14-577-cv
Thompson v. City of New York
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A
DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST
SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 5th day of February, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
7 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
8 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
9 Circuit Judges.
10
11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
12 KEVIN THOMPSON,
13 Plaintiff-Appellant,
14
15 -v.- 14-577-cv
16
17 CITY OF NEW YORK, DETECTIVE JOSEPH
18 HICKEY, POLICE OFFICER ANTHONY
19 CAROZZA, POLICE OFFICER PETER
20 BORUKHOV, JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-6,
21 Defendants-Appellees.*
22 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
23
*
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to
amend the official caption in this case to conform with the
caption above.
1
1 FOR APPELLANT: PATRICK O’KEKE (John Iwuh, on
2 the brief), O’keke & Associates,
3 P.C., Brooklyn, New York.
4
5 FOR APPELLEES: FAY NG (Pamela Seider Dolgow, on
6 the brief), for Zachary W.
7 Carter, Corporation Counsel of
8 the City of New York, New York,
9 New York.
10
11 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
12 Court for the Eastern District of New York (Dearie, J.).
13
14 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
15 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
16 AFFIRMED.
17
18 Kevin Thompson appeals from the judgment of the United
19 States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
20 (Dearie, J.), granting summary judgment in favor of
21 defendants-appellees the City of New York, Detective Joseph
22 Hickey, Police Officer Anthony Carozza, and Police Officer
23 Peter Borukhov (collectively, the “police officers”). We
24 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts,
25 the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
26
27 Summary judgment must be granted if “there is no
28 genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
29 entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
30 56(a); see generally Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
31 U.S. 242 (1986). We review de novo a district court’s grant
32 of summary judgment. Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313
33 F.3d 758, 763 (2d Cir. 2002).
34
35 The existence of probable cause is an absolute defense
36 to false arrest and malicious prosecution claims, whether
37 asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or under New York state
38 law.1 See Manganiello v. City of New York, 612 F.3d 149,
39 161-62 (2d Cir. 2010); Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d
40 76, 84 (2d Cir. 2007); Weyant v. Okst, 101 F.3d 845, 852 (2d
41 Cir. 1996). “Probable cause exists if a law enforcement
1
Thompson does not address his other state law
claims in his appellate briefs and thus any argument he may
have regarding their dismissal has been waived. Norton v.
Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1998).
2
1 official, on the basis of the totality of the circumstances,
2 has sufficient knowledge or reasonably trustworthy
3 information to justify a person of reasonable caution in
4 believing that an offense has been or is being committed by
5 the person to be arrested.” United States v. Gagnon, 373
6 F.3d 230, 236 (2d Cir. 2004).
7
8 The following undisputed facts establish that the
9 police officers had probable cause to arrest Thompson: (1) a
10 hat was found at the scene of the burglary that did not
11 belong to any of the residents; (2) DNA found on the hat
12 matched Thompson’s; (3) Thompson’s last-known address was
13 within 300 feet of the burglary; and (4) Thompson’s lengthy
14 criminal history included multiple robbery and larceny-
15 related offenses.
16
17 The existence of probable cause was not negated by the
18 officers’ alleged failure to undertake additional
19 investigation. See Curley v. Village of Suffern, 268 F.3d
20 65, 70 (2d Cir. 2001) (“[T]he arresting officer does not
21 have to prove plaintiff’s version wrong before arresting
22 him. . . . Nor does it matter that an investigation might
23 have cast doubt upon the basis for the arrest.”).
24
25 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in
26 Thompson’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of
27 the district court.
28
29 FOR THE COURT:
30 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
31
3