Doe v. Doe

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 009) 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT — SUMMARY. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION This action arises out of a complaint alleging three causes of action: (1) extortion, (2) false arrest, and (3) malicious prosecution. Defendant Jane Doe (defendant) moves for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 dismissing plaintiff’s sole remaining cause of action for false arrest.¹ Plaintiff John Doe (plaintiff) opposes. I. Alleged Facts In October of 2016, plaintiff, who was a 44-year-old businessman, and defendant, who was a 21-year-old woman attending law school at Columbia University (CU), met online and established an intimate relationship which included financial support and tutoring. The logistical aspects of the relationship, such as location, frequency, and purpose of meetings, were initially arranged and agreed upon by both parties. On February 6, 2017, defendant reported to the Columbia University Department of Public Safety (DPS) that she, “wanted no further contact with [plaintiff],” and that, “[plaintiff] allegedly requested cash from the [defendant] to prevent him from reporting or disclosing information to the [defendant's] employer (nature of the disclosure was not divulged).” See NYSCEF doc. no. 137, CU Case Report, dated February 13, 2017. A few days later, on February 9, 2017, defendant returned to DPS and elaborated on the details of the reported incident. As per the CU Case Report by the DPS, the new information indicated defendant was the victim of a sex offense. Id. In response to defendant’s enhanced account, CU mailed a letter to plaintiff dated February 10, 2017, signed by the Director of Investigations, Deidre Fuchs, informing him that he was “persona non grata” at CU and would no longer be allowed on the University’s campus. See NYSCEF doc. no. 117. The letter specified that if plaintiff entered the campus without three days’ notice to the Director of Investigations at CU, plaintiff would be subject to immediate arrest for trespassing. Id. Specifically, the letter states: This letter serves as formal notification that effective immediately, you are considered Persona Non Grata on all Columbia University owned property. If you need to conduct any official business on Columbia University owned property, you must notify the undersigned, a minimum of three business days in advance, and be guided by the directions you receive. If you are found on Columbia University owned property without proper authorization, you will be considered a trespasser, and subject to immediate arrest. Id. On February 11, 2017, defendant met plaintiff at CU’s Uris Hall, and an hour later accompanied him to dinner off-campus. See NYSCEF doc. no. 137, CU Case Report, dated February 13, 2017. After dinner, defendant went with plaintiff to his apartment, where she remained with him until approximately 8:00 a.m. the following morning, February 12, 2017. At 9:30 a.m. that morning, after returning to her residence, defendant called DPS operations and reported being blackmailed by plaintiff. In response to defendant’s call, DPS operations dispatched uniformed Supervisor Sgt. Forrest to defendant’s residence, who then transported defendant to the DPS where she was interviewed by DPS investigator, Richard Medina. Id. Investigator Medina recorded in the CU Case Report that defendant reported that plaintiff had sexually assaulted her the previous night, “forced” her to remain in his apartment until the morning of February 12, 2017, and “forced” her to sign a note stating their sexual encounter was entirely consensual. Id. Specifically, Investigator Medina’s report reads: The subject [plaintiff] has threatened her [defendant], via phone and text messages, that he would report her to the Law School and her embassy if she did not sleep with him. The subject threatened that his lawyer would take such actions on his behalf. Although the c/v [defendant] was “scared” of the subject, the c/v agreed to meet with the subject and go to dinner with him on the evening of 2/11/17. The c/v hoped that this would satisfy the subject and he would leave the c/v alone. On 2/11/17, they met in Uris Hall, classroom #307, at 16:00 hours. The location was chosen by the subject. They remained at the location until approximately 17:00 hours. The subject gave the c/v a check for $1000.00 (USC), which was intended to, “make things right”. They then proceeded to dinner. The location was unknown, but [she] believed it was in the vicinity of Grand Central station. Between 21:00-22:00 hours, 2/11/17, they returned to the subject’s residence. While at the residence, the subject threatened the c/v that he would report her to the school and the embassy if she did not engage in anal sex with him. The subject wrote a note stating to the effect that the sexual intercourse was consensual. The c/v was forced to sign this note, again under threat of disclosing information to the University and the embassy. The c/v felt compelled and blackmailed into engaging in anal sex. Additionally, under the same threat, she was forced to remain at the subject’s residence until 08:00 hours on 2/12/17. After leaving the subject residence, she went to her residence and contacted public safety for assistance. Id. Following Investigator Medina’s investigation, CU security called NYPD at approximately 10:30 a.m., on February 12, 2017, and reported that defendant had been sexually assaulted. Id. NYPD arrived at CU in response to CU’s 911 call, and they escorted defendant to the NYPD’s Manhattan Special Victims Squad for further investigation. Id. According to the CU Case Report, later that same evening (February 12, 2017), defendant contacted the DPS to report that plaintiff was at Uris Hall. See NYSCEF doc. no. 137, at 12. The CU Case Report states, in pertinent part: [Defendant] reported that the person [plaintiff] involved in past sexual abuse complaint filed with [Columbia University Public Safety] and NYPD on 2-9-17 was inside Uris Hall, and via text messaging requested that she meet him there. Senior Sergeant Steward notified 911. NYPD responded, and after taking a statement from the complainant, responded to Uris Hall and arrested [plaintiff] inside room 142. He was taken into custody and transported to the 26th Precinct and charged with Criminal Sexual Act 1st Degree. [Plaintiff] was made [Persona Non Grata] while at the 26th Precinct.” Id. That same evening, after plaintiff’s arrest, defendant was taken to the Mount Sinai St. Luke’s Hospital for a medical evaluation. Id. At the hospital, defendant was diagnosed with, “adult sexual abuse.” See NYSCEF doc. no. 119, Defendant’s Hospital Record, at 5. At NYPD’s 26th precinct, plaintiff was charged with Criminal Sexual Act in the First Degree, under NY Penal Code 130.50, and was allegedly held in custody for five hours. See NYSCEF doc. no. 134, Arrest Record. The District Attorney of New York County ultimately declined to prosecute without citing a reason. See NYSCEF doc. no. 135, Certified Letter from the District Attorney of New York, dated May 7, 2017. However, the District Attorney’s Sex Crimes Unit Initial Case Assignment Form, completed by Assistant District Attorney Martha Bashford, stated that, following plaintiff’s arrest, defendant was intermittently tearful and non-responsive, and told the police officers she did not want to go forward with the case. See NYSCEF doc. no. 136, dated February 12, 2017. On February 13, 2017, a letter signed by the Assistant Vice President of the Office of Public Safety, John DeAngelis, was sent to plaintiff informing him that he was now a “persona non grata” at Teachers College in addition to CU. See NYSCEF doc. no. 137, CU Case Report, at 16. The letter reads: Pursuant to your recent activity and subsequent arrest at Columbia University, please be advised that upon receipt of this letter you are persona non grata at Teachers College at 525 West 120th Street, New York City, New York. You may not enter the campus grounds or any building on the campus, or any building owned and operated by Teachers College. If you have specific business to conduct at Teachers College you must first receive written authorization to enter the College campus. Your request for authorization should be directed to Director of Public Safety, Teachers College, Box 225, 525 West 120th Street, New York, NY 10027-6696. Your request may or may not be granted. As of the date of this letter, if you enter the Teachers College campus or buildings without prior written authorization from the Director of Public Safety at Teachers College you will be subject to arrest and prosecution for criminal trespass. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Id. II. Plaintiff’s False Arrest Claim Plaintiff filed an action against defendant by Summons and Complaint, on February 5, 2018, almost a year after the alleged incident, maintaining that his arrest on February 12, 2017, and the five hours of detention after the arrest, caused him emotional and physical injury, including headaches and emotional distress, as well as loss of liberty, unjust exclusion from CU’s campuses, and the financial burden of paying attorney’s fees, and that defendant is liable for those damages. See NYSCEF doc. no. 1, Complaint. Plaintiff maintains that defendant lied to the police on February 12, 2017, when she reported being sexually assaulted by him, and that there is ample evidence that Defendant furnished false information to the police. See NYSCEF doc. no. 131, Memorandum of Law in Opposition. Plaintiff argues that defendant’s furnishing of false information to the police directly induced his arrest. He provides no admissible evidence, other than his own testimony, to support this argument. Id. Plaintiff does not deny having anal and oral sex with defendant on the night of February 11, 2017. See NYSCEF doc. no. 114. He admits that he was “rough” with defendant during the sexual encounter, and that defendant told him the sex was, “painful”. Id. However, because the parties disagree over whether the sexual activity at issue was consensual, plaintiff argues that there are unresolved questions of fact, specifically of witness credibility, which should be judged by a fact finding jury, not in a summary judgment motion. See NYSCEF doc. no. 131, Memorandum of Law in Opposition. As previously discussed, two of the three causes of action in plaintiff’s complaint were previously dismissed, leaving only the cause of action for false arrest. See NYSCEF doc. no. 36, Decision on Motion. III. Analysis It is well-established that the “function of summary judgment is issue finding, not issue determination.” Assaf v. Ropog Cab Corp., 153 AD2d 520 (1st Dept 1989) (quoting Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404 [1957]). As such, the proponent of a motion for summary judgment must tender sufficient evidence to show the absence of any material issue of fact and the right to entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. See Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital, 68 NY2d 320 (1986); Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center, 64 NY2d 851 (1985). The party opposing a motion for summary judgment is entitled to all favorable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence submitted. See Dauman Displays, Inc. v. Masturzo, 168 AD2d 204 (1st Dept 1990), citing Assaf v. Ropog Cab Corp., 153 AD2d 520, 521 (1st Dept 1989). To assert a common-law claim of false arrest (also termed “false imprisonment”), a plaintiff must establish that the defendant intended to confine the plaintiff, that the plaintiff was conscious of the confinement, did not consent to the confinement, and that the confinement was not otherwise privileged. Martinez v. City of Schenectady, 97 NY2d 78, 85 (2001). An essential element of a claim for false arrest is that the defendant intended to confine the plaintiff. Cecora v. De La Hoya, NY2d 464 (1st Dept 2013). To sustain a false arrest claim against a private citizen, “it is not enough that the defendant’s words or actions caused a police officer to confine him…” Id. Plaintiff must allege that the defendant instigated his arrest or directed an officer to take him into custody to pursue such a claim. See Du Chateau v. Metro-N. Commuter R. Co., 253 AD2d 128, 132-133 (1st Dept 1999). Defendant argues that plaintiff has failed to set forth a prima facie case through evidence in admissible form to support his claim of false arrest against defendant. Specifically, defendant contends that plaintiff failed to produce evidence that defendant intended to confine plaintiff, that she furnished false information to the police or affirmatively induced the police to arrest plaintiff, or that plaintiff’s arrest was not otherwise privileged. In opposition, plaintiff argues that defendant furnished false information to the police which directly induced his arrest. Specifically, plaintiff maintains that because defendant accused him of sexual assault and reported the incident to campus security at CU, who then called NYPD, defendant is liable for false arrest. Defendant has provided sufficient evidence in admissible form to show that she is entitled to summary judgement and dismissal. She has produced evidence to support her allegation that she was sexually assaulted by plaintiff through her testimony, campus security reports, and her hospital record from the day after the sexual assault (which disclosed she was diagnosed with “adult sexual abuse”)². Plaintiff, however, has failed to provide more than his own uncorroborated testimony as evidence that defendant intended to confine him by furnishing false information to the police and that his arrest was not otherwise privileged. It is well established that uncorroborated testimony, where contradicted by compelling record evidence, is not sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Castro v. Hatim et al., 174 AD3d 466 (1st Dept 2019). At a minimum, the evidence submitted by the parties proves that, even if plaintiff does not believe he committed any form of sexual assault against defendant, defendant believed she was sexually assaulted by plaintiff and reported plaintiff’s conduct to campus security which made that determination. Plaintiff has failed to produce any proof in admissible form that defendant knowingly furnished false information to campus security or the police to induce plaintiff’s arrest such that a triable issue of material fact exists. In fact, plaintiff admits to the conduct defendant alleges occurred. Additionally, plaintiff’s arrest occurred after a 911 call was made to NYPD by CU’s campus security following their own investigation and assessment of defendant’s claims and credibility. NYPD responded and arrested plaintiff upon their own investigation; no call was made to NYPD by defendant herself. Plaintiff has failed to show that defendant initiated his arrest, or that she directed law enforcement to take plaintiff into custody as would be necessary to sustain his prima facie claim of false arrest. In Moorhouse v. Standard, New York, the Court found that the defendant was not liable for false arrest³ when the plaintiff, a hotel guest, was arrested after the defendant, a housekeeper, reported to her work supervisor that the plaintiff sexually assaulted her while she was cleaning his hotel room. Moorhouse v. Standard, New York, 66 AD3d 1 (1st Dept 2014). In that case, the Court found that because the defendant neither called law enforcement nor asked anyone to do so, she was not liable for false imprisonment. Here, plaintiff has not produced any evidence to show defendant called or asked anyone to call NYPD to have him arrested. Furthermore, plaintiff’s arrest occurred upon his decision to enter the CU campus, after he was advised that he was not permitted on campus and would be arrested if he entered campus without receiving prior authorization, per the letter sent to him by Deidre Fuchs on February 10, 2017. Despite being designated persona non grata at CU before his arrest, plaintiff chose to enter the Columbia campus without notification and permission. His arrest related to his bold disregard of the warning letters he was sent. As plaintiff is unable to prove his prima facie case as a matter of law, and has raised no triable issues of material fact, defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s cause of action for false arrest against her. IV. Conclusion As set forth herein, to succeed on a false arrest claim plaintiff is required to prove that defendant intended to confine him, that plaintiff was conscious of the confinement, that plaintiff did not consent to the confinement, and that the confinement was not privileged. See Broughton v. State, 37 NY2d 451, 456 (1975). In viewing the evidence in light most favorable to the opposing party, the Court has determined that plaintiff has failed to provide evidence in admissible form to support his prima facie claim for false arrest. As such, plaintiff has failed to show that there are any triable issues of material fact to defeat defendant’s summary judgment motion. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted and the complaint is dismissed with costs and disbursements to plaintiff as taxed by the Clerk upon the submission of an appropriate bill of costs; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. This constitutes the order and decision of the Court. CHECK ONE: X  CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION X  GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE Dated: January 8, 2024