Case 2:17-cv-01560-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 03/07/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JEREMY RENNICK

Civil Case No. ______________

Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF JERSEY CITY; JERSEY CITY
POLICE DEPARTMENT; SGT. T,
BRODERICK, individually and in his
official capacity; OFFICER K.C. GEIB
(Badge No. 2622), individually and in
his official capacity; OFFICER H.
BALBOSA, individually and in his
official capacity; OFFICER C. KOSZYK
(Badge No. 2705), individually and in
his official capacity JOHN & JANE
DOES 1-10 (fictitious names), In their
Individual and Official capacities as
members and/or agents of the City of
Jersey City and/or Jersey City Police
Department.

COMPLAINT AND JURY
DEMAND

Defendants.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.

This Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and

1343(a)(3). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law causes of
action under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

 Case 2:17-cv-01560-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 03/07/17 Page 2 of 15 PageID: 2

2.

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2) because

the events/omissions giving rise to these causes of action all occurred in the
District of New Jersey.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff was at all material times a resident of New Jersey.
4. Defendant Sgt. T. Broderick (“Broderick”) was a duly appointed Sergeant
with the Jersey City Police Department Acting under the color of law.
Broderick is being sued in his official and individual capacities.
5. Defendant Officers K.C. Geib (“Geib”), H. Balbosa (“Balbosa”) and C. Koszyk
(“Koszyk”) were duly appointed officers with the Jersey City Police
Department acting under color of law. Defendant Officers are being sued in
their official and individual capacities.
6. Defendants, John & Jane Does 1-10, are presently unknown officers,
employees, agents and/or representatives of the City of Jersey City and/or
Jersey City Police Department whose unlawful actions are described,
referenced and/or set forth herein. All are being sued in their official and
individual capacities.
CAUSE OF ACTION
7. On, or about, March 19, 2016, Geib, Balbosa and Koszyk were on patrol in the
area of 94 Union Street in Jersey City, New Jersey.
8. This area is also known as Salem Lafayette Court.
2

 Case 2:17-cv-01560-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 03/07/17 Page 3 of 15 PageID: 3

9. At approximately 11:50 p.m. Plaintiff exited the North end of Salem Lafayette
Court in order to move his vehicle into the development’s parking lot.
10. As Plaintiff entered his vehicle Geib and Balbosa were apparently sitting
behind Plaintiff’s vehicle in their marked police cruiser.
11. As Plaintiff was slowly inching his way out of the parking spot Geib and
Balbosa slowly snuck up on Plaintiff’s vehicle, in what can only be described
as an ambush, and banged on the driver’s side window.
12. Plaintiff, fearing he was about to be robbed, car jacked or assaulted
continued to drive into the parking lot.
13. During this time Geib and Balbosa were chasing running alongside Plaintiff’s
vehicle on foot.
14. Plaintiff then parked his vehicle and got out at which time Geib and Balbosa
launched a violent unprovoked physical attack on Plaintiff.
15. In an effort to justify their bizzare and barbaric behavior Geib, Balbosa and
Koszyk authored whimsical police reports and swore out false warrant
complaints against Plaintiff.
16. According to the officer’s collective reports Geib and Balbosa approached
Plaintiff’s vehicle for several seconds at which time Plaintiff began abruptly
and violently reversing in an attempt to make a k-turn at which point Geib

3

 Case 2:17-cv-01560-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 03/07/17 Page 4 of 15 PageID: 4

grabbed Plaintiff who then then sped away dragging Geib with his vehicle as
he held on.
17. Fortunately, Salem Lafayette Court is equipped with a highly sophisticated
video surveillance system.
18. A review of the video surveillance from the incident reveals that the officers’
version of events, and their corresponding sworn testimony before the Grand
Jury, was untrue and the warrant-complaints they swore out against Plaintiff
were perjure-laden.
19. As a direct result of these fabrications the State of New Jersey moved to
dismiss the charges in their entirety.
20. Unfortunately, by the time the officers’ rouse was revealed Plaintiff had
spent approximately 6 months in pre-trial detention at the Hudson County
Correctional Facility.
21. During this time Plaintiff lost precious time with his newborn child, lost his
job and had a number of his personal effects deemed abandoned.

4

 Case 2:17-cv-01560-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 03/07/17 Page 5 of 15 PageID: 5

FIRST COUNT
Malicious Prosecution
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the
New Jersey Civil Rights Act N.J.S.A. § 10:6-2 et seq.
22. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the
foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
23. As a result of the false quasi-criminal charges filed against Plaintiff, he was
compelled to retain the services of an attorney(s) to represent and defend
him.
24. There was no reasonable basis or probable cause for the charges filed
and/or prosecution of Plaintiff by Defendants and Defendants knew or
should have known this to be the case.
25. The criminal action against the Plaintiff was initiated by the Defendants,
was actuated by malice, was wholly lacking in probable cause, and the
proceeding terminated favorably to the plaintiff given that the criminal
complaint was dismissed in its entirety on motion of the State.
26. The unlawful actions taken by the Defendants in initiating a prosecution
against the Plaintiff without warrant, justification, and lacking in cause,
probable or otherwise, deprived Plaintiff of due process, liberty, and
property in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution, and N.J.’s Constitution and Civil Rights Act.

5

 Case 2:17-cv-01560-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 03/07/17 Page 6 of 15 PageID: 6

27. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and/or omissions and
their willful, intentional, false, malicious, or grossly negligent actions,
Plaintiff suffered severe damage to his reputation and standing in the
community, has suffered severe physical and emotional injury and harm
and was forced to undergo the strain, tumult and cost of defending himself
against false charges.
SECOND COUNT
False Arrest/Imprisonment
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the
New Jersey Civil Rights Act N.J.S.A. § 10:6-2 et seq.
28. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the
foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
29. At all relevant times, all individual defendants were the agents, servants
and/or employees of the New Jersey State Police and were, at all times,
acting in their official capacity as law enforcement officers.
30. Plaintiff was detained, arrested and/or imprisoned despite a lack of
probable cause and/or other satisfactory legal justification or support.
31. Defendants intentionally, wrongfully, unlawfully, maliciously and without
lawful justification or cause, probable or otherwise, arrested, detained,
confined and/or caused the confinement of Plaintiff.

6

 Case 2:17-cv-01560-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 03/07/17 Page 7 of 15 PageID: 7

32. By reason and/or as a result of Defendants’ acts and/or omissions, Plaintiff
was deprived of his liberty, caused physical and emotional injury, anguish,
and embarrassment, and was otherwise injured and/or harmed.
THIRD COUNT
Illegal Search and Seizure
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the
New Jersey Civil Rights Act N.J.S.A. § 10:6-2 et seq.
33. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the
foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
34. Defendants, without any warrant or justification, wholly lacking in any
cause whatsoever, probable or otherwise, illegally and improperly searched,
arrested, and seized Plaintiff, and caused a criminal complaint to be illegally
issued against him. Defendants had no legal basis to search, arrest, seize, or
cause charges to be issued, and did so maliciously with a motive to
improperly detain, arrest, and imprison Plaintiff. All of these actions were
undertaken in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s proscription of
unreasonable searches and seizures.
35. The acts and/or omissions described herein were undertaken and
conducted in a willful and malicious manner, with an immoral purpose to
injure the person, reputation, standing and integrity of Plaintiff. Defendants
are, therefore, liable to Plaintiff for punitive damages.

7

 Case 2:17-cv-01560-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 03/07/17 Page 8 of 15 PageID: 8

36. The acts and/or omissions described herein were undertaken and
conducted in a willful and malicious manner, with an immoral purpose to
injure the person, reputation, standing and integrity of Plaintiff. Defendants
are, therefore, liable to Plaintiff for punitive damages.
37. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and/or omissions,
Plaintiff was humiliated, disgraced, suffered damage to his reputation,
physical and mental anguish and injury and monetary loss and damage all
to his great detriment.
FOURTH COUNT
Municipal Liability
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the
New Jersey Civil Rights Act N.J.S.A. § 10:6-2 et seq.
38. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the
foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
39. At all relevant times, Defendants, City of Jersey City and/or the Jersey City
Police Department, was the employer of the individual defendants and the
individual defendants were acting as its’ agents, servants and employees.
40. City of Jersey City, Jersey City Police Department failed to use reasonable
care in the selection of its employees, against and/or servants, failed to
properly train and/or supervise the individual defendants, and failed to
provide the appropriate safeguards to prevent the collective violation of the
Plaintiff’s rights.
8

 Case 2:17-cv-01560-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 03/07/17 Page 9 of 15 PageID: 9

41. City of Jersey City, Jersey City Police Department acted under color of law
pursuant to an official policy or custom and practice of the City of Jersey
City, Jersey City Police Department and intentionally, knowingly, recklessly
or with deliberate indifference failed to properly and adequately control and
discipline on a continuing basis its employees, agents and/or servants
and/or otherwise failed to prevent the individual defendants from
unlawfully and maliciously conducting, permitting or allowing the use of
excessive force upon Plaintiff in violation of the rights, privileges and
immunities guaranteed to Plaintiff by the Constitution and laws of the
United States and/or New Jersey.
42. City of Jersey City, Jersey City Police Department had knowledge of, or had
it diligently and reasonably exercised its duties to instruct, supervise,
control and discipline its employees, agents and/or servants, would have
had knowledge of the wrongful acts and/or omissions identified above and
intentionally, knowingly or with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ rights,
failed or refused to prevent their commission and/or omission.
43. City of Jersey City, Jersey City Police Department, therefore, directly or
indirectly, and under color of law, thereby approved or ratified the
unlawful, malicious and wanton conduct of the individual defendants.

9

 Case 2:17-cv-01560-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 03/07/17 Page 10 of 15 PageID: 10

44. More specifically, Defendant City of Jersey City had a culture in which
officers did anything in their power to protect their brother officers from the
consequences of their wrong doing.
45. By way of example, in this the Defendant Officers conspired and/or
colluded in fabricating the events.
46. This fact is crystalized by the fact that when Koszyk originally contacts
dispatch he informs them that a car is taking off on two cops yet he writes a
report which totally contradicts that.
47. What is more, the threat of perjury did not serve as a deterrent to lie either
as Geib went before the Grand Jury and furthered his whimsical version of
events.
48. Rather than train and implement a proper policy the City of Jersey City and
Jersey City Police Department adopted a policy and/or culture under which
officers are free lodge false complaints in order to protect one another.
49. Nonetheless, the Policy maker for Jersey City refuses to retain or properly
train its officer, create a legitimate IA department, or properly investigate
and discipline instances of police misconduct.
50. The lack of training and/or the inadequate training in these areas is
tantamount to a custom and/or policy that encourages, and indeed as
occurred here, necessitates, the violation of these fundamental rights.
10

 Case 2:17-cv-01560-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 03/07/17 Page 11 of 15 PageID: 11

51. In addition, the failure to train the Defendant Officers in these areas is
tantamount to the City of Jersey City’s deliberate indifference to these rights.
52. What is more, the City of Jersey City has a policy and practice of not
disciplining officers if they are found to have violated a citizen’s
constitutionally protected rights and immunities.
53. These policies and procedures, in addition to the failure to train the officers
in the relevant constitutional laws, reveal a deliberate indifference by the
City of Jersey City regarding the rights of citizens such as the Plaintiffs.
54. This deliberate indifference to citizens’ rights is a proximate cause of
Plaintiff’s injuries.
55. Had the City of Jersey City employed a meaningful IA bureau, rather than
employing one that shields and insulates officers from liability then perhaps
the defendant officers here would not have felt they have the freedom to
willfully and purposely violate the Plaintiff’s rights without any regard for
consequences.
56. The complete lack of accountability, record keeping, as well as investigation
into IA complaints renders the IA department nothing more than an arm of
the police department that shields officers from liability.
57. The failure to correct or cull the unlawful activities of these defendant
officers as exposed by previous complaints caused Plaintiff’s injuries here as
11

 Case 2:17-cv-01560-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 03/07/17 Page 12 of 15 PageID: 12

the officers acted in a cavalier manner due to the fact that they knew there
would be no professional consequences for their action.
FIFTH COUNT
Excessive Force
42 U.S.C. § 1983;
New Jersey Civil Rights Act N.J.S.A. § 10:6-2, et. seq.; &
New Jersey Constitution
58. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in the
foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
59. During the course of the arrest and detention of Plaintiff, Defendants
intentionally and/or recklessly used unreasonable and/or excessive force,
thereby collectively depriving Plaintiff of his right to be free from the use of
unreasonable force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
of the Constitution of the United States, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Constitution of
the State of New Jersey and the Law of the State of New Jersey including,
but not limited to, the New Jersey Civil Rights Act and the New Jersey Law
Against Discrimination.
60. Under the totality of the circumstances the Defendants’ actions were not
objectively reasonable, given that Defendants seized Plaintiff by attacking
him without cause or provocation.
61. The conduct of the Defendants occurred while they were acting under color
of law and in their official capacities.
12

 Case 2:17-cv-01560-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 03/07/17 Page 13 of 15 PageID: 13

62. All of the actions and/or omissions described above were undertaken in a
willful and malicious manner with an immoral purpose to injure and/or
cause harm to the Plaintiff. Defendants are, therefore, liable to Plaintiffs for
punitive and compensatory damages.
63. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and/or omissions,
Plaintiff was humiliated, disgraced, suffered damage to his reputation,
physical and mental anguish and injury and monetary loss and damage all
to his great detriment.
SIXTH COUNT
Failure to Intervene
42 U.S.C. § 1983;
New Jersey Civil Rights Act N.J.S.A. § 10:6-2, et. seq.; &
New Jersey Constitution
64. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in the
foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
65. The Defendant officers knew their version of the events was untrue, and
that the criminal complaints lodged against Plaintiff were a falsehood.
66. In addition, the Defendant officers engaged in the use of excessive force.
67. Despite knowing their brother officers were concocting a case against
Plaintiff and also engaging in excessive force the others failed to intervene to
prevent same.

13

 Case 2:17-cv-01560-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 03/07/17 Page 14 of 15 PageID: 14

68. Each of the Defendants had an opportunity to intervene in the prosecution
of Plaintiff as well as the use of excessive force that was being deployed in
front of them and within their immediate area.
69. Rather than intervene as the law mandates, the Defendant officers did
nothing and then attempted to conceal the use of excessive force by allowing
falsified criminal complaints to be lodged against Plaintiff.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands that judgment be entered against the
Defendants, jointly and severally, for:
(a) any and all damages sustained by the Plaintiff arising from the
foregoing wrongful and unlawful acts of the Defendants;
(b) punitive damages;
(c) interest, both pre-judgment and post-judgment;
(d) attorney’s fees;
(e) costs;
(f) and all such other relief as this court may deem
appropriate, equitable, and just.

14

 Case 2:17-cv-01560-MCA-MAH Document 1 Filed 03/07/17 Page 15 of 15 PageID: 15

JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury in this action for all issues triable by a
jury.
DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL
Joel Silberman, Esq. & Aymen Aboushi, Esq. are hereby designated as trial
counsel.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO L.CIV.R.11.2
I certify that the matter in controversy is not the subject of any other action
pending or contemplated. I further certify that I am aware of no other parties
who should be joined in this matter.
DATED: March 6, 2017
Respectfully submitted,
Respectfully submitted,
The Law Offices Of Joel Silberman
BY: s/ Joel Silberman
Joel Silberman, Esq.
549 Summit Avenue
Jersey City, NJ 07306
Tel. (201) 420-1913
Fax (201) 420-1914
Email: joel@joelsilbermanlaw.com

15

By:

The Aboushi Law Firm PLLC
s/ Aymen Aboushi
Aymen A. Aboushi, Esq.
1441 Broadway, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10018
Tel. (212) 391-8500
Fax (212) 391-8508
Email: Aymen@aboushi.com

 Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/07/17 Page 1 of 1 PagelD: 16

.IS 44 (Rev. 07/10)

The IS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither re
provrded by local rules ofcourt. form,
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet.

CIVIL COVER SHEET

place nor supplement the ?lin
approved by the Judicral Conference ofthe United States in
(SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

and service of

pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
September 1974, is required for the use ofthe Clerk of Court for the

 

I.

PLAINTIFFS

JEREMY RENNICK

JOEL SILBERMAN, ESQ. 549 SUMMIT AVE JERSEY CITY NJ 07306

County ofResidence of First Listed Plaintiff



(EXCEPT IN U. FLA IN CASES)

(0) Attorneys (Firm Name. Address. Email and Telephone Number)

(201) 420-1913

DEFENDANT

NOTE:

Attorneys (If/(norm

 



CITY OF JERSEY CITY, ET. AL.

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(IN US. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

I)

_Hupsort

 

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Pluceun ?X"in ()ne Box Only)

 

(For Diversity Cases Only}

CITIZENSHIP 0F PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an in ()ne 

and One Ii?m'jbr De?mdanl)

 

 

 

3 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability

 

 

 

 

Leave Act

891 Agricultural Acts
893 Environmental Matters

CI 1 US. Government .3 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (US. Government Not a Party) Citizen ofThis State 1X 1 CI 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 3 4 ES 4
of Business In This State
l3 2 U.S. Govcmment 4 Diversity Citizen ofAnothcr State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 13 5 [3 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizens/zip of Parties in Item of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject ofa 3 3 Foreign Nation 13 6 t3 6
Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an in One. Box Only)
CONTRACT TORTS BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES 
1 10 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY CI 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 El 375 False Claims Act
CI 120 Marine CI 310 Airplane CI 365 Personal Injury ofProperty 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 3 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
140 Negotiable Liability 1] 367 Health Care/ Cl 400 State 
CI 150 Recovery of Overpayment El 320 Assault, Libel Phamiaceulical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
Enforcement ofJudgrnent Slander Personal Injury 13 820 Copyrights C) 430 Banks and Banking
[3 151 Medicare Act 13 330 Federal Employers? Product Liability 830 Patent :1 450 Commerce
E1 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 840 Trademark E1 460 Deportation
Student Loans 1:1 340 Marine Injury Product CI 470 Racketeer In?uenced and
(Excludes CI 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery ovaerpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY CI 710 Fair Labor Standards CI 861 HIA (l395ft) 480 Consumer Credit
350 Motor Vehicle CI 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) 490 Cable/Sat TV
3 I60 Stockholders" Suits CI 355 Motor Vehicle Cl 371 Truth in Lending [3 720 Labor/Management CI 863 (405(g)) CI 850 Securities/Commoditics/
190 Other Contract Product Liability Cl 380 Other Personal Relations 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange
1'1 195 Contract Product Liability Fl 360 Other Personal Property Damage 3 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) El 890 Other Statutory Actions
196 Franchise Injury 0 385 Property Damage 1] 751 Family and Medical 



Medical Malpractice

 

I REAL PROPERTY

CIVIL. RIGHTS .PRISONER- PETITIONS

 

CICICICIUD

210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure

230 Lease Ejectrnent
240 Torts to Land

245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property

 

440 Civil Rights
13 441 Voting
[3 442 Employment

Habeas Corpus:
463 Alien Detainee
510 Motions to Vacate

CI 443 Housing/ Sentence
Accommodations 530 General

El 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty
Employment Other:

1?1 446 Amer. w/Disabilitics - 540 Mandamus Other

Other
CI 448 Education

550 Civil Rights

555 Prison Condition

560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Con?nement



Cl


Cl



 

1'1 790 Other Labor Litigation
CI 791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act

 

FEDERAL TAX SUITS

 

Cl 870 Taxes (US. Plaintiff
or Defendant)

871 IRS?Third Party
26 USC 7609

 

IMMIGRATION

 

 

462 Naturalization Application

465 Other Immigration
Actions

 

 





895 Freedom of Information
Act

896 Arbitration

899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Rcvicw or Appeal of
Agency Decision

950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes

 

V. ORIGIN lPIaee in One Box Only)

1

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

Original
Proceeding

E1 2 Removed from
State Court

CI 3 Rernandcd from
Appellate Court

42 USC 1983

El 4 Reinstated or

Reopened

3 5 Transferred frotn
Another District


Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Dr) not the jurisdictional statutes unless diver-37w):

6 Multidistrict
Litigation-
Transfer

Cl 8 Multidistrict
Litigation -
Direct File

 

 

Brief descrigtion ofcause:

CIVIL R1 HTS VIOLATIONS - MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, EXCESSIVE FORCE

 

 

 

VII, REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND 5 CHECK YES only il?demandcd in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, JURY DEMAND: Yes t: No
RELATED 
IF ANY ISM JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER 
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
03/06/2017 8/ JOEL SILBERMAN

 

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY



AMOUNT APPLYING JUDGE MAG, JUDGE