Hanniford v. City of Poughkeepsie

OPINION AND ORDER Dean Hanniford (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action against the City of Poughkeepsie (“City”), City Sergeant Terrance Beam (“Beam”), and City Police Officer Edward Fenichel (“Fenichel”) on December 5, 2021. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on May 20, 2022 (Doc. 21, “FAC”)¹, asserting multiple claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983: malicious prosecution, false arrest, violation of a right to fair trial, excessive force; and a claim of municipal liability against the City under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). (See generally, FAC). On November 29, 2022, the Court granted in part the motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 35). Specifically, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Fifth Claim for Relief (Monell) and dismissed the City as a Defendant in this action. (Id.). On April 11, 2023, Plaintiff withdrew with prejudice the Third Claim for Relief (excessive force) as to Beam only. (Doc. 45). Accordingly, the sole §1983 claims remaining in this action are (i) malicious prosecution; (ii) false arrest; (iii) excessive force (against Fenichel only); and (iv) violation of right to a fair trial. Defendants Beam and Fenichel (“Defendants”) filed their motion for summary judgment only as to the First, Second, and Fourth Claims for Relief in accordance with the briefing schedule set by the Court. (Doc. 46; Doc. 47, “56.1″; Doc. 48, “Posner Aff.”; Doc. 49, “Beam Aff.”; Doc. 50, “Fenichel Aff.”; Doc. 51; Doc. 52, “Def. Br.”; Doc. 53; Doc. 54). Plaintiff opposed Defendants’ motion (Doc. 55; Doc. 56, “Pl. Br.”), and the motion was fully briefed with the filing of Defendants’ reply papers (Doc. 57, “Reply”; Doc. 58). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. BACKGROUND The Court recites the facts herein only to the extent necessary to adjudicate the extant motion for summary judgment and draws them from the pleadings, Defendants’ Rule 56.1 Statement and Plaintiff’s responses thereto, and the admissible evidence proffered by the parties. Unless otherwise indicated, the following facts are undisputed. In May 2020, Beam was part of a team running a controlled buy operation in Poughkeepsie, New York. (56.1

16-18). Approximately one week before May 15, 2020, Beam and other officers formed a perimeter around the area where a controlled buy was expected to occur, and Beam was able to hear, in real time, the undercover officer’s commentary on what was happening during his interaction with the seller. (Id.