THOMAS v. CITY OF NEW YORK (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Myrna Socorro, J.), entered on or about July 8, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants sustained their burden of establishing that plaintiff's arrest for the murder of a restaurant employee and the ensuing prosecution against him were supported by probable cause, which is a complete defense to false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution claims under state and federal law (see Fambro v. City of New York, 205 A.D.3d 608, 610, 169 N.Y.S.3d 601 [1st Dept. 2022];  DelGrosso v. McCann, 203 A.D.3d 596, 597, 162 N.Y.S.3d 738 [1st Dept. 2022];  Frost v. New York City Police Dept., 980 F.3d 231, 242 [2d Cir. 2020], cert denied ––– U.S. ––––, 142 S Ct 1666, 212 L.Ed.2d 577 [2022] ).  Defendants submitted evidence that they had probable cause to arrest and prosecute plaintiff based on identifying statements given by two witnesses who were working at the restaurant at the time of the shooting and knew plaintiff as a frequent customer of the restaurant who had argued with the victim two days earlier.  Absent materially impeaching circumstances undermining the witnesses' credibility, such evidence is generally sufficient to establish probable cause, and plaintiff submitted no evidence demonstrating that the police knew that the individuals who gave the identifying statements were unreliable witnesses or otherwise lacked credibility (see Roberts v. City of New York, 171 A.D.3d 139, 148, 97 N.Y.S.3d 3 [1st Dept. 2019];  People v. Pelzer, 115 A.D.3d 573, 574, 982 N.Y.S.2d 316 [1st Dept. 2014];  Medina v. City of New York, 102 A.D.3d 101, 104, 953 N.Y.S.2d 43 [1st Dept. 2012] ).

Moreover, the grand jury indictment creates a presumption of probable cause, and plaintiff has failed to overcome that presumption by showing that the indictment “was produced by fraud, perjury, the suppression of evidence or other police conduct undertaken in bad faith” (Santos v. City of New York, 161 A.D.3d 509, 510, 77 N.Y.S.3d 354 [1st Dept. 2018] ).  To the extent plaintiff argues that that the police suppressed exculpatory evidence by failing to investigate his alibi or question witnesses to the shooting who later came forward with exculpatory information, the existence of other potential avenues of police investigation does not vitiate probable cause (see Christian v. City of New York, 211 A.D.3d 402, 402–403, 179 N.Y.S.3d 64 [1st Dept. 2022];  Alam v. City of New York, 209 A.D.3d 420, 421, 174 N.Y.S.3d 838 [1st Dept. 2022] ).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.