Case 1:15-cv-02001-KPF Document 1 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------X
JI YOUNG LEE,
Plaintiff,
-against-

COMPLAINT
Case No.: 15 cv 2001 (KPF)(RLE)

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, DETECTIVE
WALTER HARKINS, POLICE OFFICER
JOSEPH KIM, SERGEANT SUNGHOON KIM,
LIEUTENANT MICHAEL MORALES, and
“JOHN & JANE DOES,” Nos. 1-10,

Jury Trial Demanded

Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------X
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.

This is an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law

alleging violations of law by the City of New York (“City”) and various New York City Police
Officers employed by the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) in the Organized Crime
Control Bureau (“OCCB”), Vice Enforcement Major Case Team (“Vice MC”), and other
divisions and agencies of the City and State of New York. Plaintiff alleges that, on or about
January 30, 2014, New Jersey police officers, acting pursuant to an Arrest Warrant issued upon a
Criminal Complaint sworn to under oath by Detective Walter Harkins (“Harkins”) of the NYPD,
OCCB, Vice MC, arrested her based on false allegations about her contained in the aforesaid
Complaint and made by Detective Harkins and Police Officer Joseph Kim (“Kim”) and others to
prosecutors and judges; and that on or about February 20, 2014, Detective Harkins took her into
custody from the Bergen County (N.J.) Jail and transported her to the New York City Criminal
Court, New York County, and continued her false arrest and also maliciously prosecuted her in
violation of the Fourth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution and state law.

 Case 1:15-cv-02001-KPF Document 1 Filed 03/17/15 Page 2 of 12

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and such other and
further relief as the court deems just and proper.
JURISDICTION & VENUE
2.

This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth and

Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court
by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 and 1343.
3.

Plaintiff invokes the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1367 to hear and decide her claims of false arrest and imprisonment, abuse of process,
and malicious prosecution brought under New York state law.
4.

With respect to plaintiff’s state law claims, a notice of claim was duly filed

with the City of New York within ninety (90) days after plaintiff was released from custody and
prosecutors dismissed all charges against her with prejudice. More than 30 days have elapsed
since such filing and the City has not offered to settle plaintiff’s state law claims.
5.

Venue is proper in the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c).
PARTIES
6.

Ji Young Lee is a New Jersey resident who lives in Bergen County.

7.

The City of New York is a municipal corporation organized under the

laws of the State of New York.
8.

Walter Harkins, Joseph Kim, Sunghoon Kim, Michael Morales, and “John

and Jane Does” Nos. 1-10 are New York City Police Officers who were acting under color of
state law and in their capacities as City police officers at all relevant times. Harkins, Kim, Kim,
2

 Case 1:15-cv-02001-KPF Document 1 Filed 03/17/15 Page 3 of 12

Morales, and the “Does” are liable for directly participating in the unlawful acts described herein
and for failing to intervene to protect plaintiff from unconstitutional conduct. Harkins, Kim,
Kim, Morales, and the “Does” are sued in their official and individual capacities.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
9.

Prior to and leading up to the false arrest of the plaintiff on January 30,

2014, the New York State Attorney General’s Office, in conjunction with the federal
Department of Homeland Security, the New York Police Department, and other federal, state,
and local agencies investigated a drugs-prostitution-money laundering ring focused on marketing
its illicit services to high-end clientele arriving in the New York metropolitan area for the 2014
Super Bowl to be played in the Meadowlands.
10.

In advance of the game itself, the defendants herein, working with state

and federal investigators, swore out the aforesaid complaint, obtained arrest warrants, and
arrested some eighteen (18) or so individuals and charged them with various crimes including
serious felonies. On or about January 30, 2014, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, joined by
high-ranking New York City and New York State police officials, held a widely-televised press
conference which was reported on in the print and broadcast media and re-televised and reported
on via the internet, in which some or all of the charged individuals were named and had their
photographs and names prominently displayed on an organizational chart typically utilized in
such press conferences when organized crime arrests are announced. Plaintiff’s name and
photograph were among those displayed.
11.

In that press conference, as in the criminal complaint which had been filed,

Attorney General Schneiderman and the other officials accused the plaintiff and the others
3

 Case 1:15-cv-02001-KPF Document 1 Filed 03/17/15 Page 4 of 12

charged with participating in a criminal conspiracy which involved human trafficking for
prostitution purposes, felony sale of and trafficking in narcotics, promoting prostitution, and
extensive laundering of the proceeds through various front businesses.
12.

On the internet, various blogs and other postings repeated and reported on

these heinous charges and accusations for weeks and even months thereafter, as did the print and
broadcast media. In particular, the Korean-language media focused on the case in that the
majority of people charged were Korean-American. Plaintiff’s name and likeness, her business
affiliations, home address and other personal information, as well as the accusations against her,
were heavily publicized for many weeks and months. As a result, her family members, friends,
acquaintances, and business customers and associates saw and heard the reports that plaintiff was
a member, and in fact a manager of, a Korean organized crime ring which brutally trafficked in
young Korean females who were often forced or coerced into prostitution, and that she arranged
for large quantities of narcotics to be trafficked and sold and the proceeds laundered.
13.

The defendants herein, working with state and federal investigators,

supposedly conducted physical and electronic surveillance of plaintiff and the others arrested and
charged. They also utilized undercover agents to provide them with intelligence and evidence
against the perpetrators. Plaintiff and her partner own and operate a small jewelry and crafts
business. She has never been arrested or, upon information and belief, even suspected of any
offense prior to her arrest in this matter. She is not heard on any of the wiretaps or other
eavesdropping evidence proffered as evidence in the case by the defendants herein. She never
associated with and was never seen associating with any of the actual perpetrators in the criminal
case. She never participated in any of the prostitution or drug transactions underlying the
4

 Case 1:15-cv-02001-KPF Document 1 Filed 03/17/15 Page 5 of 12

criminal case, nor did she utilize her business or any other business to engage in money
laundering transactions. Nonetheless, Detective Harkins swore falsely under oath that plaintiff
had engaged in all of those acts and more, and procured an arrest warrant based on those false
allegations.
14.

Upon information and belief, the defendants were unsure whether plaintiff

was involved in the criminal conspiracy. When the time came to effect the arrests of the
suspects, on January 30, 2014, despite their uncertainty, Detective Harkins falsely swore out the
complaint and obtained the arrest warrant for the plaintiff anyway and caused her to be arrested at
her New Jersey home, taken into custody, and incarcerated on a fugitive detainer in Bergen
County. Shockingly and almost unbelievably, Detective Harkins, upon retrieving the plaintiff
from Bergen County three (3) weeks later on February 20, 2014, after she had waived extradition
there, and while transporting her to New York County Criminal Court for arraignment upon the
complaint, revealed to plaintiff that he did not know whether she was an actual suspect and
questioned her in transit and at the New York County Criminal Court as to her identity and the
ownership of a motor vehicle which bore some significance to his investigation. Notably, he did
this in violation of the plaintiff’s 5th and 6th Amendment rights in full knowledge that her right to
counsel had attached and that she was in fact represented by counsel. Plaintiff repeatedly told
Detective Harkins and other investigators from the time of her arrest that she was innocent of any
wrongdoing and had no knowledge of it or the perpetrators.
15.

Despite all that, Detective Harkins and the other defendants maintained the

charges against her, repeated the allegations to the assigned prosecutors, and caused plaintiff to
be arraigned on the false charges on February 20, 2014, and held at Riker’s Island on $30,000
5

 Case 1:15-cv-02001-KPF Document 1 Filed 03/17/15 Page 6 of 12

bail.
16.

Plaintiff and her family were unable to raise sufficient funds to obtain the

bail bond for a few weeks. Finally, a bail bond was posted and plaintiff was released from
custody on or about March 19, 2014. At a court date on March 24, 2014, the assigned
prosecutor, a deputy assistant attorney general whose office was prosecuting the case, agreed to
informally provide certain discovery which consisted primarily of recordings of eavesdropped
telephone conversations. That discovery was provided by the prosecutor on March 26, 2014.
Plaintiff listened to those recordings and consulted with her defense attorney who then
communicated to the assigned prosecutor that it was plaintiff’s adamant position that hers was
not the voice on the recordings, that she did not recognize the voices on the recordings or the
telephone numbers associated with them, and had no knowledge of the subject matter being
discussed.
17.

Upon receipt of this information from plaintiff’s criminal defense attorney,

the assigned prosecutor went into New York County Criminal Court, and on his own motion,
within a few days of receiving the representations from defense counsel that an innocent
person had been falsely arrested and wrongly incarcerated and prosecuted for more than a
month, dismissed all charges against the plaintiff with prejudice. There was no lengthy review
of the case evidence, no interview of the plaintiff, no meeting with the plaintiff and her defense
attorney. Upon information and belief, the assigned prosecutor interviewed Detective Harkins
and/or other investigators upon receipt of the representations from defense counsel, and learned
that Detective Harkins and the others had reason to know that they did not arrest the actual
suspect, that they in fact arrested the plaintiff prior to securing probable cause to do so and while
6

 Case 1:15-cv-02001-KPF Document 1 Filed 03/17/15 Page 7 of 12

their investigation was still very unsure of the identity of the actual suspect.
18.

Plaintiff suffered damage as a result of defendants’ actions. Plaintiff was

deprived of her liberty and suffered emotional distress, mental anguish, fear, anxiety,
embarrassment, and humiliation. Further, plaintiff suffered damage to her reputation and lost
business and good will because of the extensive publicity her arrest and prosecution received,
especially in the Korean community.
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(FALSE ARREST)
19.

The plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs “1" through “18", inclusive, with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth
herein at length.
20.

Neither defendants, nor each of them, nor those in their employ and at

their direction, nor any other person, observed or overheard plaintiff in the commission of any of
the crimes with which she was charged in the aforesaid criminal complaint.
21.

Plaintiff did not commit any of the crimes with which she was charged in

the aforesaid criminal complaint.
22.

Accordingly, defendants’ arrest of plaintiff was without probable cause

and in violation of plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth Amendment.
23.

As a result of such conduct, plaintiff suffered actual and special damages

in that: plaintiff has been held up to public contempt, ridicule, disgrace and prejudice; has
suffered great and severe mental pain and anguish; has been irreparably injured in her good
name, professional reputation and social standing; and has lost the esteem and respect of her
7

 Case 1:15-cv-02001-KPF Document 1 Filed 03/17/15 Page 8 of 12

friends, acquaintances, professional and business associates, and of the public generally; has been
seriously impaired in the enjoyment of life and the practice of her profession; and, has suffered
emotional and psychological injury and depression; has suffered physical manifestations of pain
and suffering; has been limited in the activities in which she can engage; and the defendants have
caused plaintiff to be arrested and prosecuted and to incur legal fees to defend herself, all of
which has caused substantial economic harm, and physical and emotional injuries and damages.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(ABUSE OF PROCESS)
24.

The plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs “1" through “23", inclusive, with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth
herein at length.
25.

The defendants, and each of them, and those in their employ and at their

direction, initiated and procured a public arrest and prosecution of the plaintiff in the form of a
complaint sworn to and provided to prosecutors and the court and by obtaining an arrest warrant
thereon and transmitting it as a fugitive warrant.
26.

The defendants, and each of them, and those in their employ and at their

direction, issued such charges wrongfully and with actual malice for the sole purpose of harming
the plaintiff and her reputation and causing her to be arrested and subjected to criminal
prosecution, public scorn and ridicule, without cause, excuse or justification, for the ulterior and
collateral purposes of questioning her as to the identity of the actual suspect.
27.

As a result of such conduct, plaintiff suffered actual and special damages

in that: plaintiff has been held up to public contempt, ridicule, disgrace and prejudice; has

8

 Case 1:15-cv-02001-KPF Document 1 Filed 03/17/15 Page 9 of 12

suffered great and severe mental pain and anguish; has been irreparably injured in her good
name, professional reputation and social standing; and has lost the esteem and respect of her
friends, acquaintances, professional and business associates, and of the public generally; has been
seriously impaired in the enjoyment of life and the practice of her profession; and, has suffered
emotional and psychological injury and depression; has suffered physical manifestations of pain
and suffering; has been limited in the activities in which she can engage; and the defendants have
caused plaintiff to be arrested and prosecuted and to incur legal fees to defend herself, all of
which has caused substantial economic harm, and physical and emotional injuries and damages.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(MALICIOUS PROSECUTION)
28.

The plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs “1" through “27", inclusive, with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth
herein at length.
29.

The defendants, and each of them, and those in their employ and at their

direction, initiated and procured a public arrest and prosecution of the plaintiff in the form of a
complaint sworn to and provided to prosecutors and the court.
30.

The defendants, and each of them, and those in their employ and at their

direction, commenced and continued such prosecution wrongfully and with actual malice for the
sole purpose of harming the plaintiff and her reputation and causing her to be arrested and
subjected to criminal prosecution, public scorn and ridicule; they did so without probable cause,
excuse or justification, for the ulterior and collateral purposes questioning her as to the identity of
the actual suspect.

9

 Case 1:15-cv-02001-KPF Document 1 Filed 03/17/15 Page 10 of 12

31.

The prosecution wrongfully and maliciously procured by the defendants

against plaintiff was terminated in favor of the plaintiff and under circumstances fully indicating
the plaintiff’s innocence.
32.

As a result of such conduct, plaintiff suffered actual and special damages

in that: plaintiff has been held up to public contempt, ridicule, disgrace and prejudice; has
suffered great and severe mental pain and anguish; has been irreparably injured in her good
name, professional reputation and social standing; and has lost the esteem and respect of her
friends, acquaintances, professional and business associates, and of the public generally; has been
seriously impaired in the enjoyment of life and the practice of her profession; and, has suffered
emotional and psychological injury and depression; has suffered physical manifestations of pain
and suffering; has been limited in the activities in which she can engage; and the defendants have
caused plaintiff to be arrested and prosecuted and to incur legal fees to defend herself, all of
which has caused substantial economic harm, and physical and emotional injuries and damages.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(MONELL CLAIM)
33.

The plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs “1" through “32", inclusive, with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth
herein at length.
34.

The City of New York, through policy, practice and custom, directly

caused the constitutional violations suffered by plaintiff.
35.

Upon information and belief, the City of New York, at all relevant times,

was aware that Detective Harkins, Police Officer Kim, Sergeant Kim, Lieutenant Morales, and

10

 Case 1:15-cv-02001-KPF Document 1 Filed 03/17/15 Page 11 of 12

“John and Jane Does” Nos. 1-10, and each of them, and those in their employ and at their
direction, were unfit officers who have previously committed the acts alleged herein and/or have
a propensity for unconstitutional conduct.
36.

Nevertheless, the City of New York exercised deliberate indifference by

failing to take remedial action. The City failed to properly train, retrain, supervise, discipline,
and monitor the officers and improperly retained and utilized them. Moreover, upon information
and belief, the City of New York failed to adequately investigate prior complaints filed against
the officers.
37.

In addition, the following are City policies, practices and customs:

(a) arresting innocent individuals, primarily minorities, on the pretext that they engaged in
criminal activity, in order to meet productivity goals, timelines, and so as not to compromise
overall investigations;
(b) fabricating evidence against individuals;
(c) disregarding obvious proof of and claims of innocence;
AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)
38.

The plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs “1" through “37", inclusive, with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth
herein at length.
39.

The City of New York is vicariously liable under state law for false arrest,

abuse of process, and malicious prosecution because Detective Harkins, Police Officer Kim,
Sergeant Kim, Lieutenant Morales, and “John and Jane Does” Nos. 1-10, and each of them, and

11

 Case 1:15-cv-02001-KPF Document 1 Filed 03/17/15 Page 12 of 12

those in their employ and at their direction, were acting within the scope of their employment as
New York City Police Officers when they committed the aforesaid torts.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands a jury trial and the following relief jointly and
severally against the defendants:
a. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by a jury;
b. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury;
c. Attorney’s fees and costs;
d. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: New York, New York
March 16, 2015
LOMBARDI & SALERNO PLLC

By:

Dino J. Lombardi
52 Duane Street, 7th Floor
New York, New York 10007
(212) 619-8328
Attorneys for Plaintiff Ji Young Lee

12