assault and battery"},{"provenance":{"page_number":7,"paragraph":"Paragraph 17","source_text":"The plaintiff, STEVEN HALE, was never seen by a judge."},"type":"Violation of NY Civil Rights Law \u00a750-a"}],"county":{"name":"Bronx","provenance":{"page_number":1,"source_text":"COUNTY OF BRONX"}},"defendant_types":[{"provenance":{"page_number":1,"source_text":"THE CITY OF NEW YORK"},"type":"City of New York"},{"provenance":{"page_number":2,"source_text":"JASMIN RODRIGUEZ"},"type":"Individual Police Officer"}],"extraction_confidence":{"notes":"","overall":"high"},"force_types":[{"provenance":{"page_number":5,"paragraph":"Paragraph 11","source_text":"the plaintiff, STEVEN HALE, was beaten, assaulted, kicked, punched, pulled, pushed, thrown to the ground, thrown against various surfaces and otherwise beaten, injured and maimed."},"type":"Non-weapon physical force"},{"provenance":{"page_number":5,"paragraph":"Paragraph 13","source_text":"used two sets of handcuffs causing series and permanent injuries to his wrists, hands, back."},"type":"Tight handcuffs"}],"incident_locations":[{"location_type":"Bus/Subway","precinct":"","provenance":{"page_number":3,"paragraph":"Paragraph 5","source_text":"within the IRT or other subway station and platform at the corner of Third Avenue and East 149th Street"},"specific_address":"IRT subway station, corner of Third Avenue and East 149th Street"},{"location_type":"Street","precinct":"","provenance":{"page_number":12,"paragraph":"Paragraph 41","source_text":"in front of 1285 Washington Avenue"},"specific_address":"1285 Washington Avenue"}],"injuries":[{"description":"physical and emotional injuries, including but not limited to injuries to his wrists, ankle, hands, neck, back, extremities, head","provenance":{"page_number":5,"paragraph":"Paragraphs 11-15","source_text":"series and permanent injuries to his wrists, ankle, hands, neck, back, extremities, head, and other physical and emotional injuries"},"severity":"serious"}],"key_dates":[{"date":"2017-10-16","event":"incident occurred","provenance":{"page_number":3,"source_text":"on October 16, 2017"}},{"date":"2017-12-19","event":"Notice of Claim served","provenance":{"page_number":2,"paragraph":"Paragraph 4","source_text":"plaintiff's Notice of Claim was served on December 19, 2017"}}],"officers":[{"badge_number":"","name":"Jasmin Rodriguez","precinct":"","provenance":{"page_number":8,"paragraph":"Paragraph 25","source_text":"defendant, JASMIN RODRIGUEZ, was a New York City police officer"},"rank":"New York City police officer","tax_id":""}],"plaintiffs":[{"name":"Steven Hale","provenance":{"page_number":1,"source_text":"Plaintiff, STEVEN HALE"},"relationship":"victim"}],"summary":{"provenance":{"key_sources":["Paragraphs 5-15, 24, 26"],"pages_referenced":[3,4,5,8]},"text":"On October 16, 2017, Steven Hale, a resident of the Bronx, was falsely arrested, assaulted, battered, and subjected to excessive force by New York City police officers, including Officer Jasmin Rodriguez, at the IRT subway station at the corner of Third Avenue and East 149th Street. He was called a racial slur and suffered physical injuries, including to his wrists, hands, neck, back, and head. The charges against him were ultimately resolved in his favor."},"themes":[{"provenance":{"page_number":4,"paragraph":"Paragraph 11","source_text":"called a racial slur, epithet or other derogatory word or phrase including but not limited to the 'n' word"},"type":"Race and/or ethnicity"}]},"extraction_elapsed_seconds":6.46992,"extraction_model":"llama4-scout","method":"two_step","num_pages":20,"ocr_elapsed_seconds":46.675605,"ocr_model":"qwen3-vl-235b","ocr_text_length":27560,"ocr_usage":{"estimated_cost_usd":0.05942588000000001,"images":20,"input_tokens":73740,"output_tokens":7648},"pages":[{"page_number":1,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2019 05:53 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20051/2019E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2019\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nCOUNTY OF BRONX\n-----------------------------------X\nSTEVEN HALE,\nPlaintiff,\n- against -\nTHE CITY OF NEW YORK and JASMIN RODRIGUEZ,\nDefendants.\n-----------------------------------X\n\nIndex No.\nPlaintiff\ndesignates\nBronx County as\nplace of trial.\n\nThe basis of the\nvenue is the\nlocation of\noccurrence.\n\nS U M M O N S\n\nPlaintiff resides at:\nBronx, New York\nCounty of Bronx\n\nTo the above named defendant(s):\n\nYOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this\naction and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint\nis not served with this summons, to serve a notice of\nappearance, on the Plaintiff's attorney within 20 days after the\nservice of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or\nwithin 30 days after service is complete if this summons is not\npersonally delivered to you within the State of New York) and in\ncase of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be\ntaken against you by default for the relief demanded in the\ncomplaint.\n\nDated: New York, New York\nDecember 31, 2018\n\nAttorneys for Plaintiff\nThe Meyers Law Firm\nSTEVEN HALE\nOffice & P.O. Address\n30 Vesey Street, 4th Floor\nNew York, New York 10007\n(212) 252-1212\n\nThe City of New York, 100 Church Street, New York, N.Y. 10007\nJASMIN RODRIGUEZ, c/o TD DT 12, Bronx, New York\n\n1 of 20"},{"page_number":2,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2019 05:53 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20051/2019E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2019\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nCOUNTY OF BRONX\n----------------------------------X\nSTEVEN HALE,\nPlaintiff,\n- against -\nTHE CITY OF NEW YORK and JASMIN RODRIGUEZ,\nDefendants.\n----------------------------------X\n\nVERIFIED COMPLAINT\n\nPlaintiff, STEVEN HALE, complaining of the defendants,\nby his attorneys, The Meyers Law Firm, hereby sets forth and\nalleges, upon information and belief, as follows:\n\nPRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n\n1. That, at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on\nOctober 16, 2017, the plaintiff, STEVEN HALE, was and still is a\nresident of the County of Bronx, City and State of New York.\n\n2. That, at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on\nOctober 16, 2017, the defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, was and\nstill is a domestic municipal corporation, duly organized and\nexisting under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New\nYork.\n\n3. That, at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on\n\n2 of 20"},{"page_number":3,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2019 05:53 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20051/2019E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2019\n\nOctober 16, 2017, the defendant, JASMIN RODRIGUEZ, was and still is a resident of the City and State of New York.\n\n4. That, the plaintiff, STEVEN HALE, has complied with all the conditions precedent to the commencement of the within action against the defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK; plaintiff's Notice of Claim was served on December 19, 2017, within ninety (90) days of the date that the within cause of action having been caused to accrue; that thirty (30) days have elapsed and the claim remains unpaid and unadjusted; that, the plaintiff, STEVEN HALE, testified at an oral examination pursuant to the General Municipal Law on November 1, 2018; and, that this action is being commenced herewith within one (1) year and ninety (90) days of the date that the within cause of action having been caused to accrue.\n\n5. That, on October 16, 2017, at approximately 8:30 a.m. the plaintiff, STEVEN HALE, was present within the IRT or other subway station and platform at the corner of Third Avenue and East 149th Street, in the county of the Bronx, City and State of New York.\n\n6. That, on October 16, 2017, the plaintiff, STEVEN HALE, was falsely imprisoned by the defendants, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, their officers, agents and/or employs and others including but not limited to defendant JASMIN RODRIGUEZ.\n\n7. That, on October 16, 2017, the plaintiff, STEVEN HALE, was viciously, abusively assaulted by the defendants, THE\n\n3 of 20"},{"page_number":4,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2019 05:53 PM\nINDEX NO. 20051/2019E\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2019\n\nCITY OF NEW YORK, their officers, agents and/or employs and others\nincluding but not limited to JASMIN RODRIGUEZ.\n\n8. That, on October 16, 2017, the plaintiff, STEVEN\nHALE, was viciously, abusively battered by the defendants, THE\nCITY OF NEW YORK, their officers, agents and/or employs and others\nincluding but not limited to JASMIN RODRIGUEZ.\n\n9. That, on October 16, 2017, the plaintiff, STEVEN\nHALE, was falsely arrested by the defendants, THE CITY OF NEW\nYORK, their officers, agents and/or employs and others including\nbut not limited to defendant JASMIN RODRIGUEZ.\n\n10. That, on October 16, 2017, the plaintiff, STEVEN\nHALE, had his civil rights violated by the defendants, THE CITY OF\nNEW YORK, their officers, agents and/or employs and others\nincluding but not limited to defendant JASMIN RODRIGUEZ.\n\n11. That, on October 16, 2017, the plaintiff, STEVEN\nHALE, without any provocation and for no reason whatsoever, was\ncalled a racial slur, epithet or other derogatory word or phrase\nincluding but limited to the \u201cn\u201d word, along with other curse\nand/or derogatory words, by the defendants, THE CITY OF NEW YORK,\ntheir officers, agents and/or employs and others including but not\nlimited to defendant JASMIN RODRIGUEZ; the use of such racial\nslurs, epithets or other derogatory words or phrases including but\nlimited to the \u201cn\u201d word or others, along with other curse and/or\nderogatory words which have historically been used to insult,\n\n4 of 20"},{"page_number":5,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2019 05:53 PM\nINDEX NO. 20051/2019E\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2019\n\ndemean and degrade persons of \u2018color\u2019 or other ethnic or protected\ngroups based upon race, religious beliefs, sex, sexual\norientation, etc., should not and will not be tolerated,\nespecially from those who are sworn to protect and serve, in\nviolation of the federal and state civil and other rights of the\nplaintiff, STEVEN HALE and the citizens of the CITY OF NEW YORK\nand others.\n\n11. That, on October 16, 2017, although the plaintiff,\nSTEVEN HALE, did not display any physically threatening behavior\ntowards the defendants THE CITY OF NEW YORK, their officers,\nagents and/or employs and others including but not limited to\ndefendant JASMIN RODRIGUEZ or show in any way whatsoever that\nphysical force was necessary, the plaintiff STEVEN HALE was\nnonetheless, beaten, assaulted, kicked, punched, pulled, pushed,\nthrown to the ground, thrown against various surfaces and\notherwise beaten, injured and maimed.\n\n12. That, on October 16, 2017, although the plaintiff,\nSTEVEN HALE did not display any physically threatening behavior\ntowards the defendants THE CITY OF NEW YORK, their officers,\nagents and/or employs and others including but not limited to\ndefendant JASMIN RODRIGUEZ or show in any way whatsoever that\nphysical force was necessary and with great force,\nheld against his will and as such falsely imprisoned, for no\nreason whatsoever.\n\n5 of 20"},{"page_number":6,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2019 05:53 PM\nINDEX NO. 20051/2019E\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2019\n\n13. That, on October 16, 2017, although the plaintiff,\nSTEVEN HALE did not display any physically threatening behavior\ntowards the defendants THE CITY OF NEW YORK, their officers,\nagents and/or employs and others including but not limited to\ndefendant JASMIN RODRIGUEZ or show in any way whatsoever that\nphysical force was necessary, was held against his will, falsely\nimprisoned, for no reason whatsoever used excessive force in that\nthey used two sets of handcuffs causing series and permanent\ninjuries to his wrists, ankle, hands, neck, back, extremities,\nhead, and other physical and emotional injuries, etc.\n\n14. That, on October 16, 2017, although the plaintiff,\nSTEVEN HALE did not display any physically threatening behavior\ntowards the defendants THE CITY OF NEW YORK, their officers,\nagents and/or employs and others including but not limited to\ndefendant JASMIN RODRIGUEZ or show in any way whatsoever that\nphysical force was necessary, was held against his will, falsely\nimprisoned, for no reason whatsoever used excessive force in that\nthey used two sets of handcuffs causing series and permanent\ninjuries to his wrists, hands, back. etc. causing him great\nphysical pain and threw him to the ground, violently propelling\nhim to the ground, causing series and permanent injuries to his\nwrists, ankle, hands, neck, back, extremities, head, and other\nphysical and emotional injuries, etc.\n\n6 of 20"},{"page_number":7,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2019 05:53 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20051/2019E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2019\n\n15. That, on October 16, 2017, although the plaintiff,\nSTEVEN HALE did not display any physically threatening behavior\ntowards the defendants THE CITY OF NEW YORK, their officers,\nagents and/or employs and including but not limited to\ndefendant JASMIN RODRIGUEZ or show in any way whatsoever that\nphysical force was necessary, was held against his will, falsely\nimprisoned, for no reason whatsoever used such excessive physical\nforce in that they used two sets of handcuffs causing series and\npermanent injuries to his wrists, hands, back. etc. causing him\ngreat physical pain, violently propelling and throwing him to the\nground, violently shoved him into the subway platform gate,\nrepeatedly assaulted him, punched him in the ribs, neck, punched\nhim in the neck, head, stepped on his right ankles, causing series\nand permanent injuries to his wrists, ankle, hands, neck, back,\nextremities, head, and other physical and emotional injuries, etc.\n\n16. As such, and for absolutely no reason whatsoever,\nthe plaintiff, STEVEN HALE, was falsely arrested by the defendants\nTHE CITY OF NEW YORK, their officers, agents and/or employs and\nothers and including but not limited to defendant JASMIN\nRODRIGUEZ; as such, for no reason whatsoever, the defendants THE\nCITY OF NEW YORK, their officers, agents and/or employs and others\nand including but not limited to defendant JASMIN RODRIGUEZ\nescalated an event that did not require physical force of any\nkind, all in violation of plaintiff, STEVEN HALE\u2019s civil rights.\n\n7 of 20"},{"page_number":8,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2019 05:53 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20051/2019E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2019\n\n17. The plaintiff, STEVEN HALE, was never seen by\na judge.\n18. The plaintiff, STEVEN HALE, was severely injured as\na result of the foregoing.\n19. The plaintiff, STEVEN HALE, was not prosecuted\nby the New York County District Attorney, as prosecution was\ndeclined.\n20. All charges against the plaintiff, STEVEN HALE,\nwere therefore ultimately resolved in his favor.\n\nAS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION\n21. That, the plaintiff, STEVEN HALE, repeats,\nreiterates, and realleges, each and every allegation as set forth\nin paragraphs 1 through 22 with the same force and effect as if\nhereinafter more fully set forth at length herein.\n22. That, on October 16, 2017, the plaintiff, STEVEN\nHALE, was assaulted/battered by the defendant, and/or defendants\nby and through their agents, servants and/or employees.\n23. That, the plaintiff, STEVEN HALE, was\nassaulted/battered without justification and without cause and\nwithout excuse.\n24. That, the assault/battery took place within the IRT\nsubway station, on the southeast corner of Third Avenue and East\n149th Street, in the County of Bronx, City and State of New York,\n\n8 of 20"},{"page_number":9,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2019 05:53 PM\nINDEX NO. 20051/2019E\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2019\n\nand other locations wherein the plaintiff, STEVEN HALE, was held\nagainst his will by the defendant and/or defendants, their agents,\nservants and/or employees.\n\n25. That, at all times hereinafter mentioned and on\nOctober 16, 2017, and for sometime prior thereto, defendant,\nJASMIN RODRIGUEZ, was a New York City police officer, and/or agent\nservant and/or employee of the City, working in the scope and\ncourse of her employment as a New York City Police Officer, and\nwas employed by the defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK.\n\n26. That, the aforementioned assault and battery of the\nplaintiff, STEVEN HALE, was carried out by police officers and/or\nother servants, agents and/or employees of the defendant, and/or\ndefendants, including but not limited to JASMIN RODRIGUEZ while\nworking within the scope and course of the employment with the\ndefendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK.\n\n27. That, by reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff,\nSTEVEN HALE, was injured; was rendered sick, sore, lame and\ndisabled; was and/or will be caused to undergo medical treatment\nand advice; was unable to pursue his usual and regular activities;\nand, upon information and belief, his injuries are permanent in\nnature and effect.\n\n28. That this action falls within one or more of the\nexceptions as set forth in CPLR Section 1602, involving\nintentional actions, as well as the defendant, and/or defendants,\n\n9 of 20"},{"page_number":10,"text":"having acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others, as\nwell as having performed intentional acts.\n29. That, by reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff,\nSTEVEN HALE, has sustained damages in an amount in excess of the\njurisdictional limits of all the lower Courts of the State of New\nYork.\nAS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION\n30. That, the plaintiff, STEVEN HALE, repeats,\nreiterates, and realleges, each and every allegation as set\nforth in paragraphs 1 through 28 with the same force and effect\nas if hereinafter more fully set forth at length herein.\n31. That, all of the aforementioned acts, committed by police officers, servants, and/or other employees of the\ndefendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK were committed due to the\nnegligence, recklessness and carelessness of the aforementioned\npolice officers, agents, servants and/or other employees of the\ndefendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK.\n32. That the defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, was\nadditionally negligent, reckless and careless in the negligent\nhiring, negligent retention, and negligent training of various\npolice officers, agents, servants and/or other employees, who\nwere employed by the defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK.\n10 of 20"},{"page_number":11,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2019 05:53 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20051/2019E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2019\n\n33. That, all of the aforementioned acts, committed by\nthe police officers, agents, servants and/or other employees of\nthe defendant, including but not limited to JASMIN RODRIGUEZ\nwere committed due to the negligence, recklessness and\ncarelessness of the aforementioned police officers, agents,\nservants and/or other employees of the defendant, THE CITY OF\nNEW YORK.\n\n34. That, the defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, was\nadditionally negligent, reckless and careless in the negligent\nhiring, negligent retention, and negligent training of various\npolice officers, agents, servants, and/or other employees,\nincluding, but not limited to defendant, JASMIN RODRIGUEZ, who was\nemployed by the defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK.\n\n35. That, by reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff,\nSTEVEN HALE, was injured; was rendered sick, sore, lame and\ndisabled; was and/or will be caused to undergo medical treatment\nand advice; was unable to pursue her usual and regular activities;\nand, upon information and belief, his injuries are permanent in\nnature and effect.\n\n36. That this action falls within one or more of the\nexceptions as set forth in CPLR Section 1602, involving the\ndefendant and/or defendants, having acted in reckless disregard\nfor the safety of others, as well as having performed intentional\nacts.\n\n11 of 20"},{"page_number":12,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2019 05:53 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20051/2019E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2019\n\n37. That, by reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff,\nSTEVEN HALE has sustained damages in an amount in excess of the\njurisdictional limits of all the lower Courts of the State of New\nYork.\n\nAS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION\n\n38. That the plaintiff, STEVEN HALE, repeats,\nreiterates, and realleges, each and every allegation as set forth\nin paragraphs 1 through 37 with the same force and effect as if\nhereinafter more fully set forth at length herein.\n\n39. That, on October 16, 2017, the plaintiff, STEVEN\nHALE, was caused to be detained without probable cause.\n\n40. That, the plaintiff, STEVEN HALE, was\ndetained/arrested without an arrest warrant, nor any type of\nwarrant.\n\n41. That, the false detainment/false imprisonment took\nplace in front of 1285 Washington Avenue, in the County of Bronx,\nCity and State of New York, and other locations and wherein the\nplaintiff, STEVEN HALE, was held against his will by the defendant\nand/or defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees.\n\n42. That, the aforementioned false detainment/false\nimprisonment of the plaintiff, STEVEN HALE, was carried out by\npolice officers and/or other servants, agents and/or employees of\nthe defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK.\n\n43. That, the aforementioned false detainment/false\n\n12 of 20"},{"page_number":13,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2019 05:53 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20051/2019E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2019\n\nimprisonment of the plaintiff, STEVEN HALE, was carried out by,\nincluding and not limited to, defendant, JASMIN RODRIGUEZ, and/or\nother servants, agents and/or employees of the defendant, THE CITY\nOF NEW YORK, while working within the scope and course of the\nemployment with the defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK.\n44. That, by reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff,\nSTEVEN HALE, was injured; was rendered sick, sore, lame and\ndisabled; was and/or will be caused to undergo medical treatment\nand advice; was unable to pursue his usual and regular activities;\nand, upon information and belief, his injuries are permanent in\nnature and effect.\n45. That this action falls within one or more of the\nexceptions as set forth in CPLR Section 1602, involving\nintentional actions as well as the defendant and/or defendants,\nhaving acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others, as\nwell as having performed intentional acts.\n46. That, by reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff,\nSTEVEN HALE, has sustained damages in an amount in excess of the\njurisdictional limits of all the lower Courts of the State of New\nYork.\nAS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION\n47. The plaintiff, STEVEN HALE, repeats,\n\n13 of 20"},{"page_number":14,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2019 05:53 PM\nINDEX NO. 20051/2019E\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2019\n\nreiterates, and realleges, each and every allegation as set forth\nin paragraphs 1 through 46, with the same force and effect as if\nhereinafter more fully set forth at length herein.\n\n48. That the plaintiff, STEVEN HALE did not\ncommit any illegal act, nor did the individually named defendant,\nRODRIGUEZ, have reason to believe he committed an unlawful act,\neither before or at the time he was falsely detained/imprisoned,\nassaulted and battered, excessive force was used against him; and\ndeprived of his constitutional rights pursuant to the Fourth,\nFifth and Fourteenth Amendments as set forth in the Constitution\nof the United States, particularly 42 U.S.C. \u00a71983 and the\nConstitution of the State of New York.\n\n49. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the\ndefendant, JASMIN RODRIGUEZ, was employed in her respective\ncapacity by the defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK their officers,\nagents and/or employs and others and was acting under the color of\nher official capacity and her acts were performed under the color\nof the policies, statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations of\nthe defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK.\n\n50. Defendant, JASMIN RODRIGUEZ, is being sued in her\npersonal and official capacities for violation of plaintiff\u2019s\nconstitutional rights pursuant to 42 USC, \u00a71983. Although\ndefendant, JASMIN RODRIGUEZ knew or should have known of the fact\nthat this pattern of conduct was carried out by their agents,\n\n14 of 20"},{"page_number":15,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2019 05:53 PM\nINDEX NO. 20051/2019E\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2019\n\nservants and/or employees, the defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK\nhas not taken any steps or made any efforts to halt this course of\nconduct, to make redress to the plaintiff or other citizens\ninjured thereby, or to take any disciplinary action whatever\nagainst any of their employees or agents.\n51. The unlawful and illegal conduct of the defendants,\ntheir agents, servants and/or employees and each of them, deprived\nplaintiff, STEVEN HALE of the following rights, privileges and\nimmunities secured to him by the Constitution of the United States\nand of the State of New York: The right of plaintiff, STEVEN\nHALE, to be secure in his person and effects against unreasonable\nsearch and seizure under the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth\nAmendments to the Constitution of the United States; the right of\nplaintiff, STEVEN HALE, to be informed of the nature and cause of\nthe accusation against him as secured to him under the Sixth and\nFourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States;\nand the right of plaintiff, STEVEN HALE, not to be deprived of\nlife, liberty or property without due process of law, and the\nright to the equal protection of the laws secured by the\nFourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.\n52. That the deprivation of plaintiff\u2019s Constitutional\nrights was the result of the unconstitutional acts of defendants\nwhile acting under color of state law and within the scope of\ntheir employ.\n\n15 of 20"},{"page_number":16,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2019 05:53 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20051/2019E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2019\n\n53. That the deprivation of plaintiff\u2019s Constitutional\nrights was the result of the defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK their\nofficers, agents and/or employs and others, custom and/or policy\nof arresting individuals without probable cause.\n\n54. That the deprivation of plaintiff\u2019s Constitutional\nrights was the result of the defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK their\nofficers, agents and/or employs and others, custom and/or policy\nof arresting minorities without probable cause.\n\n55. That the deprivation of plaintiff, STEVEN HALE\u2019s,\nConstitutional Rights was the result of the defendant, THE CITY OF\nNEW YORK, their officers, agents and/or employs and others, custom\nand/or policy of failing to discipline officers for arresting\nindividuals without probable cause.\n\n56. That the said customs and/or policies may be\ninferred from the existence of other similar Civil Rights actions\nthat have been brought against the defendant, THE CITY OF NEW\nYORK, their officers, agents and/or employs and others.\n\n57. That the detaining of plaintiff, STEVEN HALE,\nwithout probable cause or justification was the result of customs\nand/or policies adopted by the defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK,\ntheir officers, agents and/or employs and others.\n\n58. That the deprivation of plaintiff, STEVEN HALE\u2019s\nConstitutional rights was the result of the defendant, THE CITY OF\nNEW YORK, their officers, agents and/or employs and others, false\ndetainment of the plaintiff STEVEN HALE without probable cause.\n\n16 of 20"},{"page_number":17,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2019 05:53 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20051/2019E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2019\n\n59. That the deprivation of plaintiff STEVEN HALE\u2019s\nConstitutional Rights was a result of the defendant, THE CITY OF\nNEW YORK their officers, agents and/or employs and others custom\nand policy in failing to discipline officers for the use of\nexcessive force.\n\n60. That the deprivation of plaintiff, STEVEN HALE\u2019s\nConstitutional rights was the result of the defendant, THE CITY OF\nNEW YORK their officers, agents and/or employs and others use of\nexcessive force.\n\n61. That the customs and/or policies adopted by the\ndefendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK their officers, agents and/or\nemploys and others exhibited a deliberate indifference to the\nConstitutional rights of plaintiff, STEVEN HALE\n\n62. That the customs and/or policies adopted by the\ndefendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK their officers, agents and/or\nemploys and others in the use of certain derogatory language and\nother words as discussed in this document exhibited a deliberate\nindifference to the Constitutional rights of plaintiff, STEVEN\nHALE\n\n62. That by reason of the allegations as set forth in\nall of the aforementioned causes of actions, including, but not\nlimited to the plaintiff\u2019s false detention/imprisonment, assault\nand battery, as well as prosecution due to the negligence of the\ndefendant and/or defendants, in the negligent hiring, negligent\n\n17 of 20"},{"page_number":18,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2019 05:53 PM\nINDEX NO. 20051/2019E\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2019\n\nretention, and negligent training of its various employees and/or\npolice officers, the plaintiff, STEVEN HALE, was caused to have\nhis civil rights as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution,\nincluding, but not limited to the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth\nAmendments, violated by the defendant and/or defendants herein, as\nset forth under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.\n\n63. That, by reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff\nSTEVEN HALE, was injured; was rendered sick, sore, lame and\ndisabled; was and/or will be caused to undergo medical treatment\nand advice; was unable to pursue her usual and regular activities;\nand upon information and belief, her injuries are permanent in\nnature and effect.\n\n64. That this action falls within one or more of the\nexceptions as set forth in CPLR Section 1602, involving the\ndefendant and/or defendants, having acted in reckless disregard\nfor the safety of others, as well as having performed intentional\nacts.\n\n65. That, by reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff,\nSTEVEN HALE, has sustained damages in an amount in excess of the\njurisdictional limits of all the lower Courts of the State of New\nYork.\n\nWHEREFORE, plaintiff, STEVEN HALE, demands\njudgment against the defendants, on the First, Second, Third, and\nFourth causes of actions in an amount in excess of the\njurisdictional limits of all of the lower Courts of the State of\n\n18 of 20"},{"page_number":19,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2019 05:53 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20051/2019E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2019\n\nNew York; together with interest, as well as the costs,\ndisbursements and legal fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988,\nof these causes of action.\n\nDated: New York, New York\nDecember 31, 2018\n\nYours, etc.\nGlenn R. Meyers\nThe Meyers Law Firm\n\nAttorneys for Plaintiff,\nSTEVEN HALE\nOffice & P.O. Address\n30 Vesey Street, 4th Floor\nNew York, New York 10007\n(212) 252-1212\n\n19 of 20"},{"page_number":20,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/02/2019 05:53 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20051/2019E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2019\n\nATTORNEY VERIFICATION\n\nI, Glenn R. Meyers, an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the State of New York,\ndo affirm that:\nI am the principle in the law firm of The Meyers Law Firm, attorney for the Plaintiff and\nI have read the COMPLAINT and know the contents thereof and the same are true to my\nknowledge, except those matters alleged on information and belief, and as to those, I believe to\nbe true. I base my knowledge and belief on public records, papers and records on file with my\noffice, this office\u2019s investigation and conversations I had with the Plaintiff.\nI make this Verification in lieu of the Plaintiff because plaintiff in the County where I\nmaintain my office.\nDated: New York, New York\nDecember 31, 2018\nGlenn R. Meyers, Esq.\n\n20 of 20"}],"total_cost_usd":0.06198192000000001,"total_elapsed_seconds":53.145525},{"case_id":"dove_alexander","comparison":{"additional_findings":{"allegations":["Excessive pre-arraignment detention","Negligence"],"defendant_types":["Individual Police Officer","City of New York"],"force_types":[],"locations":[],"officers":[],"themes":["Homelessness"]},"matches":{"allegations":["False arrest/False imprisonment","Malicious prosecution"],"defendant_types":[],"force_types":[],"locations":["Precinct","Street"],"officers":[],"themes":[]},"misses":{"allegations":["Unlawful stop and/or search","Violation of equal protection","Negligent infliction of emotional distress","Intentional infliction of emotional distress"],"defendant_types":["NYPD"],"force_types":["None"],"locations":[],"officers":[],"themes":["Unknown"]},"scores":{"gt_coverage":0.4444444444444444,"recall":0.36363636363636365,"total_additional":5,"total_gt_items":11,"total_matched":4}},"cost_per_page":0.0030000741666666667,"extract_usage":{"input_tokens":5844,"output_tokens":1101},"extraction":{"allegations":[{"provenance":{"page_number":3,"paragraph":"Paragraph 9","source_text":"Plaintiff was unlawfully arrested and detained"},"type":"False arrest/False imprisonment"},{"provenance":{"page_number":4,"paragraph":"Paragraph 32","source_text":"Defendants maliciously prosecuted plaintiff"},"type":"Malicious prosecution"},{"provenance":{"page_number":3,"paragraph":"Paragraph 13","source_text":"Plaintiff was detained for thirty minutes before being released"},"type":"Excessive pre-arraignment detention"},{"provenance":{"page_number":8,"paragraph":"Paragraph 49","source_text":"Defendants were negligent in their actions"},"type":"Negligence"}],"county":{"name":"Kings","provenance":{"page_number":2,"source_text":"COUNTY OF KINGS"}},"defendant_types":[{"provenance":{"page_number":2,"source_text":"The City of New York"},"type":"City of New York"},{"provenance":{"page_number":3,"source_text":"three plain clothes police officers"},"type":"Individual Police Officer"}],"extraction_confidence":{"notes":"","overall":"high"},"force_types":[],"incident_locations":[{"location_type":"Street","precinct":"","provenance":{"page_number":3,"paragraph":"Paragraph 10","source_text":"Plaintiff was stopped on Gates Avenue and Broadway"},"specific_address":"Gates Avenue and Broadway"},{"location_type":"Precinct","precinct":"83rd Precinct","provenance":{"page_number":3,"paragraph":"Paragraph 14","source_text":"Plaintiff was brought to the 83rd Precinct"},"specific_address":""}],"injuries":[{"description":"emotional distress, nightmares, panic attacks, mental anguish","provenance":{"page_number":4,"source_text":"Plaintiff suffered emotional distress, nightmares, and other injuries"},"severity":"serious"}],"key_dates":[{"date":"2012-01-09","event":"Plaintiff was arrested","provenance":{"page_number":3,"source_text":"On or about January 9, 2012"}},{"date":"2012-08-31","event":"Charges against plaintiff were dismissed","provenance":{"page_number":4,"source_text":"On August 31, 2012, the charges against plaintiff were formally dismissed"}}],"officers":[],"plaintiffs":[{"name":"Alexander Dove","provenance":{"page_number":2,"source_text":"Plaintiff, Alexander Dove"},"relationship":"Plaintiff"}],"summary":{"provenance":{"key_sources":["Paragraphs 9-18, Page 3-4"],"pages_referenced":[3,4]},"text":"On January 9, 2012, Alexander Dove was walking with a group of friends on Gates Avenue and Broadway in Kings County when they were stopped by three plainclothes police officers. The officers accused them of stealing a cell phone and conducted multiple searches, finding nothing. Despite an uncertain identification, Dove and his friends were handcuffed, brought to the 83rd Precinct, and then to central booking. Dove was not told what he was being charged with and was not read his Miranda rights. He was held for five days in Riker's Island before being arraigned on robbery charges. The charges were dismissed on August 31, 2012. Dove suffered emotional distress, nightmares, and other injuries, and filed a lawsuit against the City of New York."},"themes":[{"provenance":{"page_number":4,"paragraph":"Paragraph 18","source_text":"Plaintiff was forced to live in a homeless shelter"},"type":"Homelessness"}]},"extraction_elapsed_seconds":4.32228,"extraction_model":"llama4-scout","method":"two_step","num_pages":12,"ocr_elapsed_seconds":23.140621,"ocr_model":"qwen3-vl-235b","ocr_text_length":17272,"ocr_usage":{"estimated_cost_usd":0.03428075,"images":12,"input_tokens":45087,"output_tokens":3904},"pages":[{"page_number":1,"text":"FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2013\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 504481/2013\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2013\n\nCIVIL COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nCOUNTY OF KINGS\n\nALEXANDER DOVE\nPlaintiff,\nv.\nCITY OF NEW YORK\nDefendant.\n\nCIVIL ACTION NO.\nAMENDED SUMMONS\nJURY TRIAL DEMAND\n\nTHE PLAINTIFF DESIGNATES THE CIVIL COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,\nCOUNTY OF KINGS AS THE PLACE OF TRIAL.\n\nTHE BASIS OF THE VENUE IS DEFENDANT\u2019S PRINCIPLE PLACE OF BUSINESS AND\nWHERE THE INCIDENTS GIVING RISE TO THIS ACTION OCCURRED\n\nTo the above named Defendants\n\nYOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to Answer the Complaint in this action and to serve a\ncopy of your Answer, on the Plaintiffs\u2019 attorney within twenty (20) days after the service of this\nsummons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this\nsummons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your\nfailure to appear or Answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief\ndemanded in the complaint.\n\nDated: August 5, 2013\n\n/s/\nJohn A. Scola, Esq.\nThe Law Office of John A. Scola,\nPLLC\nAttorney for Plaintiff\n120 MacDougal Street, Suite 21\nNew York, NY 10012\n(212) 537-0598\n\nBeaumont/ Civ./ Summ. and Complaint .\nPage 1"},{"page_number":2,"text":"SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nCOUNTY OF KINGS\n\nAlexander Dove                                      Plaintiff(s),          Index No.:\n                                                                 COMPLAINT\nv.\nThe City Of New York,                                Defendant(s)          Jury Trial Demand\n\nTAKE NOTICE, the Plaintiff, Alexander Dove, hereby appears in this action by his\nattorneys, Law Office of John A. Scola, PLLC, and demands that all papers be served upon him,\nat the address below, in this matter.\n\nPlaintiff, Alexander Dove, by his attorney, John Scola Esq., complaining of the\ndefendant, The City of New York referred to as the Defendant, upon information and belief\nalleges as follows:\n\nNATURE OF THE ACTION\n\n1. This is an action at law to redress the deprivation of rights secured to the plaintiff under\ncolor of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, and or to redress the deprivation of rights,\nprivileges, and immunities secured to the plaintiff by the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth\nAmendments to the Constitution of the United States, and by Title 42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a71981,\n1983 and 1985, and arising under the law and statutes of the State of New York.\n\n2. This is an action to further seek compensation for the serious and permanent emotional\ninjuries sustained by the plaintiff, as a result of the negligence of the defendant,\nperpetuated while said defendant falsely arrested and maliciously prosecuted plaintiff.\n\nBeaumont/ Civ./ Summ. and Complaint .                                      Page 2"},{"page_number":3,"text":"PARTIES\n\n5. Plaintiff, Alexander Dove is a resident of the State of Pennsylvania.\n\n6. The Defendant, City of New York is a municipality in the State of New York and employs the defendant Police Officers.\n\nFACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION\n\n9. On or about January 9, 2012, plaintiff was arrested and charged with Robbery.\n\n10. Prior to his arrest plaintiff was walking with a group of approximately ten (10) friends when they were stopped by three (3) plain clothes police officers on Gates Avenue and Broadway in Kings County and accused of stealing a cell phone.\n\n11. The police told plaintiff and the group to stop and line up with their hands against the gate. After being told to line up against the gate the group was searched by police but did not find the alleged cell phone that had been stolen. The police proceeded to search the plaintiff and the other individuals of the group a total of six (6) different times but found nothing. This process took approximately thirty minutes.\n\n12. During this process, plaintiff repeatedly asked the police officers why he was being stopped. He was told by police that they needed to find out and would let them know once they did.\n\n13. After thirty minutes of being unlawfully detained, the complainant who allegedly had his cell phone stolen was driven to where plaintiff was stopped. The police asked the complainant if these were the people who took his cell phone. The complainant said it \u201ccould be them\u201d referring to the group of ten (10). The police responded to the group that they were all going to prison despite the fact that the identification was uncertain and neither plaintiff nor any other members of the group had the cell phone.\n\nBeaumont/ Civ./ Summ. and Complaint .                                      Page 3"},{"page_number":4,"text":"14. After finding nothing throughout the numerous searches the police conducted plaintiff and approximately nine (9) of his friends were handcuffed and brought to the 83rd Precinct and then to central booking. Plaintiff was not told what he was being charged with and was not read his Miranda rights. Plaintiff requested to make a phone call at the precinct but was not afforded the opportunity. Plaintiff was also deprived of water at Central Booking.\n\n15. At Central Booking plaintiff met with an attorney and was arraigned on robbery charges. This was the first that he heard of the charge. Bail was set at $50,000. As a result of the excessive bail, plaintiff was taken to Riker\u2019s Island where he spent five (5) days in jail.\n\n16. At the conclusion of the five (5) days plaintiff was removed from Riker\u2019s Island and taken to court to appear before the grand jury. However, the grand jury was never commenced and plaintiff was allowed to leave as the corrections officer told him that his charge would be dismissed and that he should appear on August 31, 2012 to get his dismissal.\n\n17. On August 31, 2012, the charges against plaintiff were formally dismissed.\n\n18. As a result of the aforementioned incident plaintiff was kicked out of his house and was forced to live in a homeless shelter.\n\n19. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed his Notice of Claim on or about September 10, 2012 and a 50-H hearing was held on November 9, 2012.\n\n20. The defendants\u2019 actions were not privileged or immune.\n\n21. As a direct and proximate result of defendants\u2019 actions, plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer injuries, including but not limited to emotional distress, nightmares, panic attacks, mental anguish and unwarranted severe anger bouts some or all of which may be\n\nBeaumont/ Civ./ Summ. and Complaint .                                      Page 4"},{"page_number":5,"text":"permanent.\n22. As a direct and proximate result of defendants\u2019 actions, plaintiff suffered and continues to\nsuffer, mental anguish, repetitive injury, psychological and emotional distress, and\nphysical pain and suffering, some or all of which may be permanent.\n23. As a direct and proximate result of defendants\u2019 actions, plaintiff was deprived of rights,\nprivileges and immunities under the, Fourth Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the\nUnited States Constitution, Title 42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a71981, 1983 and 1985 and the laws of the\nCity of New York and the State of New York.\n24. Defendant City of New York, as a matter of policy and practice, has with deliberate\nindifference failed to properly sanction or discipline the defendants in this case, for\nviolations of the constitutional rights of citizens, thereby causing defendants in this case,\nto engage in unlawful conduct.\n25. Defendant City of New York, as a matter of policy and practice, has with deliberate\nindifference failed to sanction or discipline the defendants in this case, who are aware of\nand subsequently conceal violations of the constitutional rights of citizens by other\nthereby causing and encouraging defendants in this case, to engage in unlawful conduct.\n26. By these actions, defendants have deprived plaintiff of rights secured by the Fourth,\nEighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, in violation of 42\nU.S.C. Sections 1981, 1983 and 1985.\nFIRST CAUSE OF ACTION\n42 U.S.C. Section 1983-against all Defendants\n27. Plaintiff hereby restates all paragraphs above of this complaint, as though fully set forth\nbelow.\nBeaumont/ Civ./ Summ. and Complaint .\nPage 5"},{"page_number":6,"text":"28. By unlawfully detaining plaintiff, Defendants deprived Plaintiff of rights, remedies,\nprivileges, and immunities guaranteed to every citizen of the United States, in violation\nof 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 and 1983, including, but not limited to, rights guaranteed by\nthe Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.\n\nSECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:\n42 U.S.C. Section 1983-against all Defendants\n29. Plaintiff hereby restates all paragraphs above of this complaint, as though fully set forth\nbelow.\n30. By unlawfully arresting plaintiff Defendants deprived Plaintiff of rights, remedies,\nprivileges, and immunities guaranteed to every citizen of the United States, in violation\nof 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 and 1983, including, but not limited to, rights guaranteed by\nthe Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.\n\nTHIRD CAUSE OF ACTION:\n42 U.S.C. Section 1983-against all Defendants\n31. Plaintiff hereby restates all paragraphs above of this complaint, as though fully set forth\nbelow.\n32. By maliciously prosecuting plaintiff, Defendants deprived Plaintiff of rights, remedies,\nprivileges, and immunities guaranteed to every citizen of the United States, in violation\nof 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 and 1983, including, but not limited to, rights guaranteed by\nthe Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.\n\nFOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION\n42 U.S.C. Section 1983, 1985-against all Defendants\n33. Plaintiff hereby restates all paragraphs of this complaint, as though fully set forth below.\n\nBeaumont/ Civ./ Summ. and Complaint .                                      Page 6"},{"page_number":7,"text":"34. In addition, the Defendants conspired among themselves to deprive plaintiff of his constitutional rights secured by 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and 1985, and by the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to United States Constitution, and took numerous overt steps in furtherance of such conspiracy, as set forth above.\n\n35. The Defendants acted under pretense and color of state law and in their individual and official capacities and within the scope of their respective duties. Defendants acted willfully, knowingly, and with the specific intent to deprive the Plaintiff of his constitutional rights secured by 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1985, and by the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.\n\n36. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct and abuse of authority detailed above, Plaintiff sustained the damages herein before stated.\n\nAS A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION:\nNew York State Constitution, Art. 1 Section 12\n\n37. Plaintiff hereby restates all paragraphs of this complaint, as though fully set forth below.\n\n38. By unlawfully arresting, detaining and prosecuting plaintiff medical, the defendants deprived Plaintiff of rights, remedies, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to every New Yorker by Article 1, Section 12 of the New York Constitution.\n\n39. In addition, the Defendants conspired among themselves to deprive plaintiff of his constitutional rights secured by Article 1, Section 12 of the New York Constitution, and took numerous overt steps in furtherance of such conspiracy, as set forth above.\n\n40. The Defendants acted under pretense and color of state law and in their individual and official capacities.\n\n41. Defendants, their attorneys, agents, servants and employees were responsible for\n\nBeaumont/ Civ./ Summ. and Complaint .                                      Page 7"},{"page_number":8,"text":"Plaintiff\u2019s deprivation of his state constitutional rights. Defendant City, as employer of each of the Defendants, is responsible for their wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat superior.\n42. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct and abuse of authority detailed above, plaintiff sustained the damages herein-before alleged.\nAS A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION:\nNegligent Infliction of Emotional Distress against all Officers\n43. The Plaintiff hereby restates all paragraphs of this complaint, as though fully set forth below.\n44. The Defendants engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct, negligently causing severe emotional distress to plaintiff.\n45. Plaintiff\u2019s emotional distress has damaged their personal and professional life because of the severe mental pain and anguish which were inflicted through deliberate and malicious detention and imprisonment by the Defendants.\n46. Defendants, their , agents servants, and employees were responsible for the intentional infliction of emotional distress suffered by Plaintiff at the hands of the Defendants and security guards, defendant City of New York, as employer of the , is responsible for their wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat superior.\n47. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct and abuse of authority detailed above, plaintiff sustained the damages herein-before stated.\nAS A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:\nNegligence against all Officers.\n48. Plaintiff repeats and realleges all paragraphs as if each paragraph is repeated verbatim\nBeaumont/ Civ./ Summ. and Complaint . Page 8"},{"page_number":9,"text":"herein.\n49. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts of all the defendants, City of New\nYork as set forth herein, plaintiff suffered injury, conscious pain and suffering, medical\nexpenses, lost wages, and severe mental anguish.\n50. That by reason of the said negligence, plaintiff suffered and still suffers emotional\ninjuries, became sick, sore, lame and disabled and have remained sick, sore, lame and\ndisabled since the aforesaid incident; have suffered great pain, agony and mental anguish\nand is informed and verily believes that they will continue to suffer for a long time to\ncome and that said injuries are permanent; have suffered economic loss inasmuch as they\nwas forced to, and are still forced to expend sums of money on medical treatment; that\nthey were deprived of their pursuits and interests and verily believes that in the future he\nwill continue to be deprived of such pursuits; and that said injuries are permanent.\n51. This action falls within one or more of the exceptions of the New York State Civil\nPractice Law and Rules \u00a71602.\nWHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests judgment against the Defendants\nas follows:\n1. On the First Cause of Action against all the defendants, compensatory and punitive\ndamages in an amount to be determined at trial, and reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees and costs\nunder 42 U.S.C. Section 1988;\n2. On the Second Cause of Action, against all Defendants, compensatory damages in an\namount to be determined at trial, and punitive damages against the Defendants in an\namount to be determined at trial;\n3. On the Third Cause of Action, against all Defendants, compensatory damages in an\nBeaumont/ Civ./ Summ. and Complaint .\nPage 9"},{"page_number":10,"text":"amount to be determined at trial, punitive damages against the Defendants in an amount\nto be determined at trial;\n4. On the Fourth Cause of Action, against all Defendants, compensatory damages in an\namount to be determined at trial, punitive damages against the Defendants in an amount\nto be determined at trial;\n5. On the Fifth Cause of Action, against all Defendants, compensatory damages in an\namount to be determined at trial, punitive damages against the Defendants in an amount\nto be determined at trial;\n6. On the Sixth Cause of Action, against all Defendants, compensatory damages in an\namount to be determined at trial, punitive damages against the Defendants in an amount\nto be determined at trial;\n\n7. On the Seventh Cause of Action, against all Defendants, compensatory damages in an\namount to be determined at trial, punitive damages against the Defendants in an amount\nto be determined at trial;\n\nBeaumont/ Civ./ Summ. and Complaint .                                      Page 10"},{"page_number":11,"text":"8. On the Eighth Cause of Action, against all Defendants, compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, punitive damages against the Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial;\n\n9. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem necessary in the interest of justice.\n\nDated:\nAugust 5, 2013\n\nNew York, New York\n\nRespectfully Submitted\n/s/\nBy: John Scola, Esq.\nLaw Office of John A. Scola, PLLC\n231 Thompson Street, Suite 13\nNew York, New York 10012\n(212) 537-0598\n\nBeaumont/ Civ./ Summ. and Complaint .\nPage 11"},{"page_number":12,"text":"ATTORNEY VERIFICATION\n\nSTATE OF NEW YORK\nCOUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\nJOHN A. SCOLA, ESQ., being duly sworn, deposes and says; that he is the attorney for the claimant in this action and that the foregoing Summons and Complaint is true to his own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated on information and belief and as to those matters he believes it to be true; that the grounds of his belief as to all matters not stated upon his knowledge are correspondence and other writings furnished to him by Plaintiff and interviews with officers and employees of claimant; and that the reason why the verification is not made by Plaintiff is that he resides outside the county where I maintain an office.\n\n/s/\nJohn A. Scola\n\nBeaumont/ Civ./ Summ. and Complaint .                                      Page 12"}],"total_cost_usd":0.03600089,"total_elapsed_seconds":27.462901},{"case_id":"rosas_christina","comparison":{"additional_findings":{"allegations":[],"defendant_types":["Individual Police Officer","City of New York"],"force_types":[],"locations":[],"officers":["john doe","james doe"],"themes":[]},"matches":{"allegations":["Excessive force/assault and battery","False arrest/False imprisonment","Malicious prosecution"],"defendant_types":["NYPD"],"force_types":["Non-weapon physical force"],"locations":["Street"],"officers":["gregory smith"],"themes":["Race and/or ethnicity"]},"misses":{"allegations":["Unlawful stop and/or search","Profiling/discrimination","Negligent infliction of emotional distress"],"defendant_types":["Other law enforcement"],"force_types":[],"locations":["Commercial"],"officers":[],"themes":[]},"scores":{"gt_coverage":0.6666666666666666,"recall":0.6153846153846154,"total_additional":4,"total_gt_items":13,"total_matched":8}},"cost_per_page":0.0030733159090909094,"extract_usage":{"input_tokens":9464,"output_tokens":1774},"extraction":{"allegations":[{"provenance":{"page_number":4,"paragraph":"Paragraph 11","source_text":"That the Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees arrested and confined the Plaintiffs without any basis in law or fact and without reasonable, probable or just cause or justification."},"type":"False arrest/False imprisonment"},{"provenance":{"page_number":4,"paragraph":"Paragraph 13","source_text":"That at the time and place aforesaid, the Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees, utilized unjustified excessive force upon and against the Plaintiffs."},"type":"Excessive force/assault and battery"},{"provenance":{"page_number":6,"paragraph":"Paragraph 19","source_text":"That the commencement of the criminal proceedings... was malicious and begun in malice and without probable cause that the proceedings could succeed by the Defendants."},"type":"Malicious prosecution"}],"county":{"name":"Bronx","provenance":{"page_number":1,"source_text":"SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX"}},"defendant_types":[{"provenance":{"page_number":3,"paragraph":"Paragraph 5","source_text":"P.O. GREGORY SMITH was employed by the CITY OF NEW YORK and THE NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT."},"type":"NYPD"},{"provenance":{"page_number":1,"paragraph":"Parties section","source_text":"P.O. GREGORY SMITH"},"type":"Individual Police Officer"},{"provenance":{"page_number":1,"paragraph":"Parties section","source_text":"CITY OF NEW YORK"},"type":"City of New York"}],"extraction_confidence":{"notes":"","overall":"high"},"force_types":[{"provenance":{"page_number":5,"paragraph":"Paragraph 16","source_text":"That during the aforesaid arrests of Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs were subjected to unwanted touching, thereby constituting further assaults and battery upon their persons."},"type":"Non-weapon physical force"}],"incident_locations":[{"location_type":"Street","precinct":"","provenance":{"page_number":3,"paragraph":"Paragraph 9","source_text":"at and in front of 951 East 180th Street, Bronx, New York"},"specific_address":"951 East 180th Street, Bronx, New York"}],"injuries":[{"description":"fright, shock, emotional distress and physical consequences","provenance":{"page_number":4,"paragraph":"Paragraph 14","source_text":"Plaintiffs being aware of their unlawful confinement were thereby caused fright, shock, emotional distress and physical consequences."},"severity":"serious"}],"key_dates":[{"date":"2018-10-10","event":"Incident occurred","provenance":{"page_number":3,"paragraph":"Paragraph 9","source_text":"on and about October 10, 2018 at approximately 8:15 A.M."}},{"date":"2019-04-19","event":"Charges against Elyse Torres dismissed","provenance":{"page_number":6,"paragraph":"Paragraph 20","source_text":"all criminal charges brought against plaintiff ELYSE TORRES, regarding the incidents of October 10, 2018, were dismissed by a Judge of said court on April 19, 2019"}}],"officers":[{"badge_number":"06377","name":"Gregory Smith","precinct":"48th Precinct","provenance":{"page_number":1,"paragraph":"Parties section","source_text":"P.O. GREGORY SMITH, Shield 06377 of the 48th Precinct"},"rank":"P.O.","tax_id":""},{"badge_number":"","name":"John Doe","precinct":"","provenance":{"page_number":1,"paragraph":"Parties section","source_text":"OFFICERS JOHN AND JAMES DOE"},"rank":"Officer","tax_id":""},{"badge_number":"","name":"James Doe","precinct":"","provenance":{"page_number":1,"paragraph":"Parties section","source_text":"OFFICERS JOHN AND JAMES DOE"},"rank":"Officer","tax_id":""}],"plaintiffs":[{"name":"Christina Rosas","provenance":{"page_number":2,"paragraph":"Parties section","source_text":"CHRISTINA ROSAS"},"relationship":"Plaintiff"},{"name":"Joshua Rosas","provenance":{"page_number":2,"paragraph":"Parties section","source_text":"JOSHUA ROSAS"},"relationship":"Plaintiff"},{"name":"Elyse Torres","provenance":{"page_number":2,"paragraph":"Parties section","source_text":"ELYSE TORRES"},"relationship":"Plaintiff"}],"summary":{"provenance":{"key_sources":["Paragraphs 9-14, page 3-4","Paragraph 20, page 5"],"pages_referenced":[3,4,5]},"text":"On October 10, 2018, at approximately 8:15 A.M., Christina Rosas, Joshua Rosas, and Elyse Torres were assaulted, battered, improperly arrested, and confined without warrant by New York City Police Department (NYPD) officers, including Officer Gregory Smith and two unnamed officers (John and James Doe). The plaintiffs were lawfully present near 951 East 180th Street, Bronx, New York, purchasing breakfast. The defendants allegedly escalated a situation they created, harassed the plaintiffs, and used excessive force. The plaintiffs were subjected to false accusations, unlawful detention, and imprisonment. Elyse Torres's subsequent prosecution was malicious, and all charges against the plaintiffs were eventually dismissed. The plaintiffs claim they suffered emotional distress, physical harm, and other damages."},"themes":[{"provenance":{"page_number":7,"paragraph":"Paragraph 25","source_text":"That the CITY OF NEW YORK allowed, condoned, permitted and caused a policy and procedure of arresting innocent citizens, almost exclusively citizens of a racial minority, and engaging in a institutionalized policy and procedure of arresting persons upon pretext and/or the fabrication of evidence, without any probable cause or reasonable basis to do so for nefarious, unlawful reasons such as the fulfillment of arrest quotas and to subjugate minority populations without reprimand to the offending officers."},"type":"Race and/or ethnicity"}]},"extraction_elapsed_seconds":8.075982,"extraction_model":"llama4-scout","method":"two_step","num_pages":22,"ocr_elapsed_seconds":46.399891,"ocr_model":"qwen3-vl-235b","ocr_text_length":28783,"ocr_usage":{"estimated_cost_usd":0.06483323,"images":22,"input_tokens":82733,"output_tokens":7889},"pages":[{"page_number":1,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2020 04:05 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20153/2020E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2020\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nCOUNTY OF BRONX\nCHRISTINA ROSAS, JOSHUA ROSAS and ELYSE\nTORRES,\nPlaintiffs,\n-against-\nCITY OF NEW YORK, P.O. GREGORY SMITH and\nOFFICERS JOHN AND JAMES DOE, names presently\nunknowable by Plaintiffs and meant to designate\nadditional offending officers,\nDefendants.\n\nSUMMONS\n\nIndex No.:\nDate Purchased:\nPlaintiff designates\nBRONX County as the\nplace of trial\nThe basis of venue is\nCPLR 504 (3)\n\nTo the above named Defendants:\nYou are hereby summoned to answer the complaint in this action, and\nserve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to\nserve a notice of appearance on the Plaintiff\u2019s attorneys within twenty days after the\nservice of this summons, exclusive of the day of service, where service is made by\ndelivery upon you personally within the state, or within 30 days after completion of\nservice where service is made in any other manner. In case of your failure to appear or\nanswer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the\ncomplaint to be assessed by the Court.\n\nDated: Bronx, N.Y.\nJanuary 3, 2020\n\nBy: JONATHAN L. GLEIT, ESQ.\nAttorney for Plaintiffs\n888 Grand Concourse\nSuite 1-O\nBronx, NY 10451\n(718) 742-0200\n\nTo:\nCITY OF NEW YORK CORPORATION COUNSEL\n100 Church Street, 4th Floor, Law Dept.\nNew York, New York 10007\n\nP.O. Gregory Smith, Shield 06377 of the 48th Precinct\n450 Cross Bronx Expressway, Bronx, NY 10457\n\n1 of 22"},{"page_number":2,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2020 04:05 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20153/2020E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2020\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nCOUNTY OF BRONX\n--------------------------------------------------X\nCHRISTINA ROSAS, JOSHUA ROSAS and ELYSE\nTORRES,\nPlaintiff,\n-against-\nCITY OF NEW YORK, P.O. GREGORY SMITH and\nOFFICERS JOHN AND JAMES DOE, names presently\nunknowable by Plaintiffs and meant to designate\nadditional offending officers,\nDefendants.\n--------------------------------------------------X\n\nPlaintiffs by their attorney, Jonathan L. Gleit, Esq., complaining of the\nDefendants, respectfully alleges, upon information and belief, as follows:\n\nAS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF THE\nPLAINTIFFS CHRISTINA ROSAS, JOSHUA ROSAS and ELYSE TORRES\n\n1. At the time of the commencement of this action, plaintiffs CHRISTINA ROSAS,\nJOSHUA ROSAS and ELYSE TORRES were and still are residents of the County of\nBronx, City and State of New York.\n\n2. That the causes of action alleged herein arose in the County of Bronx, City and\nState of New York.\n\n2 of 22"},{"page_number":3,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2020 04:05 PM\nINDEX NO. 20153/2020E\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2020\n\n3. That at all times herein mentioned Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK was, and\nstill is, a Municipal Corporation and body politic, duly formed, organized and existing\nunder and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.\n\n4. That the CITY OF NEW YORK maintains a Police Department.\n\n5. That on and about October 10, 2018, P.O. GREGORY SMITH was employed by\nthe CITY OF NEW YORK and THE NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT.\n\n6. That on and about October 10, 2018, at approximately 8:15 A.M., P.O. GREGORY\nSMITH was working and acting within the scope of his employment as a Police Officer,\nand under the color of law.\n\n7. That on and about October 10, 2018, OFFICERS JOHN AND/OR JAMES DOE\nwere employed by the CITY OF NEW YORK and THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE\nDEPARTMENT.\n\n8. That on and about October 10, 2018 at approximately 8:15 A.M., OFFICERS\nJOHN AND/OR JAMES DOE were working and acting within the scope of their\nemployment as a Police Officers, and under the color of law.\n\n9. That on or about October 10, 2018 at approximately 8:15 A.M., at and in front of\n951 East 180th Street, Bronx, New York, the Plaintiffs CHRISTINA ROSAS, JOSHUA\nROSAS and ELYSE TORRES were assaulted, battered, improperly arrested and\n\n3 of 22"},{"page_number":4,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2020 04:05 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20153/2020E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2020\n\nconfined without warrant, proper authority, privilege or justification, having no reason\nin law or in fact to assault, arrest or confine CHRISTINA ROSAS, JOSHUA ROSAS and\nELYSE TORRES.\n10. That at the aforesaid time and place the Plaintiffs were lawfully present at or near\nthe premises purchasing breakfast when the Defendants did harass persons lawfully\npresent including Plaintiffs and did needlessly and recklessly escalate a situation they\nthemselves created.\n11. That the Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees arrested and\nconfined the Plaintiffs without any basis in law or fact and without reasonable, probable\nor just cause or justification.\n12. That the Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees assaulted and\nbattered the Plaintiffs without any basis in law or fact and without reasonable, probable\nor just cause or justification.\n13. At the time and place aforesaid, the Defendants, their agents, servants and/or\nemployees, utilized unjustified excessive force upon and against the Plaintiffs.\n14. That the Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees unlawfully\narrested, detained, imprisoned and searched the Plaintiffs and took their property\nwithout any basis in law or fact, and Plaintiffs being aware of their unlawful\n\n4 of 22"},{"page_number":5,"text":"confinement were thereby caused fright, shock, emotional distress and physical\nconsequences.\n15. That the Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees arrested the\nPlaintiffs without any basis in law or fact, by making false accusations against them,\nwhen they knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known they were\nfalse.\n16. That during the aforesaid arrests of Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs were subjected to\nunwanted touching, thereby constituting further assaults and battery upon their\npersons.\n17. That at the time and place as aforesaid OFFICERS JOHN AND/OR JAMES DOE\ndid participate in the unlawful detentions and arrests of Plaintiffs and did fail to\nintercede to prevent the said insults visited upon Plaintiffs.\n18. That Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees continued to\nprosecute Plaintiff ELYSE TORRES, and threaten her freedom, after they knew, or\nshould have known, that she innocent of all charges being alleged against her.\n19. The commencement of the criminal proceedings, which were designated by\nSummons number 4442613621 and Docket No. 2018SX025247, in the Criminal Court of\n5 of 22"},{"page_number":6,"text":"the City of New York, Bronx County, was malicious and begun in malice and without\nprobable cause that the proceedings could succeed by the Defendants.\n20. That all criminal charges brought against plaintiff ELYSE TORRES, regarding the\nincidents of October 10, 2018, were dismissed by a Judge of said court on April 19, 2019,\nand the criminal proceedings were terminated in plaintiff\u2019s favor.\n21. That by reason of the aforementioned, the Defendants actions amounted to\nmalicious prosecution of ELYSE TORRES.\n22. As a result of the malicious prosecution, plaintiff ELYSE TORRES suffered the\nhumiliation, mental anguish, indignity and frustration of an unjust criminal\nprosecution, and was otherwise damaged and injured.\n23. That all criminal charges brought against plaintiff JOSHUA ROSAS, which were\nbrought under arrest number B18645988 in the Criminal Court of the City of New York,\nBronx County regarding the incidents of October 10, 2018, were dismissed when the\nDistrict Attorney of Bronx County, by Assistant District Attorney Donna Jo Fonseca,\nDeclined to Prosecute plaintiff due to a lack of probable cause to arrest the plaintiff\nJOSHUA ROSAS, and the prosecution was terminated in plaintiff JOSHUA ROSAS\u2019\nfavor and plaintiff\u2019s wrongful detention continued for a period exceeding 17 hours."},{"page_number":7,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2020 04:05 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20153/2020E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2020\n\n24. That all criminal charges brought against plaintiff CHRISTINA ROSAS,\nregarding the incidents of October 10, 2018, were dismissed by a Judge of said court on\nJuly 5, 2019, after being granted an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal on\nJanuary 8, 2019.\n\n25. That the CITY OF NEW YORK allowed, condoned, permitted and caused a\npolicy and procedure of arresting innocent citizens, almost exclusively citizens of a\nracial minority, and engaging in a institutionalized policy and procedure of arresting\npersons upon pretext and/or the fabrication of evidence, without any probable cause\nor reasonable basis to do so for nefarious, unlawful reasons such as the fulfillment of\narrest quotas and to subjugate minority populations without reprimand to the\noffending officers.\n\n26. That said illegal and unlawful arrests without reasonable or probable cause are a\nmatter of policy and record and openly acknowledged or known by the Defendants, ,\nand testify falsely so often, omitting such facts or fabricating evidence under pretext,\nthat such conduct is considered routine by the offending officers, yet condoned without\nany reprimand of the offending officers, referral to the District Attorney or Federal Law\nEnforcement officials for criminal prosecution, or even bone fide internal investigations\nto deter actions like those complained of herein.\n\n7 of 22"},{"page_number":8,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2020 04:05 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20153/2020E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2020\n\n27. Said policy, practice and procedure of having arrest quotas and/or productivity\ngoals which results in the false arrests of innocent persons is exhibited, for instance, in\nthe November 1, 2011 conviction of New York Police Department Det. Jason Arbeeny,\nwhereat Justice Gustin Reichbach commented on the evidence presented by several\nwitnesses that officers were expected to make certain arrest goals.\n\n28. Additionally in the case of Floyd, et al. v. City of New York, et al., In the Southern\nDistrict of New York Case 08 Civ.1034, New York City Police Officer Adhyl Polanco\ntestified in open court and under oath that the NEW YORK CITY POLICE\nDEPARTMENT routinely arrest primarily minority populations without a legal reason\nto do so, and are required or expected to do so, to satisfy arrest quotas. Said arrest\nquotas, euphemistically known under such terms as \u2018productivity goals\u2019, lead to a\npractice and procedure of, for instance, arresting persons for conduct that is not\ncriminal. The Court in that action determined that the \u2018Stop Question and Frisk\u2019 policy\nwas unconstitutionally implemented and violated the rights of New Yorker\u2019s of color.\n\n29. Additionally, Officer Craig Matthews presented evidence in federal court that he\nwas subject to retaliation for reporting said quota system at the 40th Precinct in 2009,\nand numerous have officers of the NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT have\nopenly decried and complained of an arrest quota system.\n\n8 of 22"},{"page_number":9,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2020 04:05 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20153/2020E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2020\n\n30. Moreover, the NewYork City Bar published an exhaustive study which\ndemonstrated the unconstitutional policy instituted by the the Defendants, which\ncontinued unabated despite protestations of the amelioration of said policy, which is\nfound at https://www2.nycbar.org/pdf/report/uploads/20072495-\nStopFriskReport.pdf. Said policy resulted in Court Stipulated Supervision which has\nnot been successful and resulted in an evasion of documentation and generation of\nreports created by offending officers, thereby surreptitiously continuing the unlawful\npolicy.\n\n31. Furthermore the CITY OF NEW YORK allowed, condoned, permitted and\ncaused a policy and procedure of arresting innocent persons for such charges as\ndisorderly conduct, as a catch all for behaviors that are not illegal but are perceived as\ndisrespectful to the arresting officer, and in asserting such false charges in ill-fated\nattempts at justifying their own use of excessive, unnecessary, unjustified force and/or\nin ill-fated extra-constitutional actions designed to assert authority and subjugate\ncertain populations.\n\n32. Additionally on October 1, 2015 the New York City Department of Investigation\nOffice of the Inspector General for the NYPD issued a report, which is incorporated\nherein and can be found at http://www.nyc.gov/html/oignypd/assets/downloads/\n\n9 of 22"},{"page_number":10,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2020 04:05 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20153/2020E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2020\n\npdf/oig_nypd_use_of_force_report_-_oct_1_2015.pdf. That report determined that the\nNew York City Police Department routinely fails to discipline officers who have\nengaged in misconduct, and fails to adequately track instances of abuse of power, and\nfails to properly train officers, and despite those findings, and perfunctory attempts at\nremediation, the practice continues unabated, and was evidenced by The Report of\nthe Independent Panel on the Disciplinary System of the New York City Police\nDepartment, found at https://www.independentpanelreportnypd.net and\nincorporated herein.\n\n33. Furthermore the CITY OF NEW YORK allowed, condoned, permitted and\ncaused a policy and procedure of arresting innocent persons for such charges as\nresisting arrest in ill-fated attempts at justifying their own misconduct, or in retaliation\nfor legal behaviors perceived as disrespect, and in an effort to subjugate certain\nminority male populations as an excuse for selectively enforcing supposed \u2018quality of\nlife\u2019 violations.\n\n34. Said practice and procedure of falsely arresting innocent persons on such charges\nas disorderly conduct or resisting arrest is well evidence by defendants\u2019 own compstat\nand other statistical tabulations, as well as those of the district attorney, the civilian\ncomplaint review board and the bureau of internal affairs.\n\n10 of 22"},{"page_number":11,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2020 04:05 PM\nINDEX NO. 20153/2020E\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2020\n\n35. For instance, statistical analysis of the 51,503 criminal cases in New York City\nfrom 2009 through 2014 charging resisting arrest show that 5% of officers account for\n40% of resisting arrest charges and 15% of officers account for nearly 75% of such cases\nand 60% of officers made arrests while never charging resisting arrest, evincing, among\nother things, the violent nature of only certain officers, including the named offers\nherein.\n\n36. Said practice and procedure of falsely arresting innocent persons on such charges\nas disorderly conduct is well evidence by defendants\u2019 own compstat tabulations, as well\nas those of the district attorney, the civilian complaint review board and the bureau of\ninternal affairs, and, as a small sample, has befallen such innocent persons as Benetio\nMyton on March 30, 2010, Eshawn Sutton on August 17, 2010, Louise Sanders on April\n17, 2012, LUIS JOSE BATISTA, MAYELIN RIVAS BERRAS, YOKAILA JIMENEZ,\nGABRIEL MARTINEZ, FRENNY PEGUERO, DIOGENES PENA-BRITO, JONATHAN\nFERNANDEZ and VICTOR DEJESUS on June 2, 2013, YORAYDISON RAMIREZ on\nSeptember 21, 2014, as was EMILY MEDINA on August 21, 2014 and a significant\nnumber of other similarly situated individuals whom defendants are necessarily aware\nof by virtue of the claims, causes of action and complaints brought against defendants\n\n11 of 22"},{"page_number":12,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2020 04:05 PM\nINDEX NO. 20153/2020E\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2020\n\nin both state and federal courts and through CITY OR NEW YORK agencies and\ndepartments and their own COMPSTAT and statistical tabulations of the same.\n37. That no negligence or actions on the part of the Plaintiffs contributed to the\noccurrences alleged herein in any manner whatsoever.\n38. The herein above described actions and omissions, engaged in under the color\nof law by the defendants, including the CITY OF NEW YORK, sued as a person within\nthe meaning of Title 42 U.S.C. 1983, et seq., by policy, institutionalized procedure and\nact, deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United\nStates, including, but not limited to the First Amendment right of freedom of\nexpression, the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unlawful seizures of their\nperson, the Fifth Amendment rights of due process of law and to equal protection of the\nlaws, including the right to be free from unjustified confinement utilized by the police,\nthe Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and under\nTitle 42 U.S.C. 1983, et seq.\n39. That this cause of action falls within one or more of the exceptions as set forth in\nCPLR Section 1602.\n\n12 of 22"},{"page_number":13,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2020 04:05 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20153/2020E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2020\n\n40. That as a result of the foregoing, the Plaintiffs CHRISTINA ROSAS, JOSHUA ROSAS and ELYSE TORRES were damaged in sums which exceed the jurisdiction of all lower Courts.\n\nAS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS CHRISTINA ROSAS, JOSHUA ROSAS and ELYSE TORRES\n\n41. That Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs enumerated 1 through 40 as though more fully set forth herein.\n\n42. That on January 7, 2019 and within 90 days after the claims herein sued upon plaintiffs CHRISTINA ROSAS, JOSHUA ROSAS and ELYSE TORRES caused Notices of Claim, sworn to by or on behalf of the claimants, to be presented to the defendant CITY OF NEW YORK, by presenting copies thereof to the offices of the defendant CITY OF NEW YORK, which said Notices of Claim set forth the name and post office addresses of the claimants and claimants\u2019 attorney, the nature of the claims, the time when, the place where, and the manner in which the claim arose and items of damages or injuries claimed to have been sustained, so far as then practicable.\n\n13 of 22"},{"page_number":14,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2020 04:05 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20153/2020E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2020\n\n43. At least thirty (30) days have elapsed prior to the commencement of this action\nsince the service of such Notices of Claim as aforesaid and adjustment of payment\nthereof has been neglected or refused by the defendant\n\n44. Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK did demand, and Plaintiffs CHRISTINA\nROSAS, JOSHUA ROSAS and ELYSE TORRES did testify at General Municipal Law\n\u00a750(h) hearings on May 8, 2019.\n\n45. That this action is being commenced within one year and ninety days after\naccrual of these causes of action, or within the time allowed by law.\n\n46. That on or about October 10, 2018 at approximately 8:15 A.M., at and in front of\n951 East 180th Street, Bronx, New York, the Plaintiffs CHRISTINA ROSAS, JOSHUA\nROSAS and ELYSE TORRES were improperly arrested, and confined without warrant,\nproper authority, privilege or justification, having no reason in law or in fact to arrest or\nconfine CHRISTINA ROSAS, JOSHUA ROSAS and ELYSE TORRES.\n\n47. That the Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees arrested and\nconfined the Plaintiffs without any basis in law or fact and without reasonable, probable\nor just cause or justification.\n\n48. That the Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees arrested the\nPlaintiffs without any basis in law or fact, by making false accusations against them,\n\n14 of 22"},{"page_number":15,"text":"when they knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known they were\nfalse.\n49. That the Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees unlawfully\narrested, detained, imprisoned and searched the Plaintiffs and took their property\nwithout any basis in law or fact, and Plaintiffs being aware of their unlawful\nconfinement, were thereby caused fright, shock, emotional distress and physical\nconsequences.\n50. That no negligence or actions on the part of the Plaintiffs contributed to the\noccurrences alleged herein in any manner whatsoever.\n51. That this cause of action falls within one or more of the exceptions as set forth in\nCPLR Section 1602.\n52. That as a result of the foregoing, the Plaintiffs CHRISTINA ROSAS, JOSHUA\nROSAS and ELYSE TORRES were damaged in sums which exceed the jurisdiction of all\nlower Courts.\nAS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF THE\nPLAINTIFFS CHRISTINA ROSAS, JOSHUA ROSAS and ELYSE TORRES\n15 of 22"},{"page_number":16,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2020 04:05 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20153/2020E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2020\n\n53. That Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and reallege each and every allegation contained\nin paragraphs enumerated 1 through 52 as though more fully set forth herein.\n\n54. That Plaintiffs CHRISTINA ROSAS, JOSHUA ROSAS and ELYSE TORRES were\nsubjected to unwanted touching, including but not limited to forcefully being\nunlawfully detained, including the use of physical restraints, which constituted assaults\nand battery upon Plaintiffs.\n\n55. That during their unlawful arrests, Plaintiffs were subjected to unjustified\nexcessive force utilized by the Defendants.\n\n56. That no negligence or actions on the part of the Plaintiffs contributed to the\noccurrences alleged herein in any manner whatsoever.\n\n57. That this cause of action falls within one or more of the exceptions as set forth in\nCPLR Section 1602.\n\n58. That as a result of the foregoing, the plaintiffs CHRISTINA ROSAS, JOSHUA\nROSAS and ELYSE TORRES were damaged in sums which exceed the jurisdiction of all\nlower Courts.\n\nAS AND FOR A FORTH CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF THE\nPLAINTIFF ELYSE TORRES\n\n16 of 22"},{"page_number":17,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2020 04:05 PM\nINDEX NO. 20153/2020E\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2020\n\n59. That Plaintiff ELYSE TORRES repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every\nallegation contained in paragraphs enumerated 1 through 58 as though more fully set\nforth herein.\n\n60. That on May 1, 2019, and within 90 days after the claim for Malicious\nProsecution herein sued upon, plaintiff ELYSE TORRES caused a Notice of Claim,\nsworn to by or on behalf of the claimant, to be presented to the defendant CITY OF\nNEW YORK, by presenting a copy thereof to the offices of the defendant CITY OF NEW\nYORK, which said Notice of Claim set forth the name and post office addresses of the\nclaimant and claimant\u2019s attorney, the nature of the claims, the time when, the place\nwhere, and the manner in which the claim arose and items of damages or injuries\nclaimed to have been sustained, so far as then practicable.\n\n61. At least thirty (30) days have elapsed prior to the commencement of this action\nsince the service of such Notice of Claim as aforesaid and adjustment of payment\nthereof has been neglected or refused by the defendant\n\n62. Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK did demand, and Plaintiff ELYSE TORRES did\ntestify at a General Municipal Law \u00a750(h) hearing on May 8, 2019.\n\n63. That this action is being commenced within one year and ninety days after\naccrual of these causes of action, or within the time allowed by law.\n\n17 of 22"},{"page_number":18,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2020 04:05 PM\nINDEX NO. 20153/2020E\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2020\n\n64. That the Defendants P.O. GREGORY SMITH and/or OFFICERS JOHN AND\nJAMES DOE, did knowingly and maliciously provide false information to the\nprosecutor of the criminal action against Plaintiff thereby causing her to suffer an unjust\nprosecution initiated without probable cause that the prosecution would succeed.\n\n65. That Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees continued to\nprosecute Plaintiff ELYSE TORRES, after they knew, or should have known, that she\ninnocent of all charges being alleged against her.\n\n66. The commencement of the criminal proceedings, which were designated by\nSummons number 4442613621 and Docket No. 2018SX025247, in the Criminal Court of\nthe City of New York, Bronx County, was malicious and begun in malice and without\nprobable cause that the proceedings could succeed by the Defendants.\n\n67. That all criminal charges brought against plaintiff ELYSE TORRES, regarding the\nincidents of October 10, 2018, were dismissed by a Judge of said court on April 19, 2019,\nand the criminal proceedings were terminated in Plaintiff ELYSE TORRES\u2019 favor.\n\n68. That by reason of the aforementioned, the Defendants actions amounted to\nmalicious prosecution of ELYSE TORRES.\n\n18 of 22"},{"page_number":19,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2020 04:05 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20153/2020E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2020\n\n69. As a result of the malicious prosecution, Plaintiff ELYSE TORRES suffered the\nhumiliation, mental anguish, indignity and frustration of an unjust criminal\nprosecution, and was otherwise damaged and injured.\n\n70. That no negligence or actions on the part of the Plaintiff contributed to the\noccurrences alleged herein in any manner whatsoever.\n\n71. That this cause of action falls within one or more of the exceptions as set forth in\nCPLR Section 1602.\n\n72. That as a result of the foregoing, the Plaintiff ELYSE TORRES was damaged in a\nsum which exceeds the jurisdiction of all lower Courts.\n\nAS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF THE\nPLAINTIFFS CHRISTINA ROSAS, JOSHUA ROSAS and ELYSE TORRES\n\n73. That Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and reallege each and every allegation contained\nin paragraphs enumerated 1 through 72 as though more fully set forth herein.\n\n74. That the Defendants carelessly, recklessly and negligently failed to properly\ninterview, hire, select, train, manage, supervise and control its employees, agents, and /\nor servants and negligently retained its employees, agents, and / or servants.\n\n19 of 22"},{"page_number":20,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2020 04:05 PM\nINDEX NO. 20153/2020E\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2020\n\n75. That the Defendants carelessly, recklessly and negligently failed to properly\ninterview, hire, select, train, manage, supervise and control its employees, agents, and /\nor servants and negligently retained its employees, agents, and / or servants in the\nproper conducting of the arrest of individuals and in the proper use of force.\n\n76. That solely by reason of the aforesaid occurrence, and as a direct and proximate\nresult of the Defendants\u2019 negligence, Plaintiffs were denied freedom and rights under\nthe federal and state constitutions and received great and severe injuries with\naccompanying physical and mental pain and suffering; that the Plaintiffs were made,\nand still will continue to be sick, sore, lame and disabled and sustained other injuries,\nboth internal and external, all of which, upon information and belief, will be permanent;\nthat it was necessary and will be so in the future, to incur medical expenses for the care,\ntreatment and attention of the plaintiffs and for the purchase of drugs and medicines,\nand that Plaintiffs were and in the future will be prevented from attending to Plaintiffs\u2019\nusual vocation and avocations; all to the Plaintiffs\u2019 damages in sums which exceeds the\njurisdiction of all lower Courts.\n\n77. That this cause of action falls within one or more of the exceptions as set forth in\nCPLR Section 1602.\n\nWHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants on the First,\n\n20 of 22"},{"page_number":21,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2020 04:05 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20153/2020E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2020\n\nSecond, Third, Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action, inclusive of punitive damages, and\nattorneys fees as permitted by statute, all in sums which exceeds the jurisdiction of all\nlower Courts, together with the costs and disbursements of this action.\n\nDated: Bronx, N.Y.\nJanuary 3, 2020\n\nBy: JONATHAN L. GLEIT, ESQ.\nAttorney for Plaintiffs\nCHRISTINA ROSAS, JOSHUA\nROSAS and ELYSE TORRES\n888 Grand Concourse\nSuite 1-O\nBronx, NY 10451\n(718) 742-0200\n\nTo:\n\nCITY OF NEW YORK\nCORPORATION COUNSEL\n100 Church Street - Law Dept.\n4th Floor,\nNew York, New York 10007\n\nP.O. Gregory Smith, Shield 06377 of the 48th Precinct\n450 Cross Bronx Expressway, Bronx, NY 10457\n\n21 of 22"},{"page_number":22,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2020 04:05 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20153/2020E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2020\n\nPLAINTIFF\u2019S VERIFICATION\n\nCHRISTINA ROSAS affirms the following to be true under the penalties of perjury:\n\nI am the Plaintiff in the within action and have read the annexed\nComplaint\n\nand know the contents thereof, and the same are true to my knowledge, except those matters\ntherein which are stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters I\nbelieve them to be true. My belief, as to those matters therein not stated upon knowledge, is\nbased upon personal knowledge, facts, records, and other pertinent information contained in\nmy files.\n\nDATED: BRONX, N.Y.\n\nCHRISTINA ROSAS\n\n22 of 22"}],"total_cost_usd":0.06761295,"total_elapsed_seconds":54.47587299999999},{"case_id":"dejesus_luis","comparison":{"additional_findings":{"allegations":["Malicious prosecution"],"defendant_types":["Individual Police Officer","City of New York"],"force_types":[],"locations":[],"officers":["john does"],"themes":[]},"matches":{"allegations":["False arrest/False imprisonment"],"defendant_types":["NYPD"],"force_types":["Non-weapon physical force"],"locations":["Street"],"officers":["jorge monge"],"themes":[]},"misses":{"allegations":["Violation of equal protection","Other","Intentional infliction of emotional distress"],"defendant_types":[],"force_types":[],"locations":[],"officers":[],"themes":["Unknown"]},"scores":{"gt_coverage":0.5555555555555556,"recall":0.5555555555555556,"total_additional":4,"total_gt_items":9,"total_matched":5}},"cost_per_page":0.0033132775,"extract_usage":{"input_tokens":7352,"output_tokens":1379},"extraction":{"allegations":[{"provenance":{"page_number":4,"paragraph":"First cause of action for false arrest and imprisonment","source_text":"Defendants P.O. Monge and Officers intended to cause the arrest, seizure and imprisonment of Plaintiff without a lawful warrant and without probable cause. (Paragraph 23, Page 4)"},"type":"False arrest/False imprisonment"},{"provenance":{"page_number":3,"paragraph":"Background allegations","source_text":"Said prosecution was instituted with malice and bad faith and deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs rights. (Paragraph 18, Page 3)"},"type":"Malicious prosecution"}],"county":{"name":"Bronx","provenance":{"page_number":1,"source_text":"SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX"}},"defendant_types":[{"provenance":{"page_number":2,"source_text":"POLICE OFFICER JORGE MONGE, of the 52nd Precinct"},"type":"NYPD"},{"provenance":{"page_number":2,"source_text":"POLICE OFFICER JORGE MONGE"},"type":"Individual Police Officer"},{"provenance":{"page_number":1,"source_text":"THE CITY OF NEW YORK"},"type":"City of New York"}],"extraction_confidence":{"notes":"","overall":"high"},"force_types":[{"provenance":{"page_number":3,"paragraph":"Background allegations","source_text":"During the ARREST, Defendants assaulted and battered Plaintiff. (Paragraph 16, Page 3)"},"type":"Non-weapon physical force"}],"incident_locations":[{"location_type":"Street","precinct":"52nd Precinct","provenance":{"page_number":3,"paragraph":"Background allegations","source_text":"On or about June 17, 2017 at or 301 East 193rd Street, County of Bronx, City and State of New York at, Plaintiff was arrested without probable cause. (Paragraph 15, Page 3)"},"specific_address":"301 East 193rd Street"}],"injuries":[{"description":"significant, severe, painful and permanent personal injuries, physical injuries, psychological and emotional suffering","provenance":{"page_number":3,"paragraph":"Background allegations","source_text":"As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff was caused to suffer significant, severe, painful and permanent personal injuries, physical injuries, psychological and emotional suffering. (Paragraph 21, Page 3)"},"severity":"serious"}],"key_dates":[{"date":"2017-06-17","event":"Arrest of Luis DeJesus","provenance":{"page_number":3,"paragraph":"Background allegations","source_text":"On or about June 17, 2017 at or 301 East 193rd Street"}},{"date":"2017-07-26","event":"Notice of Claim filed","provenance":{"page_number":2,"paragraph":"Procedural background","source_text":"Plaintiff filed a Notice of Claim in accordance with General Municipal Law Sections 50(e) on or about July 26, 2017."}}],"officers":[{"badge_number":"","name":"Jorge Monge","precinct":"52nd Precinct","provenance":{"page_number":2,"paragraph":"Defendant information","source_text":"POLICE OFFICER JORGE MONGE, of the 52nd Precinct"},"rank":"","tax_id":""},{"badge_number":"","name":"John Does","precinct":"","provenance":{"page_number":1,"paragraph":"Defendant information","source_text":"POLICE OFFICERS 'JOHN DOES', persons employed by New York City Police Department"},"rank":"","tax_id":""}],"plaintiffs":[{"name":"Luis DeJesus","provenance":{"page_number":1,"paragraph":"Case caption","source_text":"LUIS DEJESUS, Plaintiff"},"relationship":"Plaintiff"}],"summary":{"provenance":{"key_sources":["Paragraphs 15-21, Page 3","Paragraphs 22-29, Page 4"],"pages_referenced":[3,4]},"text":"On June 17, 2017, Luis DeJesus was arrested without probable cause by New York City Police Department officers, including Officer Jorge Monge, at 301 East 193rd Street in the Bronx. During the arrest, DeJesus was assaulted and battered by the officers. He was subsequently prosecuted without probable cause, leading to his incarceration for approximately two days. DeJesus sustained significant personal injuries, physical and emotional suffering, humiliation, and embarrassment."},"themes":[]},"extraction_elapsed_seconds":5.924958,"extraction_model":"llama4-scout","method":"two_step","num_pages":12,"ocr_elapsed_seconds":32.56401,"ocr_model":"qwen3-vl-235b","ocr_text_length":21458,"ocr_usage":{"estimated_cost_usd":0.037599350000000004,"images":12,"input_tokens":42967,"output_tokens":5574},"pages":[{"page_number":1,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 11:16 AM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20071/2018E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nCOUNTY OF BRONX\n--------------------------------------------------X\nLUIS DEJESUS,\nPlaintiff,\n-against-\nTHE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY\nPOLICE DEPARTMENT, THE NEW YORK CITY\nPOLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW\nYORK, POLICE OFFICER JORGE MONGE AND\nPOLICE OFFICERS \u201cJOHN DOES\u201d, persons employed\nby New York City Police Department\nDefendants.\n--------------------------------------------------X\n\nSUMMONS\n\nPlaintiff designates BRONX\nCounty as the place of trial.\n\nThe basis of venue is:\nPlace of Occurrence\n\nPlaintiff resides at:\n2971 Marion Avenue\nBronx, N.Y. 10458\nCounty of BRONX\n\nTo the above named Defendant(s):\n\nYou are hereby summoned to answer the complaint in this action, and to serve a copy of\nyour answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance\non the plaintiff\u2019s attorneys within twenty days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the\nday of service, where service is made by delivery upon you personally within the state, or, within\n30 days after completion of service where service is made in any other manner. In case of your\nfailure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded\nin the complaint.\n\nDated: New York, New York\nDecember 28, 2017\n\nJAY H. TANENBAUM, Attorney\nLAW OFFICES OF JAY H. TANENBAUM\nAttorney for Plaintiff\n14 Wall Street \u2013 Suite 5F\nNew York, New York 10005\n(212) 422-1765\nOur File # 555-17J-0039\n\nTO:\nNEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT\nOne Police Plaza\nNew York, NY 10038\n\nTHE CITY OF NEW YORK\n100 Church Street\nNew York, NY 10007\n\nPolice Officer Jorge Monge\n52nd Precinct\n3016 Webster Avenue\nBronx, New York 10467\n\n1 of 12"},{"page_number":2,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 11:16 AM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20071/2018E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nCOUNTY OF BRONX\n--------------------------------------------------X\nLUIS DEJESUS,                                      VERIFIED COMPLAINT\nPlaintiff,\nIndex No.:\nDate Purchased:\n-against-\nTHE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY\nPOLICE DEPARTMENT, THE NEW YORK CITY\nPOLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW\nYORK, POLICE OFFICER JORGE MONGE AND\nPOLICE OFFICERS \u201cJOHN DOES\u201d, persons employed\nby New York City Police Department\nDefendants.\n--------------------------------------------------X\n\nLUIS DEJESUS (hereinafter the \"Plaintiff), by his attorney, LAW OFFICES OF\nJAY H. TANENBAUM, complaining against Defendants CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK\nCITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, POLICE OFFICER JORGE MONGE and NEW YORK CITY\nPOLICE OFFICERS \"JOHN DOES, PERSONS EMPLOYED BY NEW YORK CITY POLICE\nDEPARTMENT (hereinafter collectively \"Defendants\") upon information and belief, alleges\nas follows:\n\n1. That at all pertinent times, Plaintiff was and is a resident of the County of\nBronx, City and State of New York.\n\n2. That at all pertinent times, Defendant City of New York (hereinafter \"CITY\")\nwas and is a municipal corporation incorporated under the laws of New York State.\n\n3. That at all pertinent times, Defendant New York City Police Department\n(hereinafter \"NYPD\") was and is an agency of Defendant CITY.\n\n4. That at all pertinent times, Defendant POLICE OFFICER JORE MONGE, of\nthe 52nd Precinct (hereinafter \"P.O. Monge\") was and is an employee of Defendant CITY.\n\n5. That at all pertinent times, Defendant Monge was and is an employee of\nDefendant NYPD.\n\n2\n2 of 12"},{"page_number":3,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 11:16 AM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20071/2018E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018\n\n6. That at all pertinent times, Defendants \"John Does \" (hereinafter the \"Officers\")\nwere and are employees of Defendant NYPD.\n\n7. That at all pertinent times, Defendant Officers were and are employees of\nDefendant CITY.\n\n8. That at all pertinent times, Defendant CITY operated, and presently operates\nDefendant NYPD.\n\n9. That at all pertinent times, Defendant CITY controlled, and presently\ncontrols Defendant NYPD.\n\n10. That at all pertinent times, Defendant CITY managed, and presently\nmanages Defendant NYPD.\n\n11. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Claim in accordance with General Municipal Law\nSections 50(e) on or about July 26, 2017. The Notice of Claim set forth the name and\naddress of Plaintiff, his attorneys, the nature of the claim, the time and place where it\narose, and the items and amounts of damages claimed.\n\n12. At least thirty (30) days has passed since service of the Notice of Claim, and\npayment of the claim has been either refused or neglected.\n\n13. A hearing was conducted on December 18, 2017, pursuant to General\nMunicipal Law Section50(h).\n\n14. This action is being commenced within one year of the incident which gives\nrise to the action.\n\n15. On or about June 17, 2017 at or 301 East 193rd Street, County of Bronx, City\nand State of New York at, Plaintiff was arrested without probable cause, (hereinafter the\n\"ARREST\").\n\n16. During the ARREST, Defendants assaulted and battered Plaintiff.\n\n17. Thereafter, Defendants commenced a prosecution against Plaintiff without\nprobable cause or justification, causing Plaintiff to be incarcerated for approximately two (2)\n\n3\n3 of 12"},{"page_number":4,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 11:16 AM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20071/2018E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018\n\ndays.\n18. Said prosecution was instituted with malice and bad faith and deliberate\nindifference to Plaintiffs rights. Said action under Docket No. 2017BX 024805 is still pending\nin New York County Criminal Court.\n19. At all times during the ARREST, assault and battery of Plaintiff, Plaintiff was in\nthe custody of Defendants.\n20. That Plaintiff was illegally and improperly arrested, assaulted and battered by\nDefendants through no fault or negligence of his own.\n21. As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff was caused to suffer significant,\nsevere, painful and permanent personal injuries, physical injuries, psychological and emotional\nsuffering, humiliation and embarrassment, all of which continue until this day.\n\nAS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR\nFALSE ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT\n22. The allegations set forth in paragraphs \"1\" through \"21\" inclusive are\nincorporated herein as if fully set forth.\n23. Defendants P.O. Monge and Officers intended to cause the arrest, seizure and\nimprisonment of Plaintiff without a lawful warrant and without probable cause.\n24. Defendants knew, or should have known, that the conduct engaged in would\nresult in the false imprisonment of Plaintiff.\n25. Plaintiff was aware of such confinement and did not consent to said confinement.\n26. The aforementioned confinement was not privileged in any way and was without\nlegal justification.\n27. Defendants CITY and NYPD are responsible and liable for the acts of Defendants\nP.O. Monge and Officers done within the scope of their employment under the doctrine of\nrespondeat superior.\n28. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' false arrest, seizure and\n4\n4 of 12"},{"page_number":5,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 11:16 AM\nINDEX NO. 20071/2018E\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018\n\nimprisonment of Plaintiff, Plaintiff was caused to suffer great pain and mental\nanguish, great humiliation, and further pecuniary damages and legal costs in an\namount that exceeds the jurisdictional limitation of all lower courts and in an\namount to be determined at a trial of this action.\n\n29. The conduct of Defendants set forth above and complained of herein exhibited\nsuch a high degree of moral culpability that it renders Defendants liable to Plaintiff for punitive\ndamages.\n\nAS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR\nASSAULT AND BATTERY\n\n30. The allegations set forth in paragraphs \"1\" through \"29\" inclusive are\nincorporated herein as if fully set forth.\n\n31. Defendants P.O. Monge and Officers intended to make bodily contact with\nPlaintiff.\n\n32. Defendants P.O. Monge and Officers knew, or should have known, that the\nconduct engaged in would result in assault and battery to Plaintiff.\n\n33. Defendants P.O. Monge and Officers did in fact make offensive, bodily contact\nwith Plaintiff.\n\n34. Plaintiff was aware of such bodily contact and did not consent to said bodily\ncontact.\n\n35. The aforesaid bodily contact by Defendants P.O. Monge and Officers against\nPlaintiff was offensive to Plaintiff.\n\n36. Said offensive, bodily contact was extreme and outrageous, which exceeded all\nbounds usually tolerated by a decent society.\n\n37. Defendants CITY and NYPD are responsible and liable for the acts of Defendants\nP.O. Monge and Officers done within the scope of their employment under\nthe doctrine of respondeat superior.\n\n38. As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff was caused to suffer significant,\n\n5\n5 of 12"},{"page_number":6,"text":"severe, painful and permanent personal injuries, physical injuries, psychological and emotional\nsuffering, humiliation and embarrassment, all of which continue until this day in an amount\nthat exceeds the jurisdictional limitation of all lower courts and in an amount to be determined\nat a trial of this action.\n\n39. The conduct of Defendants set forth above and complained of herein exhibited\nsuch a high degree of moral culpability that it renders Defendants liable to Plaintiff for punitive\ndamages.\n\nAS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION\nINTENTIONAL INFLECTION OF EMOTION DISTRESS\n\n40. The allegations set forth in paragraphs \"1\" through \"39\" inclusive are\nincorporated herein as if fully set forth.\n\n41. That Defendants P.O. Monge and Officers intended to make offensive, bodily\ncontact with Plaintiff.\n\n42. That Defendants P.O. Monge and Officers knew, or should have known, that the\nconduct engaged in would result in assault and battery to Plaintiff.\n\n43. That Defendants P.O. Monge and Officers did in fact make offensive, bodily\ncontact with Plaintiff.\n\n44. Said offensive, bodily contact was extreme and outrageous, which exceeded all\nbounds usually tolerated by a decent society.\n\n45. Such extreme and outrageous conduct caused Plaintiff to suffer severe and\ndebilitating mental anguish which had a disabling effect on Plaintiff.\n\n46. Defendants NYC and NYPD are responsible for and liable for the acts of\nDefendants P.O. Monge and Officers done within the scope of their employment through the\ndoctrine of respondeat superior.\n\n47. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' intentional infliction of emotional\ndistress of Plaintiff, Plaintiff was caused to suffer great pain and mental anguish, great\nhumiliation, and further pecuniary damages and legal costs, all to Plaintiffs damages in the\namount which exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of the courts and in an amount to be\n\n6\n6 of 12"},{"page_number":7,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 11:16 AM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20071/2018E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018\n\ndetermined at a trial of this action.\n\n48. That the conduct of Defendants set forth above and complained of herein\nexhibited such a high degree of moral culpability that it renders the Defendants liable to Plaintiff\nfor punitive damages.\n\nAS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION\nFOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, RETENTION AND SUPERVISION\n\n49. The allegations set forth in paragraphs \"1\" through \"48\" inclusive are\nincorporated herein as if fully set forth.\n\n50. That Defendants CITY and NYPD failed to exercise reasonable care in hiring\nDefendants P.O. Monge and Officers; therefore, breaching their duty to Plaintiff as well as to the\npublic to exercise reasonable care in their hiring of employees.\n\n51. That Defendants CITY and NYPD should have known of the propensity of\nDefendants P.O. Monge and Officers to commit injurious acts.\n\n52. That Defendants CITY and NYPD were negligent in failing to properly train and\nsupervise its employees, more specifically Defendants P.O. Monge and Officers.\n\n53. Defendants CITY and NYPD are responsible and liable for the acts of Defendants\nP.O. Monge and Officers done within the scope of their employment under\nthe doctrine of respondeat superior.\n\n54. As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff was caused to suffer significant,\nsevere, painful and permanent personal injuries, physical injuries, psychological and emotional\nsuffering, humiliation and embarrassment, all of which continue until this day in an amount\nthat exceeds the jurisdictional limitation of all lower courts and in an amount to be determined\nat a trial of this action.\n\n7\n7 of 12"},{"page_number":8,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 11:16 AM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20071/2018E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018\n\n55. The conduct of Defendants set forth above and complained of herein exhibited such a high degree of moral culpability that it renders Defendants liable to Plaintiff for punitive damages.\n\nAS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE\n\n56. The allegations set forth in paragraphs \"1\" through \"55\" inclusive are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.\n\n57. Defendants' actions in causing the aforesaid assault, battery, arrest, seizure, imprisonment and malicious prosecution of Plaintiff were in breach of the duty of due care owed to Plaintiff. Officers acted negligently and in disregard for the procedures and safeguards, which are the standard for the arrest and lawful stop of a citizen, in arresting Plaintiff in the absence of reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Officers further breached their duty of care to investigate before affecting the stop and seizure of a citizen and in their continued prosecution of Plaintiff.\n\n58. That Defendants CITY and NYPD are responsible and liable for the acts of Defendants P.O. Monge and Officers done within the scope of their employment under the doctrine of respondeat superior.\n\n59. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' negligence, Plaintiff was caused to suffer significant, severe, painful and permanent personal injuries, physical injuries, psychological and emotional suffering, humiliation and embarrassment, all of which continue until this day in an amount that exceeds the jurisdictional limitation of all lower courts and in an amount to be determined at a trial of this action.\n\n60. The conduct of Defendants set forth above and complained of herein exhibited such a high degree of moral culpability that it renders Defendants liable to Plaintiff for punitive damages.\n\nAS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 42 U.S.C. 1983 AND NEW YORK CONSTITUTION\n\n8 of 12\n8"},{"page_number":9,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 11:16 AM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20071/2018E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018\n\n61. The allegations set forth in paragraphs \"1\" through \"60\" inclusive are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.\n\n62. That it was Defendants' governmental policy, practice and/or procedure regarding the use of force, which contributed to and caused the incident to occur and certain U.S Constitutional deprivations to Plaintiff, including the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.\n\n63. That there have been patterns and/or series of incidents of unconstitutional conduct which have caused the use of excessive force in similar instances as herein.\n\n64. That Defendants acted recklessly including a general failure to supervise and a failure to select psychologically fit and properly trained employees, including Defendants P.O. Monge and Officers, to conduct arrests.\n\n65. That Defendants failed to properly and sufficiently train employees including Defendants P.O. Monge and Officers, in the constitutional use of force and failed to adequately supervise the performance of employees, including Defendants P.O. Monge and Officers, to insure those exercising bad judgment in the use of force received corrective training.\n\n66. That Defendants improperly trained employees, including Defendants P.O. Monge and Officers, and that this failure to train was a policy of Defendants, and in deliberate indifference to the rights of persons, including Plaintiff.\n\n67. As a direct result of the aforesaid acts, omissions, and policies of Defendants, under color of State Law, Plaintiff was deprived of his rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed under the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. \u00a71983, including but not limited to the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.\n\n68. As a direct result of the aforesaid acts, omissions, and policies of Defendants, Plaintiff was deprived of his rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed under the New York Constitution including but not limited to, Article 1, Sections 8 and 12.\n\n69. As a direct result of the aforesaid acts, omissions, and policies of Defendants, Plaintiff was deprived of his rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed under New York\n\n9\n9 of 12"},{"page_number":10,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 11:16 AM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20071/2018E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018\n\nCommon Law to be free from false arrest, false imprisonment, assault and battery, and\nmalicious prosecution.\n\n70. As a direct result of the acts, omissions, and policies of Defendants, Defendants\nacted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs constitutional rights in failing to adequately train,\nsupervise, and discipline their employees.\n\n71. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' violations of the United States\nConstitution 42 U.S.C. 1983 and New York Constitution, Plaintiff was caused to suffer great\npain and mental anguish, great humiliation, and further pecuniary damages and legal costs in\nan amount that exceeds the jurisdictional limitation of all lower courts and in an amount to be\ndetermined at a trial of this action.\n\n72. The conduct of Defendants set forth above and complained of herein\nexhibited such a high degree of moral culpability that it renders Defendants liable to Plaintiff for\npunitive damages and for Plaintiffs attorney's fees.\n\nWHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW\nYORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, POLICE OFFICER JORGE MONGE and NEW YORK CITY\nPOLICE OFFICERS \"JOHN DOES\" PERSONS EMPLOYED BY NEW YORK CITY POLICE\nDEPARTMENT individually and collectively, on all causes of action, in an amount which exceeds\nthe jurisdiction limitations of all lower courts and in an amount to be determined at the trial of this\naction, together with all costs and interest, and for such other relief as this Court may deem just\nand proper.\n\nDated: New York, New York\nDecember 28, 2017\n\nLAW OFFICES OF JAY H. TANENBAUM\nAttorney for Plaintiff\n14 Wall Street, Suite 5F\nNew York, New York 10005\n(212) 422-1765\nFile No.: 555-17J-0039\n\n10\n10 of 12"},{"page_number":11,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 11:16 AM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20071/2018E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018\n\nATTORNEY\u2019S VERIFICATION\n\nThe undersigned, an attorney, admitted to practice in the Courts of the State of New York,\nshows:\n\nThat deponent is the attorney of record for the plaintiff(s) in the within action; that deponent\nhas read the foregoing complaint bill of particulars, and knows the contents thereof; that the same\nis true to deponent\u2019s own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon\ninformation and belief, and that as to those matters, deponent believes that to be true. Deponent\nfurther says that the reason this verification is made by deponent and not by plaintiff(s) is that\nplaintiff(s) reside(s) in a county other that in which deponent maintains his offices.\n\nThe grounds for deponent\u2019s belief as to all matters not stated upon his knowledge are\ninvestigations which he has made or has caused to be made concerning the subject matter of this\naction, and statements of parties and/or witnesses made herein.\n\nThe undersigned affirms that the foregoing statements are under the penalties of perjury:\nDated: New York, N.Y.\nSgd./ JAY H. TANENBAUM\n\nINDIVIDUAL VERIFICATION\n\nSTATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF New York )SS:\nLuis DeJesus Being duly sworn, deposes and says:\n\nThat deponent is the plaintiff(s) in the within action; that deponent\nhas read the foregoing complaint bill of particulars, and knows the contents thereof; that the same\nis true except as to those matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to\nthose matters, deponent believes it to be true.\n\nSgd./\n\nSworn to before me this\n2nd day of January, 2018\nJAY H. TANENBAUM\nNotary Public, State of New York\nNo. 02TA6028657\nQualified in New York County\nCommission Expires June 6, 2018\n\n11 of 12"},{"page_number":12,"text":"FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 11:16 AM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 20071/2018E\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018\n\nIndex No.\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nCOUNTY OF BRONX\n\nLUIS DEJESUS,\nPlaintiff(s),\n-against-\nTHE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE NEW YORK CITY\nPOLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, POLICE OFFICER JORGE MONGE AND\nPOLICE OFFICERS \"JOHN DOES\", persons employed by New York City Police Department,\nDefendant(s).\n\nSUMMONS AND COMPLAINT\n\nTO:\nLAW OFFICES OF JAY H. TANENBAUM\nAttorney for Plaintiff\n14 Wall Street - Suite 5F\nNew York, New York 10005\nTel No.: (212) 422-1765\nFax No.: (212) 425-7492\n\nPursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, the undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the\nCourts of New York State, certified that, upon information and belief and reasonable inquiry,\nthe contentions contained in the annexed document are not frivolous.\n\nDated: January 02, 2018\nPrint Signors Name LAW OFFICES OF JAY H. TANENBAUM\n\n12 of 12"}],"total_cost_usd":0.03975933,"total_elapsed_seconds":38.488968},{"case_id":"alexis_rolandedwige","comparison":{"additional_findings":{"allegations":["Monell claim"],"defendant_types":["City of New York"],"force_types":[],"locations":["Precinct"],"officers":[],"themes":[]},"matches":{"allegations":["False arrest/False imprisonment","Excessive force/assault and battery","Malicious prosecution"],"defendant_types":["NYPD"],"force_types":["Non-weapon physical force"],"locations":[],"officers":["fernando espindola"],"themes":[]},"misses":{"allegations":[],"defendant_types":[],"force_types":["Baton/asps/object as weapon"],"locations":["Other"],"officers":[],"themes":["Unknown"]},"scores":{"gt_coverage":0.6666666666666666,"recall":0.6666666666666666,"total_additional":3,"total_gt_items":9,"total_matched":6}},"extraction":{"allegations":[{"provenance":{"page_number":4,"paragraph":"First cause of action","source_text":"On or about June 10, 2014, ... the Defendants jointly and severally in their capacity as police officers, wrongfully touched, grabbed, handcuffed and seized the Plaintiff ROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS, in an excessive manner about his person, causing him physical pain and mental suffering."},"type":"False arrest/False imprisonment"},{"provenance":{"page_number":7,"paragraph":"Second cause of action","source_text":"On or about June 10, 2014, ... the Defendants ... jointly and severally did place Plaintiff ROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS in imminent fear of physical contact by approaching the Plaintiff with their loaded firearms, outstretched limbs and other objects which they used to physically seize, strike and restrain the Plaintiff."},"type":"Malicious prosecution"},{"provenance":{"page_number":9,"paragraph":"Seventh cause of action","source_text":"On or about June 10, 2014, ... the Defendants ... armed police, while effectuating the seizure of Plaintiff ROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS, did search, seize, assault and commit a battery and grab the person of the Plaintiff without a court authorized arrest or search warrant."},"type":"Excessive force/assault and battery"},{"provenance":{"page_number":10,"paragraph":"Seventh cause of action","source_text":"Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK, has grossly failed to train and adequately supervise its police officers in the fundamental law of arrest, search and seizure especially when its police officers are not in possession of a court authorized arrest warrant and where an individual, especially as here, has not committed a crime and has not resisted arrest."},"type":"Monell claim"}],"case_metadata":{"case_name":"ROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS VS THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL.","county_filed":"New York","court":"Supreme Court of the State of New York","docket_number":"150131/2016","filing_date":"2016-04-27","provenance":{"page_number":1,"source_text":"FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/27/2016 10:56 AM"}},"county":{"name":"New York","provenance":{"page_number":3,"source_text":"SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK"}},"defendant_types":[{"provenance":{"page_number":3,"source_text":"NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE FERNANDO ESPINDOLA"},"type":"NYPD"},{"provenance":{"page_number":3,"source_text":"THE CITY OF NEW YORK"},"type":"City of New York"}],"extraction_confidence":{"notes":"","overall":"high"},"force_types":[{"provenance":{"page_number":4,"paragraph":"First cause of action","source_text":"wrongfully touched, grabbed, handcuffed and seized the Plaintiff ROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS, in an excessive manner about his person"},"type":"Non-weapon physical force"}],"incident_locations":[{"location_type":"Precinct","precinct":"New York County Criminal Supreme Court","provenance":{"page_number":4,"paragraph":"Incident location","source_text":"On or about June 10, 2014, New York County Criminal Supreme Court, 100 Centre Street, New York, New York"},"specific_address":"100 Centre Street, New York, New York"}],"injuries":[],"key_dates":[{"date":"2014-06-10","event":"Incident date","provenance":{"page_number":4,"source_text":"On or about June 10, 2014"}},{"date":"2015-08-20","event":"Charges dismissed","provenance":{"page_number":6,"source_text":"until he was released and all charges against him dismissed on August 20, 2015"}}],"officers":[{"badge_number":"6098","name":"Fernando Espindola","provenance":{"page_number":2,"source_text":"DETECTIVE FERNANDO ESPINDOLA, SHIELD NO.: 6098"},"rank":"Detective"}],"plaintiffs":[{"name":"Rolandedwige Alexis","provenance":{"page_number":1,"source_text":"ROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS"}}],"summary":{"provenance":{"key_sources":["Paragraphs 4, 5, 9"],"pages_referenced":[4,5,9]},"text":"On June 10, 2014, Rolandedwige Alexis was allegedly wrongfully touched, grabbed, handcuffed, and seized by Detective Fernando Espindola and other officers at the New York County Criminal Supreme Court. He was falsely arrested, unlawfully imprisoned, and maliciously prosecuted without probable cause. Alexis was held in custody for approximately one year and two months before being released on August 20, 2015, when all charges against him were dismissed."},"themes":[]},"num_pages":15,"ocr_text":"\n--- PAGE 1 ---\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/27/2016 10:56 AM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 13\nINDEX NO. 150131/2016\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/27/2016\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nCOUNTY OF NEW YORK\nROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS.\nPlaintiff(s),\n-against-\nTHE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE\nDEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE FERNANDO ESPINDOLA,\nSHIELD NO.: 6098 and P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #1 AND P.O.\n\u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #2 (the names herein to be fictitious as they\nare currently unknown),\nDefendant(s),\nX\nX\n\nAMENDED\nSUMMONS\n\nIndex No.: 150131/2016\nDate Purchased: 1/7/2016\n\nPlaintiffs designate:\nNew York County as the place\nof trial.\n\nThe basis of venue is:\nPlaintiff\u2019s Residence\n\nPlaintiff resides at:\n279 West 117th Street\nNew York, New York 10026\nCounty of New York\n\nTO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT:\n\nYOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED, to answer the complaint in this action and to serve\na copy of your answer, or if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of\nappearance, on the Plaintiff\u2019s Attorney(s) within 20 days after the service of this summons,\nexclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this summons is\nnot personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to\nappear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the\ncomplaint.\n\nDated: Bronx, New York\nFebruary 18, 2016\n\nMICHAEL BRAVERMAN\nGETZ & BRAVERMAN, P.C.\nAttorneys for Plaintiff(s)\nROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS\n172 East 161st Street\nBronx, New York 10451\n(718) 993-3000\nOur File No.: 8945\n\n1\n1 of 15\n\n--- PAGE 2 ---\nDefendants\u2019 Addresses:\n\nCORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE\nCITY OF NEW YORK\n100 Church Street\nNew York, New York 10007\n\nNEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT\nOne Police Plaza\nNew York, New York 10038\n\nDETECTIVE FERNANDO ESPINDOLA, SHIELD NO.: 6098\nOne Police Plaza\nNew York, New York 10038\n\nP.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #1 AND P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #2\n(the names herein to be fictitious as they are currently\nunknown)\nc/o NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT\nOne Police Plaza\nNew York, New York 10038\n\n2\n2 of 15\n\n--- PAGE 3 ---\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nCOUNTY OF NEW YORK\nIndex No.:\nROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS, Plaintiff(s),\nSUPPLEMENTAL\nVERIFIED COMPLAINT\n-against-\nTHE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE\nDEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE FERNANDO ESPINDOLA,\nSHIELD NO.: 6098 and P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #1 AND P.O.\n\u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #2 (the names herein to be fictitious as they\nare currently unknown),\nDefendant(s),\nROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS. by his attorneys, GETZ & BRAVERMAN, P.C.,\nrespectfully alleges as follows:\nAS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION\n(1) At all times mentioned, Plaintiff ROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS was a resident of\nthe County of New York, City and State of New York.\n(2) At all times mentioned, Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK, was and is a\nmunicipal corporation duly organized and existing by virtue of the Laws of the State of New\nYork.\n(3) Upon information and belief, at all times mentioned, Defendants NEW YORK\nCITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE FERNANDO ESPINDOLA, SHIELD NO.:\n6098 and P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #1 AND P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #2 (the names herein to be\nfictitious as they are currently unknown), were and are police officers of the Defendant City\nof New York, and at all times herein were acting in such capacity as the agents, servants and\nemployees of the Defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK.\n3\n3 of 15\n\n--- PAGE 4 ---\n(4) On or about June 10, 2014, New York County Criminal Supreme Court, 100 Centre Street, New York, New York, County of New York, State of New York the Defendants jointly and severally in their capacity as police officers, wrongfully touched, grabbed, handcuffed and seized the Plaintiff ROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS, in an excessive manner about his person, causing him physical pain and mental suffering. At no time did the Defendants have legal cause to grab, handcuff seize or touch the Plaintiff, nor did the Plaintiff consent to this illegal touching nor was it privileged by law.\n\n(5) On or about June 10, 2014, New York County Criminal Supreme Court, 100 Centre Street, New York, New York, County of New York, State of New York the Defendants DETECTIVE FERNANDO ESPINDOLA, SHIELD NO.: 6098 and P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #1 AND P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #2 (the names herein to be fictitious as they are currently unknown) jointly and severally in his capacity as police officer, wrongfully touched, grabbed, handcuffed and seized the Plaintiff ROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS, in an excessive manner about his person, causing him physical pain and mental suffering. At no time did the Defendants DETECTIVE FERNANDO ESPINDOLA, SHIELD NO.: 6098 and P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #1 AND P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #2 (the names herein to be fictitious as they are currently unknown) have legal cause to grab, handcuff seize or touch the Plaintiff, nor did the Plaintiff consent to this illegal touching nor was it privileged by law. At no time did the Defendants DETECTIVE FERNANDO ESPINDOLA, SHIELD NO.: 6098 and P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #1 AND P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #2 (the names herein to be fictitious as they are currently unknown) arrest Plaintiff ROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS.\n\n4\n4 of 15\n\n--- PAGE 5 ---\nAS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION\n\n(6) Plaintiffs repeats, reiterates and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in Paragraphs \"1\" through \"5\" with full force and effect as though set forth at length herein.\n\n(7) On or about June 10, 2014, New York County Criminal Supreme Court, 100 Centre Street, New York, New York, County of New York, State of New York the Defendants and DETECTIVE FERNANDO ESPINDOLA, SHIELD NO.: 6098, P.O. \"JOHN DOE\" #1 AND P.O. \"JOHN DOE\" #2 (the names herein to be fictitious as they are currently unknown) jointly and severally did place Plaintiff ROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS in imminent fear of physical contact by approaching the Plaintiff with their loaded firearms, outstretched limbs and other objects which they used to physically seize, strike and restrain the Plaintiff. All of the above actions placed the Plaintiff in imminent fear of physical contact. At no time did the Plaintiff consent to the unlawful actions of the Defendants.\n\nAS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION\n\n(8) Plaintiffs repeats, reiterates and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in Paragraphs \"1\" through \"7\" with full force and effect as though set forth at length herein.\n\n(9) On or June 10, 2014, New York County Criminal Supreme Court, 100 Centre Street, New York, New York, County of New York, State of New York the Defendants THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE FERNANDO ESPINDOLA, SHIELD NO.: 6098 and P.O. \"JOHN DOE\" #1 AND P.O. \"JOHN DOE\" #2 (the names herein to be fictitious as they are currently unknown), jointly and severally with an warrant, order or other legal process as they misidentified and accused the plaintiff falsely, wrongfully and unlawfully then arrested the Plaintiff, restrained him and his\n\n5\n5 of 15\n\n--- PAGE 6 ---\nliberty and then took him into custody to a police station in the County of New York, and there\ncharged him with the crimes on Docket No.: 2014NY02373 The Plaintiff was thereafter held in\ncustody over the course of approximately one (1) year and two (2) months without probable\ncause until he was released and all charges against him dismissed on August 20, 2015. The\nDefendants intentionally confined the Plaintiff without his consent and the confinement was not\notherwise privileged by law and, at all times, the Plaintiff was conscious of his confinement and\nhad requested multiple explanations and/or an appeal to the Warden of the New York City\nDepartment of Corrections while in the one (1) year and two (2) months of his confinement.\n\nAS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION\n\n(10) Plaintiffs repeats, reiterates and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in\nParagraphs \"1\" through \"9\" with full force and effect as though set forth at length herein.\n\n(11) On or June 10, 2014, New York County Criminal Supreme Court, 100 Centre\nStreet, New York, New York, County of New York, State of New York the Defendants, jointly\nand severally without any valid warrant, order or other legal process and without any legal right,\nwrongfully and unlawfully imprisoned the Plaintiff, restrained him and his liberty and then took\nhim into custody and causing him to be incarcerated as a detainee in the City of New York\u2019s\nCorrectional Facility. The Plaintiff was thereafter held in custody over the course of\napproximately one (1) year and two (2) months before he was released. The Defendants\nintentionally confined the Plaintiff without his consent and the confinement was not otherwise\nprivileged by law and at all times, the Plaintiff was conscious of his confinement.\n\n6\n6 of 15\n\n--- PAGE 7 ---\nAS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION\n\n(12) Plaintiffs repeats, reiterates and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in Paragraphs \"1\" through \"11\" with full force and effect as though set forth at length herein.\n\n(13) Upon information and belief, on or about June 10, 2014 and from that time until the dismissal of charges on or about August 20, 2015 which was a favorable termination for the accused by the Honorable Judge presiding at, New York County Supreme Court, Defendants THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE FERNANDO ESPINDOLA, SHIELD NO.: 6098 and P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #1 AND P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #2 (the names herein to be fictitious as they are currently unknown), an innocent male without any probable cause whatsoever, by filing or causing a criminal court complaint to be filed in the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County, for the purpose of falsely accusing the plaintiff of violations of the criminal laws of the State of New York.\n\n(14) The Defendants, jointly and severally, their agents, servants or employees failed to take reasonable steps to stop the prosecution of the Plaintiff and instead maliciously and deliberately provided false and/or incomplete information to the District Attorney\u2019s office to induce prosecution of the Plaintiff and due to the absence of probable cause malice can be inferred.\n\n(15) The commencement of these criminal proceedings was malicious and began in malice and without probable cause, so that the proceedings could succeed by the Defendants.\n\n7\n7 of 15\n\n--- PAGE 8 ---\n(16) As a result of the malicious prosecution, Plaintiff was deprived of his liberty and suffered the humiliation, mental anguish, indignity and frustration of an unjust criminal prosecution. The Plaintiff made multiple request to the Warden for a court appearance and/or appeals to defend his liberty against these unjust charges.\n\nAS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION\n(This Cause of Action only applies against the Individually named Police Officers not the City of New York or officers sued in their official capacity)\n\n(17) Plaintiffs repeats, reiterates and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in Paragraphs \u201c1\" through \u201c16\" with full force and effect as though set forth at length herein.\n\n(18) Defendants DETECTIVE FERNANDO ESPINDOLA, SHIELD NO.: 6098, P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #1 AND P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #2 (the names herein to be fictitious as they are currently unknown), were at all times relevant, duly appointed and acting officers of the City of New York Police Department.\n\n(19) At all times mentioned herein, said police officers were acting under color of law, to wit: the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies and customs and usage of the State of New York and/or City of New York.\n\n(20) Plaintiff ROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS is and at all times relevant herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of Bronx County in the State of New York and brings this cause of action pursuant to 42 United States Code, Section 1983 and 42 United States Code, Section 1988.\n\n(21) The Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK is a municipality duly incorporated under the laws of the State of New York.\n\n8\n8 of 15\n\n--- PAGE 9 ---\n(22) On or about June 10, 2014, the Defendants, armed police, while effectuating the seizure of Plaintiff ROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS, did search, seize, assault and commit a battery and grab the person of the Plaintiff without a court authorized arrest or search warrant. They did physically seize the person of the Plaintiff during the arrest process in an unlawful and excessive manner. The Plaintiff was falsely arrested, unlawfully imprisoned and maliciously prosecuted without the Defendants possessing probable cause to do so.\n\n(22) The above action of the Defendants resulted in the Plaintiff being deprived of the following rights under the United States Constitution:\na. Freedom from assault to his person;\nb. Freedom from battery to his person;\nc. Freedom from illegal search and seizure;\nd. Freedom from false arrest;\ne. Freedom from malicious prosecution;\nf. Freedom from the use of excessive force during the arrest process;\ng. Freedom from unlawful imprisonment.\n\n(23) The Defendants subjected the Plaintiff to such deprivations, either in a malicious or reckless disregard of the Plaintiff\u2019s rights or with deliberate indifference to those rights under the fourth and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution.\n\nAS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION\n\n(24) Plaintiffs repeats, reiterates and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in Paragraphs \u201c1\u201d through \u201c23\u201d with full force and effect as though set forth at length herein. (This Cause of Action applies to the City of New York and the officer sued in their official capacity should be characterized as a \u201cMonell\u201d claim.)\n9\n9 of 15\n\n--- PAGE 10 ---\n(25) Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK, has grossly failed to train and adequately supervise its police officers in the fundamental law of arrest, search and seizure especially when its police officers are not in possession of a court authorized arrest warrant and where an individual, especially as here, has not committed a crime and has not resisted arrest, that its police officers should only use reasonable force to effectuate an arrest and the arrest should be based on probable cause.\n\n(26) THE CITY OF NEW YORK was negligent by failing to implement a policy with its Police Department and instruct police officers who, absent the consent of the Plaintiff(or similarly situated individuals) or without the possession of a court authorized arrest and/or search warrant, said police officers of the City of New York are not to arrest individuals such as the Plaintiff here where probable cause is lacking and the use of force should only be reasonable when an individual resists arrest and should be used where a criminal defendant is not resisting arrest.\n\n(27) THE CITY OF NEW YORK is negligent due to its failure to implement a policy with its Police Department or actively enforce the law, if any of the following are lacking:\n\n1. Probable cause must be present before an individual such as the Plaintiff herein can be arrested.\n\n2. Excessive force cannot be used against an individual who does not physically resist arrest.\n\n3. An individual who sustains physical injury at the hands of the police during the arrest process should receive prompt medical attention.\n\n10\n10 of 15\n\n--- PAGE 11 ---\n4. An individual such as the Plaintiff herein cannot be subjected to a strip search with cavity inspection unless the police possess legal cause and/or have a reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause that the plaintiff has secreted contraband in or on his person.\n\n(28) The foregoing acts, omissions and systemic failures are customs and policies of the CITY OF NEW YORK which caused the police officers to falsely arrest, maliciously prosecute, seize illegally and search the Plaintiff commit an assault/battery to his person and denied his prompt medical attention under the belief that they would suffer no disciplinary actions for their failure to take proper or prudent steps in this case.\n\n(29) Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK was negligent in that prior to and at the time of the acts complained of herein, due to the prior history of the Police Officers Defendants, knew or should have known of the bad disposition of said Defendants or had knowledge of facts that would put a reasonably prudent employer on inquiry concerning their bad disposition and the fact that these officers were not suitable to be hired and employed by the CITY OF NEW YORK and that due to their lack of training, these officers should have had adequate supervision so that they would not arrest innocent individuals nor use excessive force during the arrest process.\n\n(30) The City of New York\u2019s (herein as \u201cCity\u201d) failure to train its police officers to distinguish between individuals who are lessee\u2019s and/or reside at the apartment of sufficient length of time as evidenced by utility bills in their name, letters/mail addressed to them at the residence and/or magazine subscriptions, etc as opposed to individuals who are mere guests and/or visitors who do not have the right to exercise dominion and control over the residence as evidenced by their not having any furniture in the apartment, their name on the lease, their name on a utility bill or mail addressed to them are all factors that the City in the past has ignored. As\n\n11\n\n11 of 15\n\n--- PAGE 12 ---\nthese same fact patterns have come up over the past twenty-five (25) years with alarming\nfrequency as evidenced by past notice of claims that the firm has filed with the City of New\nYork in the past on multiple occasions sufficient to demonstrate a pattern by the City\u2019s police\nofficers of continued violations of individuals similarly situated to the Plaintiff. The pattern\ndemonstrates that either a defacto policy/custom exists to allow this behavior by failing to\ndiscipline its officers or this is a custom of its police officers who have no and/or sufficient\ntraining and/or no proper supervision and/or disciplinary penalties assessed against them for\ncontinued acting in an unconstitutional manner. The Plaintiff\u2019s counsel has approximately thirty-\ntwo (32) Notice of Claims spanning approximately 10 years to demonstrate a pattern practice\nand custom of deliberate indifference by the City. In the past, this represents at least a de facto\npolicy by the City of New York in countenancing unconstitutional behavior, by not disciplining\nand/or not properly supervising/training its individual police officers in the proper procedure of\narresting or not arresting individuals who may be merely present at an apartment.\nWHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgement against the Defendants, together with the\ncosts and disbursements of this action in the amount of damages greater than the jurisdictional\nlimit of any lower court where otherwise have jurisdiction, together with attorneys\u2019 fees and\ncosts for bringing this case and punitive damages.\nDated: Bronx, New York\nFebruary 18, 2016\n12\n12 of 15\n\n--- PAGE 13 ---\nYours etc.,\n\nMICHAEL BRAVERMAN, ESQ.\nGETZ & BRAVERMAN, P.C.\nAttorney for Plaintiff(s)\nROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS\n172 East 161st Street\nBronx, New York 10451\n(718) 993-3000\nOur File No.: 8945\n\n13\n13 of 15\n\n--- PAGE 14 ---\nATTORNEY'S VERIFICATION BY AFFIRMATION\nMICHAEL BRAVERMAN, an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts of the\nState of New York, affirms the following to be true under the penalties of perjury:\nI am an attorney at GETZ & BRAVERMAN, P.C., attorneys of record for Plaintiff(s),\nROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS. I have read the annexed AMENDED SUMMONS AND\nSUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT and know the contents thereof, and the same are true to my\nknowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged upon information and belief,\nand as to those matters I believe them to be true. My belief, as to those matters therein not stated\nupon knowledge, is based upon facts, records, and other pertinent information contained in my files.\nI make the foregoing affirmation because Plaintiff(s) is/are not presently in the county\nwherein I maintain my offices.\nDated: Bronx, New York\nFebruary 18, 2016\nMichael Braverman, Esq.\n14 of 15\n\n--- PAGE 15 ---\nIndex No. 150131/2016\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nCOUNTY OF NEW YORK\nROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS,\nPlaintiff(s),\n- against -\nTHE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE\nFERNANDO ESPINDOLA, SHIELD NO.: 6098 and P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #1 AND P.O. \u201cJOHN\nDOE\u201d #2 (the names herein to be fictitious as they are currently unknown),\nDefendant(s).\nAMENDED SUMMONS WITH SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT\nGETZ & BRAVERMAN, P.C.\nAttorneys for\n172 East 161st Street\nBronx, New York 10451\n(718) 993-3000\n15 of 15","ocr_text_length":20389,"pages":[{"page_number":1,"text":"FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/27/2016 10:56 AM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 13\nINDEX NO. 150131/2016\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/27/2016\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nCOUNTY OF NEW YORK\nROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS.\nPlaintiff(s),\n-against-\nTHE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE\nDEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE FERNANDO ESPINDOLA,\nSHIELD NO.: 6098 and P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #1 AND P.O.\n\u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #2 (the names herein to be fictitious as they\nare currently unknown),\nDefendant(s),\nX\nX\n\nAMENDED\nSUMMONS\n\nIndex No.: 150131/2016\nDate Purchased: 1/7/2016\n\nPlaintiffs designate:\nNew York County as the place\nof trial.\n\nThe basis of venue is:\nPlaintiff\u2019s Residence\n\nPlaintiff resides at:\n279 West 117th Street\nNew York, New York 10026\nCounty of New York\n\nTO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT:\n\nYOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED, to answer the complaint in this action and to serve\na copy of your answer, or if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of\nappearance, on the Plaintiff\u2019s Attorney(s) within 20 days after the service of this summons,\nexclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this summons is\nnot personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to\nappear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the\ncomplaint.\n\nDated: Bronx, New York\nFebruary 18, 2016\n\nMICHAEL BRAVERMAN\nGETZ & BRAVERMAN, P.C.\nAttorneys for Plaintiff(s)\nROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS\n172 East 161st Street\nBronx, New York 10451\n(718) 993-3000\nOur File No.: 8945\n\n1\n1 of 15"},{"page_number":2,"text":"Defendants\u2019 Addresses:\n\nCORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE\nCITY OF NEW YORK\n100 Church Street\nNew York, New York 10007\n\nNEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT\nOne Police Plaza\nNew York, New York 10038\n\nDETECTIVE FERNANDO ESPINDOLA, SHIELD NO.: 6098\nOne Police Plaza\nNew York, New York 10038\n\nP.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #1 AND P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #2\n(the names herein to be fictitious as they are currently\nunknown)\nc/o NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT\nOne Police Plaza\nNew York, New York 10038\n\n2\n2 of 15"},{"page_number":3,"text":"SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nCOUNTY OF NEW YORK\nIndex No.:\nROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS, Plaintiff(s),\nSUPPLEMENTAL\nVERIFIED COMPLAINT\n-against-\nTHE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE\nDEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE FERNANDO ESPINDOLA,\nSHIELD NO.: 6098 and P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #1 AND P.O.\n\u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #2 (the names herein to be fictitious as they\nare currently unknown),\nDefendant(s),\nROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS. by his attorneys, GETZ & BRAVERMAN, P.C.,\nrespectfully alleges as follows:\nAS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION\n(1) At all times mentioned, Plaintiff ROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS was a resident of\nthe County of New York, City and State of New York.\n(2) At all times mentioned, Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK, was and is a\nmunicipal corporation duly organized and existing by virtue of the Laws of the State of New\nYork.\n(3) Upon information and belief, at all times mentioned, Defendants NEW YORK\nCITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE FERNANDO ESPINDOLA, SHIELD NO.:\n6098 and P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #1 AND P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #2 (the names herein to be\nfictitious as they are currently unknown), were and are police officers of the Defendant City\nof New York, and at all times herein were acting in such capacity as the agents, servants and\nemployees of the Defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK.\n3\n3 of 15"},{"page_number":4,"text":"(4) On or about June 10, 2014, New York County Criminal Supreme Court, 100 Centre Street, New York, New York, County of New York, State of New York the Defendants jointly and severally in their capacity as police officers, wrongfully touched, grabbed, handcuffed and seized the Plaintiff ROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS, in an excessive manner about his person, causing him physical pain and mental suffering. At no time did the Defendants have legal cause to grab, handcuff seize or touch the Plaintiff, nor did the Plaintiff consent to this illegal touching nor was it privileged by law.\n\n(5) On or about June 10, 2014, New York County Criminal Supreme Court, 100 Centre Street, New York, New York, County of New York, State of New York the Defendants DETECTIVE FERNANDO ESPINDOLA, SHIELD NO.: 6098 and P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #1 AND P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #2 (the names herein to be fictitious as they are currently unknown) jointly and severally in his capacity as police officer, wrongfully touched, grabbed, handcuffed and seized the Plaintiff ROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS, in an excessive manner about his person, causing him physical pain and mental suffering. At no time did the Defendants DETECTIVE FERNANDO ESPINDOLA, SHIELD NO.: 6098 and P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #1 AND P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #2 (the names herein to be fictitious as they are currently unknown) have legal cause to grab, handcuff seize or touch the Plaintiff, nor did the Plaintiff consent to this illegal touching nor was it privileged by law. At no time did the Defendants DETECTIVE FERNANDO ESPINDOLA, SHIELD NO.: 6098 and P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #1 AND P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #2 (the names herein to be fictitious as they are currently unknown) arrest Plaintiff ROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS.\n\n4\n4 of 15"},{"page_number":5,"text":"AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION\n\n(6) Plaintiffs repeats, reiterates and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in Paragraphs \"1\" through \"5\" with full force and effect as though set forth at length herein.\n\n(7) On or about June 10, 2014, New York County Criminal Supreme Court, 100 Centre Street, New York, New York, County of New York, State of New York the Defendants and DETECTIVE FERNANDO ESPINDOLA, SHIELD NO.: 6098, P.O. \"JOHN DOE\" #1 AND P.O. \"JOHN DOE\" #2 (the names herein to be fictitious as they are currently unknown) jointly and severally did place Plaintiff ROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS in imminent fear of physical contact by approaching the Plaintiff with their loaded firearms, outstretched limbs and other objects which they used to physically seize, strike and restrain the Plaintiff. All of the above actions placed the Plaintiff in imminent fear of physical contact. At no time did the Plaintiff consent to the unlawful actions of the Defendants.\n\nAS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION\n\n(8) Plaintiffs repeats, reiterates and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in Paragraphs \"1\" through \"7\" with full force and effect as though set forth at length herein.\n\n(9) On or June 10, 2014, New York County Criminal Supreme Court, 100 Centre Street, New York, New York, County of New York, State of New York the Defendants THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE FERNANDO ESPINDOLA, SHIELD NO.: 6098 and P.O. \"JOHN DOE\" #1 AND P.O. \"JOHN DOE\" #2 (the names herein to be fictitious as they are currently unknown), jointly and severally with an warrant, order or other legal process as they misidentified and accused the plaintiff falsely, wrongfully and unlawfully then arrested the Plaintiff, restrained him and his\n\n5\n5 of 15"},{"page_number":6,"text":"liberty and then took him into custody to a police station in the County of New York, and there\ncharged him with the crimes on Docket No.: 2014NY02373 The Plaintiff was thereafter held in\ncustody over the course of approximately one (1) year and two (2) months without probable\ncause until he was released and all charges against him dismissed on August 20, 2015. The\nDefendants intentionally confined the Plaintiff without his consent and the confinement was not\notherwise privileged by law and, at all times, the Plaintiff was conscious of his confinement and\nhad requested multiple explanations and/or an appeal to the Warden of the New York City\nDepartment of Corrections while in the one (1) year and two (2) months of his confinement.\n\nAS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION\n\n(10) Plaintiffs repeats, reiterates and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in\nParagraphs \"1\" through \"9\" with full force and effect as though set forth at length herein.\n\n(11) On or June 10, 2014, New York County Criminal Supreme Court, 100 Centre\nStreet, New York, New York, County of New York, State of New York the Defendants, jointly\nand severally without any valid warrant, order or other legal process and without any legal right,\nwrongfully and unlawfully imprisoned the Plaintiff, restrained him and his liberty and then took\nhim into custody and causing him to be incarcerated as a detainee in the City of New York\u2019s\nCorrectional Facility. The Plaintiff was thereafter held in custody over the course of\napproximately one (1) year and two (2) months before he was released. The Defendants\nintentionally confined the Plaintiff without his consent and the confinement was not otherwise\nprivileged by law and at all times, the Plaintiff was conscious of his confinement.\n\n6\n6 of 15"},{"page_number":7,"text":"AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION\n\n(12) Plaintiffs repeats, reiterates and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in Paragraphs \"1\" through \"11\" with full force and effect as though set forth at length herein.\n\n(13) Upon information and belief, on or about June 10, 2014 and from that time until the dismissal of charges on or about August 20, 2015 which was a favorable termination for the accused by the Honorable Judge presiding at, New York County Supreme Court, Defendants THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE FERNANDO ESPINDOLA, SHIELD NO.: 6098 and P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #1 AND P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #2 (the names herein to be fictitious as they are currently unknown), an innocent male without any probable cause whatsoever, by filing or causing a criminal court complaint to be filed in the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County, for the purpose of falsely accusing the plaintiff of violations of the criminal laws of the State of New York.\n\n(14) The Defendants, jointly and severally, their agents, servants or employees failed to take reasonable steps to stop the prosecution of the Plaintiff and instead maliciously and deliberately provided false and/or incomplete information to the District Attorney\u2019s office to induce prosecution of the Plaintiff and due to the absence of probable cause malice can be inferred.\n\n(15) The commencement of these criminal proceedings was malicious and began in malice and without probable cause, so that the proceedings could succeed by the Defendants.\n\n7\n7 of 15"},{"page_number":8,"text":"(16) As a result of the malicious prosecution, Plaintiff was deprived of his liberty and suffered the humiliation, mental anguish, indignity and frustration of an unjust criminal prosecution. The Plaintiff made multiple request to the Warden for a court appearance and/or appeals to defend his liberty against these unjust charges.\n\nAS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION\n(This Cause of Action only applies against the Individually named Police Officers not the City of New York or officers sued in their official capacity)\n\n(17) Plaintiffs repeats, reiterates and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in Paragraphs \u201c1\" through \u201c16\" with full force and effect as though set forth at length herein.\n\n(18) Defendants DETECTIVE FERNANDO ESPINDOLA, SHIELD NO.: 6098, P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #1 AND P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #2 (the names herein to be fictitious as they are currently unknown), were at all times relevant, duly appointed and acting officers of the City of New York Police Department.\n\n(19) At all times mentioned herein, said police officers were acting under color of law, to wit: the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies and customs and usage of the State of New York and/or City of New York.\n\n(20) Plaintiff ROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS is and at all times relevant herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of Bronx County in the State of New York and brings this cause of action pursuant to 42 United States Code, Section 1983 and 42 United States Code, Section 1988.\n\n(21) The Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK is a municipality duly incorporated under the laws of the State of New York.\n\n8\n8 of 15"},{"page_number":9,"text":"(22) On or about June 10, 2014, the Defendants, armed police, while effectuating the seizure of Plaintiff ROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS, did search, seize, assault and commit a battery and grab the person of the Plaintiff without a court authorized arrest or search warrant. They did physically seize the person of the Plaintiff during the arrest process in an unlawful and excessive manner. The Plaintiff was falsely arrested, unlawfully imprisoned and maliciously prosecuted without the Defendants possessing probable cause to do so.\n\n(22) The above action of the Defendants resulted in the Plaintiff being deprived of the following rights under the United States Constitution:\na. Freedom from assault to his person;\nb. Freedom from battery to his person;\nc. Freedom from illegal search and seizure;\nd. Freedom from false arrest;\ne. Freedom from malicious prosecution;\nf. Freedom from the use of excessive force during the arrest process;\ng. Freedom from unlawful imprisonment.\n\n(23) The Defendants subjected the Plaintiff to such deprivations, either in a malicious or reckless disregard of the Plaintiff\u2019s rights or with deliberate indifference to those rights under the fourth and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution.\n\nAS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION\n\n(24) Plaintiffs repeats, reiterates and re-alleges all of the allegations contained in Paragraphs \u201c1\u201d through \u201c23\u201d with full force and effect as though set forth at length herein. (This Cause of Action applies to the City of New York and the officer sued in their official capacity should be characterized as a \u201cMonell\u201d claim.)\n9\n9 of 15"},{"page_number":10,"text":"(25) Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK, has grossly failed to train and adequately supervise its police officers in the fundamental law of arrest, search and seizure especially when its police officers are not in possession of a court authorized arrest warrant and where an individual, especially as here, has not committed a crime and has not resisted arrest, that its police officers should only use reasonable force to effectuate an arrest and the arrest should be based on probable cause.\n\n(26) THE CITY OF NEW YORK was negligent by failing to implement a policy with its Police Department and instruct police officers who, absent the consent of the Plaintiff(or similarly situated individuals) or without the possession of a court authorized arrest and/or search warrant, said police officers of the City of New York are not to arrest individuals such as the Plaintiff here where probable cause is lacking and the use of force should only be reasonable when an individual resists arrest and should be used where a criminal defendant is not resisting arrest.\n\n(27) THE CITY OF NEW YORK is negligent due to its failure to implement a policy with its Police Department or actively enforce the law, if any of the following are lacking:\n\n1. Probable cause must be present before an individual such as the Plaintiff herein can be arrested.\n\n2. Excessive force cannot be used against an individual who does not physically resist arrest.\n\n3. An individual who sustains physical injury at the hands of the police during the arrest process should receive prompt medical attention.\n\n10\n10 of 15"},{"page_number":11,"text":"4. An individual such as the Plaintiff herein cannot be subjected to a strip search with cavity inspection unless the police possess legal cause and/or have a reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause that the plaintiff has secreted contraband in or on his person.\n\n(28) The foregoing acts, omissions and systemic failures are customs and policies of the CITY OF NEW YORK which caused the police officers to falsely arrest, maliciously prosecute, seize illegally and search the Plaintiff commit an assault/battery to his person and denied his prompt medical attention under the belief that they would suffer no disciplinary actions for their failure to take proper or prudent steps in this case.\n\n(29) Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK was negligent in that prior to and at the time of the acts complained of herein, due to the prior history of the Police Officers Defendants, knew or should have known of the bad disposition of said Defendants or had knowledge of facts that would put a reasonably prudent employer on inquiry concerning their bad disposition and the fact that these officers were not suitable to be hired and employed by the CITY OF NEW YORK and that due to their lack of training, these officers should have had adequate supervision so that they would not arrest innocent individuals nor use excessive force during the arrest process.\n\n(30) The City of New York\u2019s (herein as \u201cCity\u201d) failure to train its police officers to distinguish between individuals who are lessee\u2019s and/or reside at the apartment of sufficient length of time as evidenced by utility bills in their name, letters/mail addressed to them at the residence and/or magazine subscriptions, etc as opposed to individuals who are mere guests and/or visitors who do not have the right to exercise dominion and control over the residence as evidenced by their not having any furniture in the apartment, their name on the lease, their name on a utility bill or mail addressed to them are all factors that the City in the past has ignored. As\n\n11\n\n11 of 15"},{"page_number":12,"text":"these same fact patterns have come up over the past twenty-five (25) years with alarming\nfrequency as evidenced by past notice of claims that the firm has filed with the City of New\nYork in the past on multiple occasions sufficient to demonstrate a pattern by the City\u2019s police\nofficers of continued violations of individuals similarly situated to the Plaintiff. The pattern\ndemonstrates that either a defacto policy/custom exists to allow this behavior by failing to\ndiscipline its officers or this is a custom of its police officers who have no and/or sufficient\ntraining and/or no proper supervision and/or disciplinary penalties assessed against them for\ncontinued acting in an unconstitutional manner. The Plaintiff\u2019s counsel has approximately thirty-\ntwo (32) Notice of Claims spanning approximately 10 years to demonstrate a pattern practice\nand custom of deliberate indifference by the City. In the past, this represents at least a de facto\npolicy by the City of New York in countenancing unconstitutional behavior, by not disciplining\nand/or not properly supervising/training its individual police officers in the proper procedure of\narresting or not arresting individuals who may be merely present at an apartment.\nWHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgement against the Defendants, together with the\ncosts and disbursements of this action in the amount of damages greater than the jurisdictional\nlimit of any lower court where otherwise have jurisdiction, together with attorneys\u2019 fees and\ncosts for bringing this case and punitive damages.\nDated: Bronx, New York\nFebruary 18, 2016\n12\n12 of 15"},{"page_number":13,"text":"Yours etc.,\n\nMICHAEL BRAVERMAN, ESQ.\nGETZ & BRAVERMAN, P.C.\nAttorney for Plaintiff(s)\nROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS\n172 East 161st Street\nBronx, New York 10451\n(718) 993-3000\nOur File No.: 8945\n\n13\n13 of 15"},{"page_number":14,"text":"ATTORNEY'S VERIFICATION BY AFFIRMATION\nMICHAEL BRAVERMAN, an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts of the\nState of New York, affirms the following to be true under the penalties of perjury:\nI am an attorney at GETZ & BRAVERMAN, P.C., attorneys of record for Plaintiff(s),\nROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS. I have read the annexed AMENDED SUMMONS AND\nSUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT and know the contents thereof, and the same are true to my\nknowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged upon information and belief,\nand as to those matters I believe them to be true. My belief, as to those matters therein not stated\nupon knowledge, is based upon facts, records, and other pertinent information contained in my files.\nI make the foregoing affirmation because Plaintiff(s) is/are not presently in the county\nwherein I maintain my offices.\nDated: Bronx, New York\nFebruary 18, 2016\nMichael Braverman, Esq.\n14 of 15"},{"page_number":15,"text":"Index No. 150131/2016\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nCOUNTY OF NEW YORK\nROLANDEDWIGE ALEXIS,\nPlaintiff(s),\n- against -\nTHE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE\nFERNANDO ESPINDOLA, SHIELD NO.: 6098 and P.O. \u201cJOHN DOE\u201d #1 AND P.O. \u201cJOHN\nDOE\u201d #2 (the names herein to be fictitious as they are currently unknown),\nDefendant(s).\nAMENDED SUMMONS WITH SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT\nGETZ & BRAVERMAN, P.C.\nAttorneys for\n172 East 161st Street\nBronx, New York 10451\n(718) 993-3000\n15 of 15"}],"pdf_path":"/Users/tim/Downloads/150131_2016_ROLANDEDWIGE_ALEXIS_v_ROLANDEDWIGE_ALEXIS__COMPLAINT__AMENDED__13.pdf","total_cost_usd":0.04548691,"total_elapsed_seconds":0},{"case_id":"diaz_raymond","extraction":{"allegations":[{"provenance":{"page_number":5,"paragraph":"First cause of action for Plaintiff Raymond Diaz","source_text":"RAYMOND DIAZ FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF RAYMOND DIAZ: MALICIOUS PROSECUTION"},"type":"Malicious prosecution"},{"provenance":{"page_number":5,"paragraph":"Second cause of action for Plaintiff Raymond Diaz Jr.","source_text":"RAYMOND DIAZ, JR. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF RAYMOND DIAZ JR.: MALICIOUS PROSECUTION"},"type":"Malicious prosecution"}],"case_metadata":{"case_name":"RAYMOND DIAZ and RAYMOND DIAZ JR., - against - THE CITY OF NEW YORK, POLICE OFFICER DOMINIC RUGGIERO (Tax Reg. #952194) and POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE","county_filed":"Queens","court":"SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK","docket_number":"704238/2018","filing_date":"2018-03-20","provenance":{"page_number":1,"source_text":"FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2018 05:53 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 INDEX NO. 704238/2018"}},"county":{"name":"Queens","provenance":{"page_number":1,"source_text":"SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS"}},"defendant_types":[{"provenance":{"page_number":1,"source_text":"POLICE OFFICER DOMINIC RUGGIERO (Tax Reg. #952194) and POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE"},"type":"Individual Police Officer"},{"provenance":{"page_number":1,"source_text":"THE CITY OF NEW YORK"},"type":"City of New York"}],"extraction_confidence":{"notes":"","overall":"high"},"force_types":[],"incident_locations":[{"location_type":"Inside residence","precinct":"","provenance":{"page_number":3,"paragraph":"Location of the incident","source_text":"On October 28, 2014, at approximately 11:30 p.m., at 47-05 45th Avenue, Apartment # F4, in Queens County"},"specific_address":"47-05 45th Avenue, Apartment # F4"}],"injuries":[{"description":"loss of liberty for approximately twenty-two (22) months, emotional distress, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life and fear and intimidation","provenance":{"page_number":5,"source_text":"As a result of being maliciously prosecuted by the Defendants, Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ sustained multiple injuries, including loss of liberty for approximately twenty-two (22) months, emotional distress, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life and fear and intimidation for Plaintiff\u2019s safety."},"severity":"serious"},{"description":"loss of liberty for approximately six (6) days, emotional distress, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and fear and intimidation","provenance":{"page_number":6,"source_text":"As a result of being maliciously prosecuted by the Defendants, Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ JR., sustained multiple injuries, including loss of liberty for approximately six (6) days, emotional distress, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and fear and intimidation for Plaintiff\u2019s safety."},"severity":"minor"}],"key_dates":[{"date":"2014-10-28","event":"Arrest of Raymond Diaz","provenance":{"page_number":3,"source_text":"On October 28, 2014, at approximately 11:30 p.m."}},{"date":"2014-10-29","event":"Arrest of Raymond Diaz Jr.","provenance":{"page_number":3,"source_text":"On October 29, 2014, at approximately 1:00 a.m."}},{"date":"2017-03-08","event":"Charges dismissed and sealed","provenance":{"page_number":4,"source_text":"All charges pending against the Plaintiffs were dismissed and sealed on or about March 8, 2017."}}],"officers":[{"badge_number":"","name":"Dominic Ruggiero","precinct":"","provenance":{"page_number":1,"source_text":"POLICE OFFICER DOMINIC RUGGIERO (Tax Reg. #952194)"},"rank":"Police Officer","tax_id":"952194"},{"badge_number":"","name":"John Doe","precinct":"","provenance":{"page_number":1,"source_text":"POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE"},"rank":"Police Officer","tax_id":""}],"plaintiffs":[{"name":"Raymond Diaz","provenance":{"page_number":2,"source_text":"Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ"},"relationship":"Plaintiff"},{"name":"Raymond Diaz Jr.","provenance":{"page_number":2,"source_text":"Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ JR."},"relationship":"Plaintiff"}],"summary":{"provenance":{"key_sources":["Paragraphs 6-7, 9-10, 19, 23"],"pages_referenced":[3,4,5]},"text":"On October 28, 2014, at approximately 11:30 p.m., Plaintiffs Raymond Diaz and Raymond Diaz Jr. were handcuffed by Police Officers Dominic Ruggiero and John Doe at 47-05 45th Avenue, Apartment # F4, in Queens County. They were falsely accused of committing crimes including Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree and Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree. Raymond Diaz remained in custody for approximately 22 months, while Raymond Diaz Jr. was detained for about 6 days. All charges were dismissed and sealed on March 8, 2017. The plaintiffs claim malicious prosecution, loss of liberty, emotional distress, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and fear for their safety."},"themes":[]},"num_pages":7,"ocr_text":"\n--- PAGE 1 ---\nFILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2018 05:53 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 704238/2018\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2018\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nCOUNTY OF QUEENS\n--------------------------------------------------X Index No.\nRAYMOND DIAZ and RAYMOND DIAZ JR.,\nPlaintiff\n- against -\nTHE CITY OF NEW YORK,\nPOLICE OFFICER DOMINIC RUGGIERO\n(Tax Reg. #952194) and\nPOLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE,\nDefendants.\n--------------------------------------------------X\n\nPurchased 5-10-18\nPlaintiffs designate Queens\nCounty as the place of trial\nThe basis of the venue is\nwhere the tort arose\nSUMMONS\n\nTO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS:\n\nYOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this\naction and to serve a copy of your answer, or if the complaint is not served with this summons, to\nserve a notice of appearance on the Plaintiff\u2019s attorney(s) within 20 days after the service of this\nsummons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this\nsummons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your\nfailure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief\ndemanded in the complaint.\n\nDated: New York, NY\nMarch 20, 2018\n\nTHE LAW OFFICES OF ELLIOT S. KAY\nAttorney for Plaintiff\n115 East 57th Street, 11th Floor\nNew York, New York 10022\n(212) 939-7251\n\nDefendant\u2019s Address:\nCORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE\nCITY OF NEW YORK\n100 Church Street\nNew York, New York 10007\n\n1 of 7\n\n--- PAGE 2 ---\nFILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2018 05:53 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 704238/2018\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2018\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nCOUNTY OF QUEENS\n--------------------------------------------------------X\nRAYMOND DIAZ and RAYMOND DIAZ JR.,\nPlaintiff,\nIndex No.\nVerified Complaint\n- against \u2013\nTHE CITY OF NEW YORK,\nPOLICE OFFICER DOMINIC RUGGIERO\n(Tax Reg. #952194) and\nPOLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE,\nDefendants.\n--------------------------------------------------------X\n\nPlaintiffs RAYMOND DIAZ AND RAYMOND DIAZ JR., by their attorneys THE LAW\nOFFICES OF ELLIOT S. KAY, by ELLIOT S. KAY, principal, complaining of the defendants,\nrespectfully shows to this Court and alleges the following upon information and belief:\n\nPARTIES\n\n1. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ was a resident of New\nYork County, City and State of New York.\n\n2. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ JR. was a resident of\nQueens County, City and State of New York.\n\n3. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK (\u201cCITY\u201d),\nwas and still is a municipal corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the\nlaws of the State of New York.\n\n2 of 7\n\n--- PAGE 3 ---\nFILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2018 05:53 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 704238/2018\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2018\n\n4. At all times hereinafter mentioned, THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT\n(\u201cPOLICE\u201d), was and is an agency of defendant CITY.\n\n5. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendants, POLICE OFFICER DOMINIC\nRUGGIERO (Tax Reg. #952194) and POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE (\u201cP.O.\nDOE\u201d), were and are police officers employed by defendant CITY.\n\nBACKGROUND\n\n6. On October 28, 2014, at approximately 11:30 p.m., at 47-05 45th Avenue, Apartment #\nF4, in Queens County, without just cause or provocation, defendants, including POLICE\nOFFICER DOMINIC RUGGIERO (Tax Reg. #952194) and P.O. DOE, handcuffed\nPlaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ and intentionally and falsely accused Plaintiff RAYMOND\nDIAZ of having committed the crimes of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second\nDegree, Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree and related\ncharges.\n\n7. Shortly thereafter, on October 29, 2014, at approximately 1:00 a.m., at 47-05 45th Avenue,\nApartment # F4, in Queens County, without just cause or provocation, defendants,\nincluding POLICE OFFICER DOMINIC RUGGIERO (Tax Reg. #952194) and P.O.\nDOE, handcuffed Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ JR., and intentionally and falsely accused\nPlaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ JR., of having committed the crimes of Criminal Possession\nof a Weapon in the Second Degree, Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the\nSeventh Degree and related charges.\n\n8. On or about October 29, 2014, a criminal complaint was issued at the directive of\nDefendants and a criminal action against the Plaintiffs commenced.\n\n3 of 7\n\n--- PAGE 4 ---\nFILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2018 05:53 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 704238/2018\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2018\n\n9. Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ remained in custody until he was released on or about\nAugust 29, 2016.\n10. Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ JR., remained in custody until he was released on or about\nNovember 4, 2014.\n11. Both Plaintiffs had to defend against false charges until the criminal matter was\nterminated in their favor of on or about March 8, 2017.\nPROCEDURAL POSTURE\n12. On June 5, 2017, Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ and Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ JR., each\nserved a Notice of Claim in writing sworn to on their behalf upon Defendant CITY, by\ndelivering a copy thereof to the officer designated to receive such process personally,\nwhich Notice of Claim advised the Defendants of the nature, place, time, and manner in\nwhich the claims arose, and the items of damage and injuries sustained so far as was then\ndeterminable.\n13. More than thirty days have elapsed since service of said notice and defendant CITY has\nfailed to pay or adjust these claims.\n14. A 50-H hearing has been held for each Plaintiff.\n15. This action has been commenced within one year and ninety days after the causes of\naction for each Plaintiff accrued.\n16. Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ and Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ JR., have duly complied\nwith all conditions precedent to the commencement of this action.\n\n4 of 7\n\n--- PAGE 5 ---\nFILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2018 05:53 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 704238/2018\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2018\n\nRAYMOND DIAZ\nFIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF RAYMOND DIAZ:\nMALICIOUS PROSECUTION\n17. Paragraphs 1-16 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.\n18. In arresting Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ, the Defendants acted with malice. The\nDefendants lacked probable cause to arrest Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ.\n19. All charges pending against Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ were dismissed and sealed on\nMarch 8, 2017.\n20. As a result of being maliciously prosecuted by the Defendants, Plaintiff RAYMOND\nDIAZ sustained multiple injuries, including loss of liberty for approximately twenty-two\n(22) months, emotional distress, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life and fear and\nintimidation for Plaintiff\u2019s safety.\n\nRAYMOND DIAZ, JR.\nSECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF RAYMOND DIAZ JR.:\nMALICIOUS PROSECUTION\n21. Paragraphs 1-20 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.\n22. In arresting Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ JR., the Defendants acted with malice. The\nDefendants lacked probable cause to arrest Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ JR.\n23. All charges pending against Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ JR., were dismissed and sealed\non March 8, 2017.\n\n5 of 7\n\n--- PAGE 6 ---\nFILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2018 05:53 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 704238/2018\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2018\n\n24. As a result of being maliciously prosecuted by the Defendants, Plaintiff RAYMOND\nDIAZ JR., sustained multiple injuries, including loss of liberty for approximately six\n(6) days, emotional distress, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and fear and\nintimidation for Plaintiff\u2019s safety.\n\nWHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants, together with the costs and\ndisbursements of this action in the amount of damages greater than the jurisdictional limit of any\nlower court that would otherwise have jurisdiction, together with attorneys\u2019 fees and costs for\nbringing this case, and punitive damages.\n\nDated: New York, NY\nMarch 20, 2018\nYours, etc.,\n\nTHE LAW OFFICES OF ELLIOT S. KAY\nBY: ELLIOT S. KAY, ESQ.\nAttorney for Plaintiff\n115 East 57th Street, 11th Floor\nNew York, NY 10022\n212-939-7251\n\n6 of 7\n\n--- PAGE 7 ---\nFILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2018 05:53 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 704238/2018\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2018\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nCOUNTY OF QUEENS\n--------------------------------------------------X\nRAYMOND DIAZ and RAYMOND DIAZ JR.,\nPlaintiff\n-against-\nCITY OF NEW YORK,\nPOLICE OFFICER DOMINIC RUGGIERO\n(Tax Reg. #952194) and\nPOLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE,\nDefendants\n--------------------------------------------------X\n\nI, ELLIOT S. KAY, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New York State,\nstate that I am the attorney of record for Plaintiff in the within action; I have read the foregoing\nand know the contents thereof; the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters\ntherein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true.\nThe reason this verification is made by me and not the Plaintiff is because Plaintiff resides outside\nthe county where deponent maintains his office.\n\nI affirm that the foregoing statements are true, under the penalties of perjury.\n\nDated: New York, NY\nMarch 20, 2018\n\nELLIOT S. KAY\n\n7 of 7","ocr_text_length":9151,"pages":[{"page_number":1,"text":"FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2018 05:53 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 704238/2018\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2018\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nCOUNTY OF QUEENS\n--------------------------------------------------X Index No.\nRAYMOND DIAZ and RAYMOND DIAZ JR.,\nPlaintiff\n- against -\nTHE CITY OF NEW YORK,\nPOLICE OFFICER DOMINIC RUGGIERO\n(Tax Reg. #952194) and\nPOLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE,\nDefendants.\n--------------------------------------------------X\n\nPurchased 5-10-18\nPlaintiffs designate Queens\nCounty as the place of trial\nThe basis of the venue is\nwhere the tort arose\nSUMMONS\n\nTO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS:\n\nYOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this\naction and to serve a copy of your answer, or if the complaint is not served with this summons, to\nserve a notice of appearance on the Plaintiff\u2019s attorney(s) within 20 days after the service of this\nsummons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this\nsummons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your\nfailure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief\ndemanded in the complaint.\n\nDated: New York, NY\nMarch 20, 2018\n\nTHE LAW OFFICES OF ELLIOT S. KAY\nAttorney for Plaintiff\n115 East 57th Street, 11th Floor\nNew York, New York 10022\n(212) 939-7251\n\nDefendant\u2019s Address:\nCORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE\nCITY OF NEW YORK\n100 Church Street\nNew York, New York 10007\n\n1 of 7"},{"page_number":2,"text":"FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2018 05:53 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 704238/2018\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2018\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nCOUNTY OF QUEENS\n--------------------------------------------------------X\nRAYMOND DIAZ and RAYMOND DIAZ JR.,\nPlaintiff,\nIndex No.\nVerified Complaint\n- against \u2013\nTHE CITY OF NEW YORK,\nPOLICE OFFICER DOMINIC RUGGIERO\n(Tax Reg. #952194) and\nPOLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE,\nDefendants.\n--------------------------------------------------------X\n\nPlaintiffs RAYMOND DIAZ AND RAYMOND DIAZ JR., by their attorneys THE LAW\nOFFICES OF ELLIOT S. KAY, by ELLIOT S. KAY, principal, complaining of the defendants,\nrespectfully shows to this Court and alleges the following upon information and belief:\n\nPARTIES\n\n1. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ was a resident of New\nYork County, City and State of New York.\n\n2. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ JR. was a resident of\nQueens County, City and State of New York.\n\n3. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK (\u201cCITY\u201d),\nwas and still is a municipal corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the\nlaws of the State of New York.\n\n2 of 7"},{"page_number":3,"text":"FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2018 05:53 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 704238/2018\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2018\n\n4. At all times hereinafter mentioned, THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT\n(\u201cPOLICE\u201d), was and is an agency of defendant CITY.\n\n5. At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendants, POLICE OFFICER DOMINIC\nRUGGIERO (Tax Reg. #952194) and POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE (\u201cP.O.\nDOE\u201d), were and are police officers employed by defendant CITY.\n\nBACKGROUND\n\n6. On October 28, 2014, at approximately 11:30 p.m., at 47-05 45th Avenue, Apartment #\nF4, in Queens County, without just cause or provocation, defendants, including POLICE\nOFFICER DOMINIC RUGGIERO (Tax Reg. #952194) and P.O. DOE, handcuffed\nPlaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ and intentionally and falsely accused Plaintiff RAYMOND\nDIAZ of having committed the crimes of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second\nDegree, Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree and related\ncharges.\n\n7. Shortly thereafter, on October 29, 2014, at approximately 1:00 a.m., at 47-05 45th Avenue,\nApartment # F4, in Queens County, without just cause or provocation, defendants,\nincluding POLICE OFFICER DOMINIC RUGGIERO (Tax Reg. #952194) and P.O.\nDOE, handcuffed Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ JR., and intentionally and falsely accused\nPlaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ JR., of having committed the crimes of Criminal Possession\nof a Weapon in the Second Degree, Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the\nSeventh Degree and related charges.\n\n8. On or about October 29, 2014, a criminal complaint was issued at the directive of\nDefendants and a criminal action against the Plaintiffs commenced.\n\n3 of 7"},{"page_number":4,"text":"FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2018 05:53 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 704238/2018\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2018\n\n9. Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ remained in custody until he was released on or about\nAugust 29, 2016.\n10. Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ JR., remained in custody until he was released on or about\nNovember 4, 2014.\n11. Both Plaintiffs had to defend against false charges until the criminal matter was\nterminated in their favor of on or about March 8, 2017.\nPROCEDURAL POSTURE\n12. On June 5, 2017, Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ and Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ JR., each\nserved a Notice of Claim in writing sworn to on their behalf upon Defendant CITY, by\ndelivering a copy thereof to the officer designated to receive such process personally,\nwhich Notice of Claim advised the Defendants of the nature, place, time, and manner in\nwhich the claims arose, and the items of damage and injuries sustained so far as was then\ndeterminable.\n13. More than thirty days have elapsed since service of said notice and defendant CITY has\nfailed to pay or adjust these claims.\n14. A 50-H hearing has been held for each Plaintiff.\n15. This action has been commenced within one year and ninety days after the causes of\naction for each Plaintiff accrued.\n16. Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ and Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ JR., have duly complied\nwith all conditions precedent to the commencement of this action.\n\n4 of 7"},{"page_number":5,"text":"FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2018 05:53 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 704238/2018\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2018\n\nRAYMOND DIAZ\nFIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF RAYMOND DIAZ:\nMALICIOUS PROSECUTION\n17. Paragraphs 1-16 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.\n18. In arresting Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ, the Defendants acted with malice. The\nDefendants lacked probable cause to arrest Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ.\n19. All charges pending against Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ were dismissed and sealed on\nMarch 8, 2017.\n20. As a result of being maliciously prosecuted by the Defendants, Plaintiff RAYMOND\nDIAZ sustained multiple injuries, including loss of liberty for approximately twenty-two\n(22) months, emotional distress, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life and fear and\nintimidation for Plaintiff\u2019s safety.\n\nRAYMOND DIAZ, JR.\nSECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF RAYMOND DIAZ JR.:\nMALICIOUS PROSECUTION\n21. Paragraphs 1-20 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.\n22. In arresting Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ JR., the Defendants acted with malice. The\nDefendants lacked probable cause to arrest Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ JR.\n23. All charges pending against Plaintiff RAYMOND DIAZ JR., were dismissed and sealed\non March 8, 2017.\n\n5 of 7"},{"page_number":6,"text":"FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2018 05:53 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 704238/2018\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2018\n\n24. As a result of being maliciously prosecuted by the Defendants, Plaintiff RAYMOND\nDIAZ JR., sustained multiple injuries, including loss of liberty for approximately six\n(6) days, emotional distress, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and fear and\nintimidation for Plaintiff\u2019s safety.\n\nWHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants, together with the costs and\ndisbursements of this action in the amount of damages greater than the jurisdictional limit of any\nlower court that would otherwise have jurisdiction, together with attorneys\u2019 fees and costs for\nbringing this case, and punitive damages.\n\nDated: New York, NY\nMarch 20, 2018\nYours, etc.,\n\nTHE LAW OFFICES OF ELLIOT S. KAY\nBY: ELLIOT S. KAY, ESQ.\nAttorney for Plaintiff\n115 East 57th Street, 11th Floor\nNew York, NY 10022\n212-939-7251\n\n6 of 7"},{"page_number":7,"text":"FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2018 05:53 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 704238/2018\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2018\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nCOUNTY OF QUEENS\n--------------------------------------------------X\nRAYMOND DIAZ and RAYMOND DIAZ JR.,\nPlaintiff\n-against-\nCITY OF NEW YORK,\nPOLICE OFFICER DOMINIC RUGGIERO\n(Tax Reg. #952194) and\nPOLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE,\nDefendants\n--------------------------------------------------X\n\nI, ELLIOT S. KAY, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New York State,\nstate that I am the attorney of record for Plaintiff in the within action; I have read the foregoing\nand know the contents thereof; the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters\ntherein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true.\nThe reason this verification is made by me and not the Plaintiff is because Plaintiff resides outside\nthe county where deponent maintains his office.\n\nI affirm that the foregoing statements are true, under the penalties of perjury.\n\nDated: New York, NY\nMarch 20, 2018\n\nELLIOT S. KAY\n\n7 of 7"}],"pdf_path":"/Users/tim/Downloads/704238_2018_RAYMOND_DIAZ_et_al_v_CITY_OF_NEW_YORK_et_al_SUMMONS___COMPLAINT_1.pdf","total_cost_usd":0.02328322,"total_elapsed_seconds":0},{"case_id":"ortiz_hector","comparison":null,"extract_usage":{"input_tokens":4556,"output_tokens":1253},"extraction":{"allegations":[{"provenance":{"page_number":3,"paragraph":"Paragraph 13","source_text":"The accident and resulting injuries were caused by the negligent, wanton, reckless and careless acts of the defendants, and through no fault of the plaintiff."},"type":"Negligence"}],"case_metadata":{"case_name":"HECTOR ORTIZ, Plaintiff, -against- THE CITY OF NEW YORK and NADINE NOA, Defendants.","county_filed":"New York","court":"SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK","docket_number":"161028/2014","filing_date":"2014-11-05","provenance":{"page_number":1,"source_text":"FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2014 08:37 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 161028/2014"}},"county":{"name":"New York","provenance":{"page_number":1,"source_text":"SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nCOUNTY OF NEW YORK"}},"defendant_types":[{"provenance":{"page_number":1,"source_text":"NADINE NOA"},"type":"Individual Police Officer"},{"provenance":{"page_number":1,"source_text":"THE CITY OF NEW YORK"},"type":"City of New York"}],"extraction_confidence":{"notes":"","overall":"high"},"force_types":[],"incident_locations":[{"location_type":"Street","precinct":"","provenance":{"page_number":3,"paragraph":"Paragraph 10","source_text":"That at all times hereinafter mentioned, St. Nicholas Avenue at or near its intersection with West 177th Street, located in the County and State of New York, was and still is a public highway and thoroughfare and was the situs of the accident herein."},"specific_address":"St. Nicholas Avenue at or near its intersection with West 177th Street"}],"injuries":[{"description":"serious personal injuries","provenance":{"page_number":4,"paragraph":"Paragraph 17","source_text":"As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff sustained severe and serious personal injuries to his mind and body, some of which, upon information and belief, are permanent with permanent effects of pain, disability, disfigurement and loss of body function."},"severity":"serious"}],"key_dates":[{"date":"2013-08-07","event":"The accident occurred","provenance":{"page_number":3,"paragraph":"Paragraph 11","source_text":"On the 7th day of August, 2013 at approximately 10:20 p.m., plaintiff, HECTOR ORTIZ, properly belted and restrained, was driving the aforementioned 1991 Toyota motor vehicle on St. Nicholas Avenue at or near its intersection with West 177th Street, located in the County and State of New York"}},{"date":"2013-10-16","event":"Notice of Claim served on THE CITY OF NEW YORK","provenance":{"page_number":5,"paragraph":"Paragraph 19","source_text":"Upon information and belief, a Notice of Claim, pursuant to General Municipal Law Section 50-e was served on the defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK on or about October 16, 2013."}}],"officers":[{"badge_number":"","name":"Nadine Noa","precinct":"","provenance":{"page_number":2,"paragraph":"Paragraph 3","source_text":"Defendant NADINE NOA is a natural person residing in the County and State of New York."},"rank":"","tax_id":""}],"plaintiffs":[{"name":"Hector Ortiz","provenance":{"page_number":2,"paragraph":"Paragraph 1","source_text":"Plaintiff HECTOR ORTIZ is a natural person residing in the County and State of New York."},"relationship":"Plaintiff"}],"summary":{"provenance":{"key_sources":["Paragraphs 11, 12, 13 on page 3"],"pages_referenced":[3]},"text":"On August 7, 2013, at approximately 10:20 p.m., Hector Ortiz was driving a 1991 Toyota on St. Nicholas Avenue near its intersection with West 177th Street in New York City. Defendant Nadine Noa, operating a 2007 Chevy police car with New York license plate 4491, struck Ortiz's vehicle. Ortiz sustained serious injuries as a result of the accident. The plaintiff alleges that the accident and resulting injuries were caused by the negligent, wanton, reckless, and careless acts of the defendants."},"themes":[]},"extraction_model":"llama4-scout","num_pages":7,"ocr_model":"qwen3-vl-235b","ocr_usage":{"estimated_cost_usd":0.02019206,"images":7,"input_tokens":26068,"output_tokens":2397},"pages":[{"page_number":1,"text":"FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2014 08:37 PM\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\nINDEX NO. 161028/2014\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2014\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nCOUNTY OF NEW YORK\n--------------------------------------------------X\nHECTOR ORTIZ,\nPlaintiff,\n-against-\nTHE CITY OF NEW YORK and NADINE NOA,\nDefendants.\n--------------------------------------------------X\n\nSUMMONS\nIndex No.:\nPlaintiff designates\nNew York County\nas place of trial\nBasis of Venue:\nCPLR 503(c)\n\nTo the above named Defendants:\n\nYOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a\ncopy of your answer, or if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of\nappearance, on the Plaintiff\u2019s Attorney(s) within 20 days after service of this summons, exclusive\nof the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this summons is not\npersonally served to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or\nserve a demand for a complaint within the applicable time limitation stated above, judgment will\nbe taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint.\n\nDated: New York, New York\nNovember 5, 2014\n\nYours, etc.,\nBy: _________________________\nMark S. Gray, Esq.\nLaw Offices of Mark S. Gray\nAttorneys for Plaintiff\n251 West 93rd Street\nNew York, New York 10025\n212.537.7000\n\nTO: THE CITY OF NEW YORK\nCity of New York Comptroller\nOne Centre Street\nNew York, NY 10007\n\nTO: NADINE NOA\nOne Police Plaza\nNew York, NY 10004\n\nTO: The City of New York\nCity of New York Comptroller\n100 Church Street\nNew York, NY 10007\n\nTO: NADINE NOA\n4295 Broadway\nNew York, NY 10033"},{"page_number":2,"text":"SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nCOUNTY OF NEW YORK\n--------------------------------------------------X\nHECTOR ORTIZ,                                      VERIFIED COMPLAINT\nPlaintiff,                                        Index No.:\n-against-\nTHE CITY OF NEW YORK and NADINE NOA,\nDefendants.\n--------------------------------------------------X\n\nPlaintiff, by his attorney, Law Offices of Mark S. Gray, complaining of the defendants,\nalleges as follows:\n\nAS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION\n\n1.      Plaintiff HECTOR ORTIZ is a natural person residing in the County and State of\nNew York.\n\n2.      Defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK is a municipality incorporated under the\nlaws of the State of New York.\n\n3.      Defendant NADINE NOA is a natural person residing in the County and State of\nNew York.\n\n4.      At all times relevant hereto, plaintiff was the operator of a 1991 Toyota motor\nvehicle bearing New York State license plate number FBX1151.\n\n5.      At all times relevant hereto, defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, was the\ntitled owner of a 2007 Chevy motor vehicle (police car) bearing New York license plate 4491."},{"page_number":3,"text":"6. At all times relevant hereto, defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, leased a 2007 Chevy motor vehicle (police car) bearing New York license plate 4491.\n\n7. At all times relevant hereto, defendant, NADINE NOA, was the operator of the aforementioned 2007 Chevy motor vehicle (police car) bearing New York license plate 4491.\n\n8. At all times relevant hereto, upon information and belief, the defendant, NADINE NOA, operated the aforementioned 2007 Chevy motor vehicle (police car) with the express and/or implied consent, permission or knowledge of the defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK.\n\n9. At all times relevant hereto, upon information and belief, the defendant NADINE NOA was operating the aforementioned 2007 Chevy motor vehicle (police car) in the course of and as part of his employment with the defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK.\n\n10. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, St. Nicholas Avenue at or near its intersection with West 177th Street, located in the County and State of New York, was and still is a public highway and thoroughfare and was the situs of the accident herein.\n\n11. On the 7th day of August, 2013 at approximately 10:20 p.m., plaintiff, HECTOR ORTIZ, properly belted and restrained, was driving the aforementioned 1991 Toyota motor vehicle on St. Nicholas Avenue at or near its intersection with West 177th Street, located in the County and State of New York\n\n12. Plaintiff\u2019s vehicle was lawfully traveling at the aforementioned location when the vehicle operated by defendant NADINE NOA struck plaintiff\u2019s vehicle.\n\n13. The accident and resulting injuries were caused by the negligent, wanton, reckless and careless acts of the defendants, and through no fault of the plaintiff.\n\n14. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff sustained serious injuries, as defined in Section 5102(a) of the Insurance Law."},{"page_number":4,"text":"15. The defendants were negligent, wanton, reckless and careless in causing and/or permitting their motor vehicles to come into contact with the plaintiff\u2019s motor vehicle; in failing to take those steps necessary to avoid the contingency which occurred herein; in failing to keep their motor vehicle under proper control; in failing to see what there is to be seen; in failing to operate their motor vehicle in a manner and at a speed that was reasonable and proper under the prevailing traffic conditions; in failing to operate the braking and acceleration devices of their respective motor vehicles under the circumstances of the roadway where the accident occurred; in failing to keep a proper lookout; in failing to stop and/or slow down; in violating the rules of the road; in failing to observe that degree of caution, prudence and care which was reasonable and proper under the controlling circumstances; in acting with reckless disregard for the safety of others; in failing to keep alert and attentive; in failing to yield the right of way in negligently entering the path of another motor vehicle; in failing to properly apply brakes; in failing to sound the horn; in failing to operate the vehicle as a reasonably prudent person would; in failing to exercise control over their vehicle; and in violating the rules, regulations, statutes and ordinances relative to the operation of motor vehicles on public highways of the State of New York.\n\n16. The limited liability provisions of the C.P.L.R. 1601 do not apply pursuant to one or more of the exceptions of C.P.L.R. 1602.\n\n17. That by reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff was caused to sustain severe and serious personal injuries to his mind and body, some of which, upon information and belief, are permanent with permanent effects of pain, disability, disfigurement and loss of body function.\n\n18. That plaintiff sustained a serious injury, as defined in subdivision four (4) Section 5102 of the Insurance Law of the State of New York."},{"page_number":5,"text":"19. Upon information and belief, a Notice of Claim, pursuant to General Municipal Law Section 50-e was served on the defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK on or about October 16, 2013.\n\n20. That a hearing, pursuant to General Municipal Law Section 50-h was conducted on or about August 20, 2014.\n\n21. That more than 30 days have passed since the filing and serving of the Notice of Claim, and that this claim has not been paid or adjusted by the defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK.\n\n20. By reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff has been damaged in a sum of money having a present value that exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction of this matter.\n\nWHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants:\n\nA. On the First Cause of Action, in a sum of money having a present value that exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction of this matter, together with the costs and disbursements of the action.\n\nB. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.\n\nYours, etc.\n\nBy: Mark S. Gray, Esq.\n\nLAW OFFICES OF MARK S. GRAY\nAttorneys for Plaintiff\n251 West 93rd Street\nNew York, New York 10025\n212-537-7000"},{"page_number":6,"text":"VERIFICATION\n\nSTATE OF NEW YORK     }\n} ss.:\nCOUNTY OF NEW YORK  }\n\nI am the plaintiff in the within action. I have read the foregoing Summons and Verified Complaint and know the contents thereof. The same is true to my knowledge, except as to the matters stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and that as to those matters I believe them to be true.\n\nHector Ortiz\nHECTOR ORTIZ\n\nSubscribed and Sworn to\nbefore me this November 5, 2014\n\nNotary Public\n\nMARK STUART GRAY\nNOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF NEW YORK\nNO. 02GR6025681\nQUALIFIED IN NEW YORK COUNTY\nCOMM. EXPIRES JULY 1, 2015"},{"page_number":7,"text":"Index No.:\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nCOUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\nHECTOR ORTIZ,\nPlaintiff,\n-against-\nTHE CITY OF NEW YORK and NADINE NOA,\nDefendants.\n\nSUMMONS & VERIFIED COMPLAINT\n\nLAW OFFICES OF MARK S. GRAY\nAttorneys for Plaintiff\n251 WEST 93rd STREET\nNEW YORK, NEW YORK 10025\nTEL. (212) 537-7000\nFAX (212) 537-8800\n\nCERTIFICATION: To the best of the undersigneds knowledge, information and belief formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, the within document(s) and contentions contained herein are not frivolous as defined in 22 NYCRR\u00a7130-1.1-a.\n\nMark S. Gray, Esq.\n\nMadam/Sir: Please take notice\n\nNOTICE OF ENTRY that the within is a (certified) true copy of a\nduly entered in\nthe office of the clerk of the within named Court on\n\nNOTICE OF SETTLEMENT that a(n)\nbe presented for settlement to the HON.\non the day of 2014.\nDated:\n\nof which the within is a true copy will\nof the within named Court, at\n\nYours, etc.\nMARK S. GRAY\nAttorney at Law"}],"pdf_path":"data/pdfs/ortiz_hector.pdf","total_cost_usd":0.02019206,"total_elapsed_seconds":25.602396965026855}]