PAMELA K. CHEN, District Judge.
Plaintiff Natifah Cooper brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Police Officers Paul Dieugenia ("Dieugenia") and Aleksandr Pasynkov ("Pasynkov") and unidentified "Jane Doe Officers 1-10", based on events relating to her arrest on April 17, 2013. In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserted six causes of action: (1) unlawful stop and search; (2) false arrest; (3) excessive force; (4) denial of the right to a fair trial; (5) First Amendment retaliation; and (6) failure to intervene. (Dkt. 12, ("AC") ¶¶ 36-57.) As discussed infra, since filing this action, Plaintiff has withdrawn a number of her claims as to various Defendants. Before the Court is Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of all remaining claims, except Plaintiff's claim of excessive force against Dieugenia. (Dkt. 36, ("Defs. Mem.").) For the reasons discussed below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff blanketly asserted all six causes of action against all of the Defendants. In rather helter-skelter fashion, Plaintiff thereafter voluntarily withdrew various claims against some of the Defendants. At the pre-motion conference on April 26, 2016, Plaintiff withdrew all of her claims against the Doe defendants and her first cause of action for unlawful stop and search against all Defendants. (See 4/26/2016 Minute Entry and Transcript.) On May 4, 2016, Plaintiff withdrew her false arrest, excessive force, and denial of the right to a fair trial claims against Pasynkov. (See Dkt. 31.) And now, in response to Defendant's motion, Plaintiff withdraws her First Amendment retaliation claim against all Defendants. (See Dkt. 39, ("Pl. Opp.") at 7.)
On the night of April 17, 2013, Plaintiff was arrested, as was her boyfriend, Alexander Kosterkin ("Kosterkin"), by Defendants, both of whom are New York City Police Department officers. (Dkt. 35, ("Defs. 56.1") ¶¶ 1, 7; Dkt. 40, ("Pl. 56.1 Counter-Statement") ¶¶ II.2, 9.)
The parties disagree about most of what transpired from this point on. Defendants allege that Plaintiff blocked Pasynkov's path as he attempted to walk Kosterkin to the police vehicle. (Dkt. 34-4, Ex. D, ("Dieugenia") at 26:19-27:4.) Plaintiff denies blocking Pasynkov's path at any point; rather, she says she was standing behind Pasynkov, leaving him a clear path to the police car. (Cooper at 60:4-22.)
Defendants allege that, as Pasynkov handed Kosterkin's cell phone to Dieugenia for safekeeping, Plaintiff pushed Dieugenia. (Dieugenia at 36:11-37:4.) Plaintiff denies this. (Cooper at 59:13-15.) Plaintiff alleges that Kosterkin had asked the officers whether he could give Plaintiff his phone and that Pasynkov had said yes. (Id. at 53:6-9.) Plaintiff then took the dog to Kosterkin's house and came back to pick up Kosterkin's phone. (Pl. Cooper at 54:4-13.) Plaintiff alleges that when she returned, she bent down to pick up Kosterkin's phone, which was on the ground, and that Dieugenia pushed her when she had her back turned to him. (Id. at 54:14-23; 55:8-15.) According to Plaintiff, she was startled and asked Dieugenia why he had pushed her, at which point he grabbed her arm, punched her in the face with a closed fist, and threw her to the ground. (Id. at 55:8-23; 57:4-20.) He then pushed her face into the dirt, put his knee into her back, and told her to "stop resisting." (Id. at 57:21-25.) Plaintiff denies resisting and alleges that she tried to tell the officer that he was hurting her. (Id. at 57:22-58:3.) At this point, Kosterkin's mother, who had arrived at the scene, told Dieugenia that Cooper has asthma, to which Dieugenia replied, "They all do." (Id. at 58:4-6.)
Dieugenia then patted down Plaintiff's pockets and searched her while she was on the ground with her face in the dirt. (Id. at 58:10-16.) Female officers later came and conducted a thorough search of Plaintiff. (Id. at 58:17-19.) Plaintiff was arrested, taken to Central Booking, and charged with various misdemeanors. (AC ¶¶ 32-33.) She eventually received an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal ("ACD") after multiple court appearances. (Id. ¶ 34.)
"Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine disputes concerning any material facts, and where the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Summa v. Hofstra Univ., 708 F.3d 115, 123 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Weinstein v. Albright, 261 F.3d 127, 132 (2d Cir. 2001)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). "Material" facts are facts that "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A "genuine" dispute exists "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. "The moving party bears the burden of establishing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact." Zalaski v. City of Bridgeport Police Dep't, 613 F.3d 336, 340 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322). Once a defendant has met his initial burden, the plaintiff must "designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323-24 (internal quotation marks omitted). In determining whether there are genuine disputes of material fact, the court must "resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought." Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court's inquiry upon summary judgment is "determining whether there is the need for a trial—whether, in other words, there are any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250; see also id. at 251-52 ("In essence, though, the inquiry . . . [is] whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law."). In other words, "[s]ummary judgment is appropriate only `[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.'" Donnelly v. Greenburgh Cent. Sch. Dist. No. 7, 691 F.3d 134, 141 (2d Cir. 2012) (alterations in original) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)).
Plaintiff has brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action for anyone subjected "to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" by a person acting under color of state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. "Section 1983 itself creates no substantive rights; it provides only a procedure for redress for the deprivation of [federal] rights established elsewhere." Thomas v. Roach, 165 F.3d 137, 142 (2d Cir. 1999) (citing City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 816 (1985)); see Bailey v. City of New York, 79 F.Supp.3d 424, 440 (E.D.N.Y. 2015). To state a claim under Section 1983, "a plaintiff must allege that (1) the challenged conduct was attributable at least in part to a person who was acting under color of state law and (2) the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States." Snider v. Dylag, 188 F.3d 51, 53 (2d Cir. 1999); see Velez v. Levy, 401 F.3d 75, 84 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980)).
Defendants argue that Plaintiff's false arrest claim must be dismissed because there was probable cause for her arrest. In the alternative, Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to this claim. As explained below, the Court rejects both of these contentions.
"In analyzing § 1983 claims for unconstitutional false arrest, [courts] generally look[] to the law of the state in which the arrest occurred." Dancy v. McGinley, 843 F.3d 93, 107 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Jaegly v. Couch, 439 F.3d 149, 151 (2d Cir. 2006)). Under New York law, to prevail on a false arrest claim, a plaintiff must show, inter alia, that Defendants
Defendants present various theories for finding probable cause for Plaintiff's arrest: (1) she, along with her boyfriend and the other man, were standing around a bonfire in violation of the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation Regulation ("Parks Department Rule"), 56 R.C.N.Y. § 1-05(m); (2) she was in a City park after dark in violation of another Parks Department Rule, 56 R.C.N.Y. § 1-03(a)(1); (3) her behavior constituted disorderly conduct in violation of New York Penal Law § 240.20; and (4) she physically attempted to block the walkway when Pasynkov walked her boyfriend to the police vehicle, thus obstructing governmental administration ("OGA") and resisting an arrest in violation of New York Penal Law Sections 195.05 and 205.30, respectively. (See Defs. Mem. at 4-8.)
Defendants assert that probable cause existed to arrest Plaintiff for violating a Parks Department Rule because she was "standing around a bonfire" with others in the park. (Defs. Mem. at 5.) Section 1-05(m) of the Parks Department Rule states, in relevant part, that "no person shall kindle, build, maintain, or use a fire in any place, portable receptacle, or grill except in places provided by the [Parks] Department and so designated by sign or by special permit. In no event shall open or ground camp fires be allowed in any park." However, Plaintiff denies using or having anything to do with the bonfire, and claims that she and her boyfriend were merely helping the other man open his can of food. (Pl. Cooper at 37:18-38:10, 39:9-12.) Notably, Defendants do not discuss, or point to any evidence regarding, where Plaintiff was in relation to the bonfire or how far from it she was at the time Defendants approached her. (See Defs. Mem.) They do not assert or offer evidence that Plaintiff was doing anything other than standing in the vicinity of the bonfire. In light of such factual gaps and the parties' disagreement as to Plaintiff's "use" of the bonfire, the Court cannot find, as a matter of law, that there was probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for violating Section 1-05(m) of the Parks Department Rule.
Defendants also assert that there was probable cause for Plaintiff's arrest because she was in a New York City park, after dark, in violation of 56 R.C.N.Y. § 1-03(a)(1), which states, "Persons may enter and use the parks from 6:00 a.m. until 1:00 a.m. unless other open hours are posted at [the] park." (Defs. Mem. at 6.) However, the parties dispute whether there was a properly posted sign that shortened the park's hours. Plaintiff and Kosterkin claim that "there was no sign forbidding access to the beach area after dusk, or any other prohibition." (Pl. Opp. at 5.) Meanwhile, Defendants offer a Google Maps image purportedly showing a sign posted at the entrance to the park where Plaintiff was arrested. (Dkt. 34-5, Ex. E). Defendants represent that the sign indicated that the park closed at dusk, and ask the Court to take judicial notice, based on this image, that the park closed at dusk on the day of Plaintiff's arrest. (Defs. Mem. at 6.) Even assuming arguendo the propriety of the Court taking judicial notice of the Google Maps image, that image fails to prove anything. First, the image does not clearly show what the sign says.
Defendants also assert that Plaintiff's hostile and unruly behavior gave them probable cause to arrest her. (Defs. Mem. at 7-8.) However, Defendants' argument is based entirely on their version of how Plaintiff allegedly behaved, and completely disregards her contrary version of events. This is a classic he-said-she-said dispute that is inappropriate for resolution by summary judgment because there is no unimpeachable evidence to break the tie. "The question of whether or not probable cause existed may be determinable as a matter of law if there is no dispute as to the pertinent events and the knowledge of the officers[.]" Weyant, 101 F.3d at 852 (emphasis added). When the issue of probable cause is "predominantly factual in nature," it is appropriate for the jury to decide. Barksdale v. Colavita, 506 F. App'x. 82, 84 (2d Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549, 553-54 (2d Cir. 2005) ("Assessments of credibility and choices between conflicting versions of the events are matters for the jury, not for the court on summary judgment." (quoting Rule v. Brine, Inc., 85 F.3d 1002, 1011 (2d Cir. 1996))).
Here, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to every one of the illegal acts allegedly committed by Cooper. Whereas Defendants claim that Plaintiff was screaming, cursing, flailing her arms, pushing Dieugenia, and blocking Pasynkov's path—giving rise to probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for OGA,
Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that there remains a material factual dispute as to whether Defendants had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff. See, e.g., Graham v. City of New York, 928 F.Supp.2d 610, 617 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (denying summary judgment on plaintiff's false arrest claim, finding a genuine issue of fact regarding whether plaintiff obstructed government administration and finding it was appropriate for the jury to decide which party's version of the facts should be credited); Milfort v. Prevete, 922 F.Supp.2d 398, 406 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (denying summary judgment as to plaintiff's false arrest claim when the parties disagreed about whether plaintiff raised his voice or complied with a police officer's directive); Usavage v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 932 F.Supp.2d 575, 598 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ("Resolutions of credibility conflicts and choices between conflicting versions of the facts are matters for the jury, not for the court on summary judgment." (quoting United States v. Rem, 38 F.3d 634, 643-44 (2d Cir. 1994))). Thus, Plaintiff's false arrest claim must proceed to trial unless Defendants can show that they are entitled to qualified immunity.
Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). "A qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant's action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such law." Salim v. Proulx, 93 F.3d 86, 89 (2d Cir. 1996) (citations omitted); see also Barboza v. D'Agata, ___ Fed. Appx. ___ 2017 WL 214563, at *2 (2d Cir. Jan. 18, 2017) (noting that courts are to conduct a two-step analysis: "First, do the facts show that the officer's conduct violated plaintiff's constitutional rights? Second, if there was a constitutional violation, was the right clearly established at the time of the officer's actions?").
In the context of false arrest, even in the absence of probable cause, "an arresting officer [is] entitled to qualified immunity from a suit for damages if he can establish that there was `arguable probable cause' to arrest." Escalera v. Lunn, 361 F.3d 737, 743 (2d Cir. 2004); see also Harlow, 457 U.S. at 812 (noting that a defendant bears the burden of proving the affirmative defense of qualified immunity). "Arguable probable cause exists if either (a) it was objectively reasonable for the officer to believe that probable cause existed, or (b) officers of reasonable competence could disagree on whether the probable cause test was met." Escalera, 361 F.3d at 743 (quoting Golino v. City of New Haven, 950 F.2d 864, 870 (2d Cir. 1991)). "The test is not toothless, however: `If officers of reasonable competence would have to agree that the information possessed by the officer at the time of arrest did not add up to probable cause, the fact that it came close does not immunize the officer.'" Ackerson v. City of White Plains, 702 F.3d 15, 21 (quoting Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 76, 87 (2d Cir. 2007)); see also Jenkins, 478 F.3d at 87 ("`Arguable' probable cause should not be misunderstood to mean `almost' probable cause.").
Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because (1) Plaintiff's constitutional rights were not violated and (2) even if there was no probable cause for Plaintiff's arrest, there was "arguable probable cause." (Defs. Mem. at 12-13.) The Court has already found that Plaintiff has presented sufficient facts from which a reasonable jury could find that Defendants are liable for false arrest in violation of a well-established right not to be arrested in the absence of probable cause, see Weyant, 101 F.3d at 852. Therefore, the issue is whether there was arguable probable cause for Plaintiff's arrest. Defendants assert that they had arguable probable cause because Plaintiff "admitted" that she was in front of a bonfire on the beach after dusk. (Dkt. 38 ("Defs. Reply") at 3.) The Court finds that this purported admission is insufficient to establish arguable probable cause.
The question of whether it was objectively reasonable for an officer to believe his conduct did not violate a clearly established right "has its principal focus on the particular facts of the case." Kerman v. City of New York, 374 F.3d 93, 109 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Hurlman v. Rice, 927 F.2d 74, 78-79 (2d Cir. 1991)). Here, Defendants simply point to the fact that Plaintiff failed to deny in her 56.1 Counter-Statement that she was "in front of the bonfire on the beach after dusk." (Defs. Reply at 3.) Even assuming Plaintiff admits to being "in front of the bonfire," this fact, by itself, does not make it objectively reasonable for Defendants to have believed that Plaintiff was violating the Parks Department Rule against bonfires. The rule does not outlaw merely standing in front of a bonfire; it prohibits kindling, building, maintaining, or using a fire or having an open or ground campfire. 56 R.C.N.Y. § 1-05(m). Without more factual evidence in the record as to the information known to the Defendants at the time of the arrest—for example, Plaintiff's proximity to the bonfire, what she was doing at the time the Defendants saw her, whether she was facing toward or away from the bonfire, or whether she appeared to be part of a group gathered around and using the bonfire—the Court cannot find that it was objectively reasonable for Defendants to believe that they had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for violating Section 1-05(m).
Likewise, given the parties' disputes over key facts and the absence of other material information, the Court cannot determine, as a matter of law, whether "officers of reasonable competence could disagree on whether the probable cause test was met." See Escalera, 361 F.3d at 743 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). As discussed, Plaintiff asserts that she was not using the bonfire, and Defendants only claim that they observed Plaintiff near the bonfire. (See Defs. 56.1 ¶ 4; Pl. 56.1 Counter-Statement ¶ I.4.) Furthermore, the record indicates that Plaintiff was standing near the bonfire with one man (Kosterkin) and that another man, who appeared to be homeless, was actually sitting by the bonfire. (See Pl. Cooper at 37:18-23, 38:6-10; Dieugenia at 19:23-24.) Based on these scant facts, the Court concludes that "officers of reasonable competence would have to agree that the information possessed by [the Defendants] at the time of [Plaintiff's] arrest did not add up to probable cause" to believe that Plaintiff had any role in building, maintaining, or using the bonfire. See Jenkins, 478 F.3d at 87.
Defendants also argue that there is arguable probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for violating Parks Department Rule § 1-03(a)(1), which prohibits being in a City park after hours. (Defs. Reply at 3.) Again, Defendants have failed to demonstrate that it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that Plaintiff was in the park after the applicable closing time. As discussed, there is a factual dispute as to whether the park's hours had been changed from 1:00 a.m. to dusk, based on posted signage, and thus whether it was illegal for Plaintiff to be in the park after dusk. (Compare Defs. Mem. at 6 with Pl. Opp. at 4-5.) Moreover, Defendants do not even claim that they knew about any signage or otherwise believed that the park closed at dusk (see Defs. Mem.; Defs. Reply). See Zellner v. Summerlin, 494 F.3d 344 (2d Cir. 2008) ("A Court must evaluate the objective reasonableness of the [officer's] conduct `in light of . . . the information the . . . officers possessed.'" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). In the absence of such material information, the Court cannot determine the objective reasonableness of Plaintiff's arrest for alleged violation of Section 1-03(a)(1). See Kerman v. City of New York, 261 F.3d 229, 240 (2d Cir. 2001) ("[S]ummary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is not appropriate when there are facts in dispute that are material to a determination of reasonableness." (quoting Thomas, 165 F.3d at 143; see also Zellner, 494 F.3d at 368 (finding that when material facts pertaining to immunity are in dispute, the appropriate procedure is to allow the jury to resolve any disputed facts material to the qualified immunity issue, so that the court can make the "ultimate determination of whether the officer's conduct was objectively reasonable" (citations omitted)).
Thus, the Court cannot determine at this time whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiff's false arrest claim, and summary judgment on this claim is denied. See Curry v. Syracuse, 316 F.3d 324, 337 (2d Cir. 2003) (denying summary judgment because the defendant had "not established that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether he reasonably believed that he had probable cause to arrest [the plaintiff] for a crime").
The parties agree that Plaintiff was detained and searched "incident to," i.e., simultaneous with or after, Plaintiff's arrest. (Defs. Mem. at 4; Pl. Opp. at 3; see also Pl. Cooper at 58:10-19 (Plaintiff was searched first by Dieugenia and later by female officers).)
Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants summary judgment on Plaintiff's unlawful stop and search claim as to Dieugenia, but grants it as to Pasynkov.
Defendants assert that, based on the undisputed facts, Plaintiff's failure to intervene claims against both Defendants should be dismissed. The Court agrees as to Dieugenia, but not Pasynokov.
"It is widely recognized that law enforcement officials have an affirmative duty to intervene to protect the constitutional rights of citizens from infringement by other law enforcement officers in their presence." Terebesi v. Torreso, 764 F.3d 217, 243 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Anderson v. Branen, 17 F.3d 552, 557 (2d Cir. 1994)). "An officer who fails to intercede is liable for the preventable harm caused by the actions of the other officers where that officer observes or has reason to know: (1) that excessive force is being used; (2) that a citizen has been unjustifiably arrested; or (3) that any constitutional violation has been committed by a law enforcement official." Anderson, 17 F.3d at 557 (citations omitted); see also Mendoza v. County of Nassau, No. 11-CV-02487, 2012 WL 4490539, at *11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2012) (stating that failure to intervene applies to claims that a plaintiff was falsely arrested). To establish a claim for failure to intervene, a plaintiff must show that (1) the officer's failure "permitted fellow officers to violate [the plaintiff's] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights," and (2) it was "objectively unreasonable for him to believe that his fellow officers' conduct did not violate those rights." Ricciuti v. New York City. Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123, 129 (2d Cir. 1997) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Defendants argue that Plaintiff's failure to intervene claim against Dieugenia must be dismissed because Plaintiff is actually relying on a theory of direct participation as to Dieugenia, i.e., that he directly participated in the alleged false arrest and use of excessive force against Plaintiff. (Defs. Mem. at 8.)
As to Pasynkov, Defendants contend that the Court must dismiss the failure to intervene claim against him because there was no violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights and therefore no duty for Pasynkov to intervene. (Defs. Mem. at 9.) However, based on the Court's finding that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Plaintiff was falsely arrested by Dieugenia, there are necessarily questions of fact about whether Pasynkov failed to intervene with respect to that arrest. See Richardson v. Providence, No. 09-CV-4647, 2012 WL 1155775, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2012) ("Because defendants' only basis for dismissing plaintiff's claims for failure to intervene against [one defendant] is that plaintiff cannot establish a violation of any constitutional right, and this court has found that a material issue of fact exists as to whether plaintiff was unreasonably detained, the [failure to intervene] claim against [that defendant] also cannot be dismissed on this ground.").
In sum, the Court grants summary judgment for Defendants only as to Plaintiff's failure to intervene claim against Dieugenia. The failure to intervene claim will proceed against Pasynkov on the bases of Dieugenia's alleged false arrest and stop and search of, and use of excessive force against, Plaintiff.
"When a police officer creates false information likely to influence a jury's decision and forwards that information to prosecutors, he violates the accused's constitutional right to a fair trial, and the harm occasioned by such an unconscionable action is redressable in an action for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983." Ricciuti, 124 F.3d at 130; see also Zahrey v. Coffey, 221 F.3d 342, 355 (2d Cir. 2000) ("It is firmly established that a constitutional right exists not to be deprived of liberty on the basis of false evidence fabricated by a government officer.").
Plaintiff alleges that Dieugenia violated her constitutional right to a fair trial by creating false evidence against her and forwarding that evidence to prosecutors in the Kings County District Attorney's Office.
Plaintiff does not address this issue at all in her Opposition Memorandum of Law. (See Pl. Opp. at 7-8.) Although implicit in Plaintiff's false arrest claim is the suggestion that Defendants must have relied on false information in arresting her without probable cause, there is nothing in the record, other than the parties' differing accounts of what happened that night, that supports Plaintiff's claim that Dieugenia falsified evidence.
For the reasons stated above, Defendants' partial summary judgment motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, Defendants' partial summary judgment motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's claims of denial of the right to a fair trial, failure to intervene against Dieugenia, and unlawful stop and search against Pasynkov. However, Defendants' partial summary judgment motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff's (1) false arrest claim against Dieugenia, (2) unlawful stop and search claim against Dieugenia, and (3) failure to intervene claim against Pasynkov with respect to Dieugenia's alleged false arrest and unlawful search of, and use of excessive force, against Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
