ABRAHAM PAULOS, res, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., APPELLANTS def

ABRAHAM PAULOS, res, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., APPELLANTS def — (INDEX NO. 25514/11)In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for false arrest, for malicious prosecution, and pursuant to 42 USC §1983 for the deprivation of federal constitutional rights under color of state law, the defendants City of New York, Police Officer Paul Montefusco, and Police Officer Cotson appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ash, J.), dated June 21, 2013, as denied those branches of their motion which were for summary judgment dismissing, insofar as asserted against them, the causes of action to recover damages for malicious prosecution and pursuant to 42 USC §1983 for the deprivation, under color of state law, of the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment right to be free from the unreasonable seizure of his person, arising from his arrest and prosecution, and granted that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 1024 and 3025(b) for leave to amend the complaint to substitute Police Officer Cotson as a party defendant in place of Police Officer John Doe #1.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

ABRAHAM PAULOS, res, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., APPELLANTS def — (INDEX NO. 25514/11)In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for false arrest, for malicious prosecution, and pursuant to 42 USC §1983 for the deprivation of federal constitutional rights under color of state law, the defendants City of New York, Police Officer Paul Montefusco, and Police Officer Cotson appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ash, J.), dated June 21, 2013, as denied those branches of their motion which were for summary judgment dismissing, insofar as asserted against them, the causes of action to recover damages for malicious prosecution and pursuant to 42 USC §1983 for the deprivation, under color of state law, of the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from the unreasonable seizure of his person, arising from his arrest and prosecution, and granted that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 1024 and 3025(b) for leave to amend the complaint to substitute Police Officer Cotson as a party defendant in place of Police Officer John Doe #1.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, those branches of the appellants’ motion which were for summary judgment dismissing, insofar as asserted against them, the causes of action to recover damages for malicious prosecution and pursuant to 42 USC §1983 for the deprivation, under color of state law, of the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from the unreasonable seizure of his person, arising from his arrest and prosecution, are granted, and that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 1024 and 3025(b) for leave to amend the complaint to substitute Police Officer Cotson as a party defendant in place of Police Officer John Doe #1 is denied as academic.

ABRAHAM PAULOS, res, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., APPELLANTS def

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal