CHEPILKO v. CITY OF NEW YORK (2021)

SUMMARY ORDER

Sergei Chepilko appeals from the October 17, 2018 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (DeArcy Hall, J.; Bloom, M.J.) dismissing his 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 complaint as to most claims and entering a jury verdict in favor of defendants as to the remaining claims. Chepilko asserted claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and excessive force, as well as several state law claims, arising from his arrest on the Fourth of July in 2011, for selling his photography services at Luna Park in Coney Island, where vending is prohibited during the summer. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on most claims, and a jury found for the defendants on Chepilko's remaining excessive force claims. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

As an initial matter, Chepilko's arguments offer perfunctory challenges to the grant of summary judgment and the district court's order granting defendants’ motion in limine to exclude certain video evidence. Chepilko fails to address the district court's bases for its decisions. We thus conclude that he has waived any challenge to these decisions. See Terry v. Inc. Village of Patchogue, 826 F.3d 631, 632–33 (2d Cir. 2016) (“Although we accord filings from pro se litigants a high degree of solicitude, even a litigant representing himself is obliged to set out identifiable arguments in his principal brief.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

In any event, the district court did not err. The district court correctly concluded that the defendants had probable cause to arrest Chepilko, which is a complete defense to his false-arrest claim. See Betts v. Shearman, 751 F.3d 78, 82 (2d Cir. 2014). Further, his malicious prosecution claim fails because the charges did not terminate in his favor. See Fulton v. Robinson, 289 F.3d 188, 196 (2d Cir. 2002) (noting adjournment in contemplation of dismissal under New York law “is not a favorable termination because it leaves open the question of the accused's guilt”). Nor did the district court exceed its discretion in excluding as irrelevant video evidence, parts of which were taken prior to and other parts of which were taken hours after, Chepilko's arrest. See United States v. Edwards, 631 F.2d 1049, 1051 (2d Cir. 1980) (observing district court has “broad discretion to exclude evidence that is irrelevant”).

Chepilko also challenges the jury verdict, but has not fulfilled his obligation to provide trial transcripts. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b). Accordingly, we dismiss Chepilko's appeal from the jury verdict. See Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000).

We have considered the remainder of Chepilko's arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the order of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED.