Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Employee?s law suit charging defamation, abuse of process, malicious prosecution and civil rights violations dismissed by the Appellate Division

Employee?s law suit charging defamation, abuse of process, malicious prosecution and civil rights violations dismissed by the Appellate Division
Watson v Jamestown, 2008 NY Slip Op 09231, Decided on November 21, 2008, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Michael J. Watson, a police officer with the Jamestown Police Department, was questioned by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in connection with its investigation of a missing woman ?with whom Watson had a relationship.? Ultimately Watson was arrested for alleged stalking, harassment, and official misconduct. Subsequently indicted, County Court granted that part of his omnibus motion seeking to dismiss seven counts of the indictment. The Appellate Division modified the county court?s order and reinstated one of those counts (see People v Watson, 32 AD3d 1199, leave to appeal denied 7 NY3d 929).

Watson later sued the City of Jamestown and number of its police department officials, alleging defamation, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and the violation of his civil rights. Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing Watson?s complaints. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court?s action.

Addressing Watson?s claim of defamation, the Appellate Division noted that "A public official [as a police officer, Watson was a public officer] may not recover damages for defamation unless the official proves that the offending false statement was made with actual malice -- that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not," citing Freeman v Johnston, 84 NY2d 52. Here, said the court, the officials being sued established ?their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to that cause of action by demonstrating that the remarks that allegedly defamed [Watson] were true with the exception of one remark that was a misstatement but was not made with malice.?

Watson also alleged that the arrest warrant issued against him was used by city officials to gain an advantage at the civil service hearing conducted to terminate him as a police officer, which action he characterized as an ?abuse of process.? In addressing this aspect of Watson petition, the Appellate Division said that "Abuse of process has three essential elements: (1) regularly issued process, either civil or criminal, (2) an intent to do harm without excuse or justification, and (3) use of the process in a perverted manner to obtain a collateral objective."

Here, said the court, the officials met their initial burden by establishing that, in seeking the warrant, they did not intend to harm Watson without excuse or justification nor did they attempt to gain an advantage at the civil service hearing by so doing. In rebutting Watson?s allegations, the officials established that they had sought the warrant based upon the sworn statements given by three women to the Police Department. Although Watson submitted affidavits by two of those women, each of whom indicated that she never requested that criminal charges be brought against him, the court noted that (1) neither of the two women refuted the statements given by them to the Department: (2) the women were not required to request that criminal charges be brought against Watson; and (3) it was not necessary for the Department to obtain the consent of the women to bring criminal charges against Watson.

As to Watson?s claim of malicious prosecution, the Appellate Division said that "a plaintiff must establish that a criminal proceeding was commenced, that it was terminated in favor of the accused, that it lacked probable cause, and that the proceeding was brought out of actual malice."

In this instance, said the court, the determination by a City Court Judge that the police had probable cause to arrest Watson bars the cause of action for malicious prosecution. In addition, the Appellate Division noted that the criminal proceeding has not been terminated in Watson's favor, although several of the charges have been dismissed, and that the charges were not made with malice.

Finally, the court addressed Watson?s cause of action alleging the violation of his civil rights. Watson argued that he was arrested without probable cause in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Appellate Division ruled that the police officials ?are entitled to qualified immunity? with respect to Watson's arrest inasmuch as it was "objectively reasonable? for them to have believed that their conduct as related to Watson ?was lawful under the circumstances."

The full text of the decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_09231.htm

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on December 03, 2008 (boomark / email).