Tag: malicious prosecution

$1M Trial Verdict

On August 3, 2023, a federal jury in the Eastern District of New York returned a verdict in favor of our client, MH, agreeing that NYPD Detective Kevin Arias and NYPD PO Kevin Lee (both now retired) had caused him to be wrongly prosecuted. The jury awarded MH $300,000 in compensation for the 11 months he spent in custody and $700,000 in punitive damages against the two defendants.

On September 3, 2013, several men robbed a crowded social club in Queens. The police arrived while the crime was in progress and the suspects (and dozens of patrons) fled into the street. Lee arrested MH and later told his fellow officers that a witness had identified MH as one of the robbers. This claim was fundamentally false. The witness, and many other victims, went straight to the local station house where this witness told Arias that he only saw one of the robbers and that it was definitely not MH. The defendant officers deliberately chose not to put MH in a line up or conduct any other identification procedures. Instead, they simply told prosecutors that the witness had identified MH as a guilty party. As a result, MH sat in jail for 11 months until prosecutors asked the court to dismiss all charges.

At trial Lee continued to insist that he had done nothing wrong. Arias, however, admitted he could no longer say MH was involved in the crime and conceded that he had “failed” at his job. The jury was out for less than an hour before returning its verdict. It took 9 years and 11 months for MH’s vindication, but justice was finally done.

LLG Obtains $550k Following Verdict

We have just obtained a trial verdict for our client, WK, against the City of New York and detectives Hugo Ortega, Ylka Morales, and an undercover officer known as UC 217, for injuring and then framing WK for a drug sale he had no involvement in and an attempted robbery that never happened. As reported in the Daily News, the verdict, returned August 23, 2022, is for $191,001, with our legal fees and costs to be determined later. We have since reached a settlement in which the City agreed to pay WK $200,000 in damages and to pay our legal fees and costs in the amount of $350,000.

In April 2015 UC 217 was attempting to purchase crack cocaine in Brooklyn, New York as part of a buy-and-bust operation. He gave $60 to a woman and went with her to an apartment building. Watching from outside the front door, he claimed he saw her go into the lobby, walk directly up to WK, give WK the buy money, receive back an object that he later learned was crack, and then exit the building. According to UC 217, the woman never left his sight. He also claimed that WK and others followed her out of the building and forced UC 217 into a stairwell where they kept him for over a minute while threatening to shoot and rob him. Luckily, he claimed, he was able to escape unharmed. UC 217 swore to this that night in a written statement, and then repeated his claims to prosecutors and a grand jury.

Ortega and Morales, having been told about the drug sale by UC 217, entered the lobby minutes later to arrest WK. Ortega punched WK in the stomach and threw him to the ground where, moments later while WK was lying face down, Morales kicked him twice in the face. WK required stitches to close the wound above his eyebrow.

WK was jailed for over 9 days before making bail and was prosecuted on various felony charges for nearly 20 months, during which he was offered plea deals that would have required him to spend many years in a state prison. It was only when his criminal counsel finally received surveillance video from the building that WK could establish his innocence. The video showed that the woman actually entered and walked through the lobby and then exited through a back door into another part of the building, where she remained for well over a minute. When she returned, she again walked through the lobby and then out the front door. At no time did she exchange anything with anyone in the lobby. The video also demonstrated that WK was in an elevator almost the entire time the woman was in the building. More importantly, there simply was no attempted robbery. Prosecutors dismissed the case promptly after receiving the surveillance footage.

The civil jury found that both Ortega and Morales used excessive force, and that Morales and UC 217 both caused WK to be maliciously prosecuted. WK was awarded compensatory damages for his injuries and all three officers were found liable for punitive damages. The defendants are now challenging $7,901 of the $191,001 awarded. They are not challenging the balance of the verdict. Once this motion practice is resolved, the amount of legal fees and costs also owed by the defendants will be addressed and resolved, either by agreement or, that is not possible, by the court.

What is not clear is why the City of New York insisted on trying this case in the first place. The video evidence was compelling, and the fact that the Law Department chose not to challenge the verdict (beyond the $7,901 awarded against Ortega) confirms that the defendants recognize this to be so. Knowing that, it is difficult to understand why the defendants insisted on a trial. The City lawyers’ refusal to acknowledge or address what is plainly deliberate misconduct underscores why this misconduct happens over and over again. The City’s message is that it considers brutality and perjury to be acceptable policing tools, and officers need not worry about that they will be held accountable.

$150k Settlement for LLG Client for Malicious Prosecution

We are pleased to announce that our client, EL, has recently settled his claims of malicious prosecution and denial of a fair trial against members of the NYPD for $150,000. EL was driving a rental car when he was stopped by officers in the Bronx, who–acting on a tip from an informant–asked to search EL’s trunk. EL, who believed he had nothing to hide, readily consented. The officers then stated they found a handgun in the trunk. EL, who always denied any knowledge or connection to the gun, was acquitted at trial and then hired LLG to sue for compensation. The case ended with a settlement in the amount of $150,000.

Important SCOTUS civil rights ruling

The Supreme Court has ruled that a malicious prosecution claim can be maintained without showing the prosecution ended “favorably.” This is an important ruling.

In addition, requiring the plaintiff to show that his prosecution ended with an affirmative indication of innocence would paradoxically foreclose a §1983 claim when the government’s case was weaker and dismissed without explanation before trial, but allow a claim when the government’s evidence was substantial enough to proceed to trial. That would make little sense.

Thompson, at 11.

The Supreme Court, Thompson v. Clark, ruled today that a plaintiff can pursue a malicious prosecution claim without showing the prosecution ended “favorably.” All she needs to show is that ended without a conviction. This is an important ruling.

A person who was wrongly prosecuted may have a cause of action for malicious prosecution under federal law (42 USC §1983) if they can show that a police officer (i) caused her to be prosecuted, (ii) without probable cause, (iii) and did so with malice. The plaintiff also used to have to show that the criminal case ended “favorably.”

Thompson concerned this last criterion. The sole question there is whether the plaintiff need demonstrate anything other than the prosecution ended without a conviction. In New York federal courts, a plaintiff was required to show that the dismissal of his case iwas indicative of his innocence. This is no easy task and created logical and legal inconsistencies. As the Court in Thompson notes,

The bottom line here is that this element, known as the “favorable termination requirement,” created an additional obstacle that plaintiffs often could not satisfy for reasons that were beyond their control. Law enforcement defendants still have plenty of arrows in their quiver, but this ruling properly removes one line of defense that was fundamentally unfair and unjust.

LLG Wins Reinstatement of Wrongful Prosecution Case on Appeal

Our client, TK, was wrongly arrested and prosecuted for a narcotics offense he had no involvement in. The criminal prosecution was eventually dismissed for what is commonly called a speedy trial violation, which means that prosecutors were unable to proceed with his case in a timely way. TK then filed suit. In April 2020, a federal district judge dismissed his claims against the arresting officers for malicious prosecution and the denial of his right to a fair trial, which is the formal name of a claim where police officers lie to prosecutors. Michael Lumer appealed the case for TK.

Earlier today the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the dismissal of the wrongful prosecution claims and sent the case back to the district court, where it is now ready for trial.