Attorney David M. Hazan's Legal Cases

Civil rights

Green v. Doe, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112989 (DRI)(LB)

Apr 15, 2008

OUTCOME: Defendant's Motion to dismiss Granted

Plaintiff filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 17, 2007. On October 11, 2007, the Court dismissed plaintiff's claims against defendants New York City Police C ... ommissioner Raymond Kelly, the New York City Police Department Special Weapons and Tactical ("SWAT") team, and the New York City Fire Department's Emergency Medical Services ("EMS"). The Court requested the Corporation Counsel to ascertain the full names of the SWAT team officers who apprehended plaintiff and the EMS technicians who treated plaintiff on the scene pursuant to Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72 (2d. Cir. 1997) (per curiam). Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 15, 2007, naming only John Does as individual defendants. On November 19, 2007, the Court granted non-party the City of New York's motion to compel plaintiff to sign and return releases so that the individuals involved in the underlying incident could be identified. On January 14, 2008, the Court granted the City's request for an extension of time to respond to the Court's Valentin Order as plaintiff had not signed releases needed to identify the individual defendants. The Court scheduled an initial telephonic conference on February 7, 2008 to explain to plaintiff the need for the releases. Before the scheduled conference date, the City informed the Court that plaintiff had been discharged from Rikers Island and advised the Court of plaintiff's last-known address at the time he was arrested in the underlying incident. The Court therefore rescheduled the initial conference for February 21, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. in Court. The conference was thereafter rescheduled to March 10, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. in Court. The Court sent its Orders rescheduling the initial conference to plaintiff at the pre-arrest address provided by the City, however the Orders were returned as undeliverable. The Court therefore adjourned the March 10, 2008 conference and advised plaintiff of his obligation to provide the Court with a current address. The Court warned plaintiff that if he failed to contact the Court in writing to provide a current address by April 7, 2008, the Court would dismiss this action. By letter dated April 10, 2008, the City requests that the Court dismiss this action. Plaintiff has failed to provide a current address and has not contacted the Court or the City since he filed his amended complaint in November 2007. The Court's Order, which was sent to plaintiff at his last-known address, was returned as undeliverable. I therefore respectfully recommend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) that plaintiff's case should be dismissed.

Civil rights

Pierre v. City of New York, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29107 (JFB)(KAM)

Apr 09, 2008

OUTCOME: Bill of Costs Granted and Ordered to be Paid by Plaintiffs

After plaintiff's claims were dismissed in their entirety, defendants' moved for a Bill of Costs against plaintiffs and the Bill f Costs was granted to be paid by plaintiffs to defendant over plaintiff ... s' objections.

Civil rights

Rutigliano v. City of New York, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 781 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 2, 2008) (JSR)

Jan 03, 2008

OUTCOME: Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. 2. The defendants' motion is granted, although partly pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Decision Affirmed by 2nd Circuit on Appeal.

In his second amended complaint, plaintiff James Rutigliano alleged that on the evening of March 15, 2007, an emotionally disturbed woman began to attack him on 14th Street after he accidentally stepp ... ed on her foot. "In response to a 911 complaint of an assault," police officers arrived on the scene. Both the woman and Rutigliano declined to press charges. Nevertheless, an officer searched Rutigliano's shoulder bag without consent. In Rutigliano's shoulder bag, the officer found "16 sample boxes of a prescription medication called Lexapro that had been given to [Rutigliano] earlier in the evening by Dr. William Weiss" because Rutigliano does not have health insurance. Lexapro is not a controlled substance. After finding the Lexapro, Officer Veliz arrested Rutigliano for possession of a controlled substance. Rutigliano offered to provide the name and number of his doctor to verify his prescription for the medication, but the officers ignored him and did nothing to ascertain whether Lexapro was a controlled substance or whether Rutigliano had a right to carry it. . Rutigliano was taken to the precinct for booking, and around 10:30 p.m. defendant Veliz signed a statement swearing that Rutigliano had been in possession of a controlled substance. Plaintiff alleges that Veliz made this inaccurate statement "because the City of New York fails to give its police officers objective standards by which to ascertain as a matter of fact whether a drug seized during a search is or is not a controlled substance." Rutigliano was detained for an additional twelve hours "[a]s a result of the signing and filing" of the statement by Veliz. Subsequently, Rutigliano was taken to court and arraigned, and was then "required to remain during a period of colloquy" between Rutigliano's lawyer and the judge "for a period of up to two minutes after the arraignment." After the "ninety seconds to two minutes of colloquy, upon the DA's motion, the case was dismissed and [Rutigliano was] free to go." When Rutigliano later went to collect his belongings, the police "refused to return the Lexapro." Based on these allegations, Rutigliano asserted four kinds of claims: false imprisonment under state and federal law; malicious prosecution under state and federal law; illegal seizure of the Lexapro under federal law,; and a claim against the City under federal law for failure to supervise. In the second amended complaint, Rutigliano also originally asserted claims of false arrest under state and federal law and illegal search under state and federal law, but he subsequently withdrew these claims. Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on the Pleadings and Defendants Motion was granted and the case was dismissed.

Civil rights

Espada v. Schneider, 522 F. Supp. 2d 544 (NRB) (SDNY)

Nov 07, 2007

OUTCOME: Most claims dismissed pursuant to Court's summary judgment decision. Remaining claims withdrawn

Plaintiff arrestee filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 and the common law of New York against defendants, two police officers, and the city, asserting claims for false arrest, malicious prosecuti ... on, excessive force, assault, and battery arising out of the arrest of the arrestee and prosecution for assault in the second degree. Defendants moved for summary judgment. Defendants argued hat there was probable cause to justify the arrest; the arrestee failed to state all the elements of a malicious prosecution claim; the arrestee did not show that the officers were personally involved in the alleged use of excessive force; and the excessive force claims did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. There was no genuine issue of material fact as to the probable cause for the arrestee's arrest on a disorderly conduct charge. When the officers arrived on the scene, they observed four men, including the arrestee, in a "nasty fight.." Officer one and his colleagues were attempting to quell a riotous street fight and, while in such a situation the arrestee might have been mistakenly identified as officer two's assailant, probable cause for the prosecution was not so lacking as to reasonably permit an inference that the proceeding was maliciously instituted. Although officer one denied striking the arrestee, there remained issues of material fact as to his personal involvement as to the excessive force claim. Officer two was not personally involved so the excessive force claim failed. The false arrest and malicious prosecution claims against the officers, as well as the excessive force, assault, and battery claims against officer two, were dismissed. The assault, battery, and § 1983 excessive force claims against officer one remained pending. However, after the summary judgment decision, plaintiff withdrew the remained claims against the one officer, with prejudice.

Civil rights

Pierre v. City of New York, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60707 (JFB)(KAM) (EDNY)

Aug 17, 2007

OUTCOME: Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment Granted

On October 27, 2005, plaintiffs Delphine Pierre, mother and natural guardian of Christopher Sylla, and Colleen Glasgow, mother and natural guardian of Andrew Glasgow (collectively, "plaintiffs"), comme ... nced the instant civil rights action against defendants the City of New York, New York Police Department ("NYPD") Officer John Hachadoorian ("Officer Hachadoorian"), NYPD Sergeant Michael White ("Sgt. White"), and NYPD Officers John and Jane Does # 1-10 1Link to the text of the note (collectively, "defendants"), alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and malicious abuse of process, as well as a claim of municipal liability. On January 19, 2007, defendants moved for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.. Defendants' motion is granted.

Civil rights

Doe v Del Rio, 241 FRD 154 [SDNY 2006].

Dec 11, 2006

OUTCOME: The court granted defendants' motion to require amendment of the caption of the case to reflect plaintiffs' true names.

Plaintiffs, a husband and wife, sued defendants, a city and several police officers, alleging the violation of their civil rights from police brutality and abuse. Plaintiffs filed the suit pseudonymous ... ly, contending that their interests in privacy outweighed the normal presumption that suits be brought in a party's proper name. Defendants moved to require the caption to reflect plaintiffs' true names. Plaintiffs contested the motion. Plaintiffs alleged that they were accosted by plain clothes police officers late one night, and that the officers threw the husband against a wall and to the ground before a marked police car arrived. The husband was arrested and further beaten at the police station. The wife was unable to obtain her husband's release. An officer drove her home and allegedly attempted to sexually assault her. Plaintiffs filed suit when charges and complaints did not result in disciplinary action. While acknowledging that suits were normally brought in a party's name and that there was a constitutional interest in open judicial proceedings, the wife alleged a privacy interest in avoiding exposure due to the intimacy of the matters and an interest in mitigating further psychological injury from her public identification. The court granted the motion. Information about the nature of the charged acts was not so extreme as to support an interest in anonymity. Most of the psychological distress was intrinsic to litigation. Any additional burden resulting from the public revelation of plaintiffs' identities was not exceptional, and it did not outweigh the public interest in open judicial proceedings.

Civil rights

Canario v. City of New York, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51577 (LBS) (SDNY)

Jul 10, 2006

OUTCOME: Court Granted Defendants Motion to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(c)

Plaintiff Carlos Canario brings suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of New York and Detective Giselle Moyano (collectively "Defendants"), claiming false arrest and malicious prosecution ... in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Defendants here bring a motion for judgment on the pleadings, per Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Civil rights

Walker v. City of New York, 2006 U.S Dist. LEXIS 34345 (JBW) (JMA)

Apr 04, 2006

OUTCOME: Settlement Enforced

This action arises under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1383 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988 for an alleged assault and false arrest of plaintiff, Ethel Walker ("Walker"), by members of the New York City Police Depart ... ment ("Defendants") on September 6, 2004. When Walker's attorney, Michael Colihan ("Colihan"), on two separate occasions entered into identical settlement agreements with defendants' counsel, David Hazan of New York City Corporation Counsel ("Hazan"), Walker objected and refused to execute the settlement documents. Defendants now move to enforce the settlement agreement, and,the Court respectfully granted defendants' motion..

Civil rights

Zapata v. City of New York, 502 F.3d 192, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 22525 (2d Cir. N.Y., Sept. 20, 2007)

Jan 31, 2006

OUTCOME: Motion to Dismiss granted and affirmed by bSecond Circuit

By motion heard January 20, 2006 defendant City of New York sought to dismiss this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Mr. Zapata alleged the use of excessive force aga ... inst his person by a correction officer, and that the City of New York failed adequately to train its Department of Correction Officers at Rikers Island. The Court held that because the claim is time-barred as against Correction Officer Moran and his unnamed co-workers, and in light of Monell, there remains only the boilerplate allegation that the New York City Department of Correction, failed to adequately train, discipline, or in any other way control the correction officers assigned to the Anna M. Kross Center at Rikers Island. The Court further held that in order to establish liability against the City, Mr. Zapata must demonstrate that these alleged violations of his constitutional rights occurred pursuant to a municipal "policy" or "custom." See Monell v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1978); accord Jeffes v. Barnes, 208 F.3d 49, 56 (2d Cir. 2000). Mr. Zapata made no such showing. He stated merely that the City has failed to, and that it is the policy not to, "train, supervise, discipline, or in any other way control?" its Correction Officers, Clearly Moran is not possessed of policymaking authority. Correction Officers of the City are civil service employees selected from a list of generated by a competitive examination, who do receive approved training when appointed. Whether force used in a given situation is excessive is a matter of degree. No amount of training will obviate fact intensive claims that too much force was used. A Plaintiff can show that a municipal "policy" exists where: (1) the City has promulgated a formal rule advocating or supporting the contested conduct, or (2) "a single act is taken by a municipal employee who, as a matter of state law, has final policymaking authority in the area in which the action was taken." Davis v. City of New York, 228 F. Supp. 2d 327, 336-37 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (quoting Monell at 690 and Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 479-82, 106 S. Ct. 1292, 89 L. Ed. 2d 452 (1986). Monell and its progeny clearly establish that plaintiff cannot sue the City of New York without proof of a city-sanctioned policy or custom of discrimination. This rule would be rendered sterile if, as plaintiff asserts, mere conclusory allegations… were sufficient to hold the municipality liable. Edwards v. City of New York, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34376 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2005). The motion by the City is granted for failure to show any such policy as claimed. The case is dismissed as to defendant Moran as time-barred.

Civil rights

MacWade v. Kelly, 2005 WL 3338573 (SDNY Dec. 7 2005)

Jan 01, 2005

OUTCOME: Judgment in favor of City of New York

David Hazan Represented the City of New York from the inception of the Civil Rights lawsuit brought by the NYCLU through post trial motion practice after Mr. Hazan's client prevailed at trial. The Co ... urt considered whether the government may employ random, suspicionless container searches in order to safeguard mass transportation facilities from terrorist attack. The precise issue before the Court was whether searches by the NYPD in the New York City subway system, satisfied the special needs exception to the Fourth Amendment's usual requirement of individualized suspicion. The Court held that the searches were lawful because they fit into the special needs exception to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

David M. Hazan's Legal Cases (20)

Green v. Doe, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112989 (DRI)(LB)

Pierre v. City of New York, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29107 (JFB)(KAM)

Rutigliano v. City of New York, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 781 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 2, 2008) (JSR)

Espada v. Schneider, 522 F. Supp. 2d 544 (NRB) (SDNY)

Pierre v. City of New York, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60707 (JFB)(KAM) (EDNY)

Doe v Del Rio, 241 FRD 154 [SDNY 2006].

Canario v. City of New York, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51577 (LBS) (SDNY)

Walker v. City of New York, 2006 U.S Dist. LEXIS 34345 (JBW) (JMA)

Zapata v. City of New York, 502 F.3d 192, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 22525 (2d Cir. N.Y., Sept. 20, 2007)

MacWade v. Kelly, 2005 WL 3338573 (SDNY Dec. 7 2005)