Case UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DAVID JONES and PROCTOR F. MARTIN, Plaintiffs, Civil Action N0.: -against? COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMAND THE CITY OF NEW YORK and THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, POLICE OFFICER WILLIAM NEVILLE, TAX REG. 949390, POLICE OFFICER JUNIOR CELESTIN, TAX REG. 941524, AND OTHER UNIDENTIFIED NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICERS INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY Defendants Plaintiffs by their attorney Edward Zaloba, Esq., alleges as follows for his Complaint: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is a civil action against THE CITY OF NEW YORK and THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, POLICE OFFICER WILLIAM NEVILLE, TAX REG. 949390, POLICE OFFICER JUNIOR CELESTIN, TAX REG. 941524, and other unidenti?ed New York City Police Officers, to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of plaintiff?s rights, secured by the civil rights act of 1871 42 USC ?1983 and rights secured under the common law and privileges and immunities under the United States and New York State Constitutions. This action is grounded upon wrongful, unlawful, and improper acts including, without limitation, false arrest, unlawful imprisonment, excessive use of force, abuse of process, and violations of police and public duties and obligations. (If? Case Document 1 Filed 09/10/150 Page 2 of 17 PagelD 2 JURISDICTION 2. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ?l983, ?1985(3), ?1986, ?1988 and the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and pursuant to Article the Constitution of the State of New York. Jurisdiction is founded upon 28 U.S.C. ?1331 and ?1343 and the previously mentioned statutory and constitutional provisions. That jurisdiction is founded upon the existence of a Federal question. Plaintiff further invokes the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court to hear and decide claims arising under state law. 3. These matters in controversy, each exceed exclusive of interests and costs, the sum or value of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS. VENUE 4. Venue is properly laid in the Eastern District of New York under in that this is the District in which the claim arose. PARTIES 5. That the plaintiff, David Jones, resides in Queens, New York. 6. That the plaintiff, Proctor F. Martin, resides in Queens, New York. 7. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant City of New York was and still is a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, and that at all times relevant defendants, City of New York and its Police Department, Police Of?cer William Neville, Tax Reg. 949390, Police Of?cer Junior Celestin, Tax Reg. 941524, and other unidenti?ed New York City Police Officers were acting for, upon and in furtherance of the business of Case Document 1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 3 of 17 PagelD 3 their employer and within the scepe of their employment. 8. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant(s) of?cer William Neville, Police Of?cer Junior Celestin, and other unidenti?ed police of?cers, were employed by the defendant, City of New York, as members of its police department. 9. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant NYC, its agents, servants and employees operated, maintained and controlled the New York City Police Department (NYPD), including all the police of?cers thereof. 10. The NYPD, is a local governmental agency, duly formed and operating under and by virtue of the Laws and Constitution of the State of New York and the commissioner of the NYPD is responsible for the policies, practices and customs of the NYPD as well as the hiring, screening, training, supervising, controlling and disciplining of its police of?cers and civilian employees and is the final decision maker for that agency. 11. This action arises under the United States Constitution, particularly under provisions of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, and under federal law, particularly the Civil Rights Act, Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 1983, as well as pursuant to the common law of the State of New York and the New York State Constitution. 12. Each and all of acts of the defendants alleged herein were done by the defendants, while acting as state actors acting under the color of law and within the scope of their employment by defendant The City of New York. 13. Each and all of the acts of the defendants alleged herein were done by said defendants while acting in furtherance of their employment by the defendant The City of New York. 14. All defendant of?cers are being sued in both their individual and of?cial capacities. 15. Each and all of acts of the defendants alleged herein were done by the defendants, acting as state actors acting under the color of law. Case Document 1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 4 of 17 PagelD 4 STATEMENT OF FACTS 16. On July 22, 2014 at approximately 9:00 pm. in the vicinity of the intersection of Van Expressway and Linden Boulevard, in the County of Queens, and State of New York, the plaintiff Martin, was the driver of a 200 Nissan Maxima vehicle that was pulled over by defendant of?cers 17. That plaintiff, David Jones, was a passenger in the back seat of said vehicle when it was pulled over by defendant of?cers at the above time and location. 18. That prior to said vehicle being stopped by the defendant of?cers, it had not violated any vehicle traf?c laws. 19. Said vehicle was stopped by an unmarked car with the defendant of?cers who were in plain clothes. 20. That said of?cers never asked the driver, Martin, for his license or other vehicle identi?cation or information. 21. That the defendant of?cers order the plaintiff, Jones, to exit his passenger seat. 22. That said defendant of?cers ordered plaintiff, Martin, out of the vehicle. 23. That the defendant of?cers ordered the front passenger to exit the vehicle and after said passenger rnade inquiries - as to why, what did we do? Defendant of?cers began to drag and choke him. 24. The plaintiff, Jones told them to stop choking the front passenger and thereafter plaintiff Jones was thrown to the ground and seized and battered by having his head repeatedly smashed into the ground. Plaintiff Jones was also repeatedly punched. 25. The plaintiff was cuffed faced down on the ground. 26. Other unidenti?ed uniformed New York City police of?cers came on the scene. 27. While cuffed plaintiff Jones began to have a seizure as a result of the defendants? conduct. 28. After the plaintiff was cuffed lying faced down on the ground, he was tasered two times in his back. 29. That plaintiff Jones was tasered two (2) times in his back by unidenti?ed New York City police of?cers. 30. Plaintiff Martin was held at gunpoint and cuffed and told to remain on the ground 31. The plaintiff was brought to Jamaica Hospital as a result of the injuries the defendant officers in?icted. Case Document 1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 5 of 17 PagelD 5 32. The plaintiff was treated for facial cuts and abrasions and had two (2) tasers removed from his back. 33. The defendants use of force was neither reasonable nor justi?ed under the circumstances. 34. The defendant(s) assault and battery and their use of force were excessive and without legal justi?cation, without the authority of law, and without reasonable necessity to use such force. 35. The defendant officers failed to intervene to prevent violation of plaintiff?s civil rights from occurring. 36. The plaintiffs were seized and arrested without probable cause. 37. The plaintiff Jones was also caused to be imprisoned for approximately 4-5 days, and said con?nement and stress thereof caused plaintiff Jones to Suffer a seizure requiring hospitalization. 38. The plaintiff Jones suffered great pain and discomfort. 39. Defendant officers, in order to conceal the unlawful arrests of plaintiffs and their assault and battery and the use of excessive force on plaintiff Jones, conspired and caused false charges to be lodged against plaintiffs. 40. The plaintiffs were falsely charged with the crimes of assault and resisting arrest and traf?c infractions. 41. The defendant officers continued their conspiracy by preparing false documents and reports to be presented to both the Court as well as the Queens District Attorney?s Of?ce 42. The plaintiffs were caused to be brought before the Criminal Court of Queens County to be arraigned. 43. The plaintiffs were maliciously prosecuted for approximately 11 1/2 months. 44. Thereafter the Queens County Assistant District Attorney dismissed all charges and plaintiffs? cases were dismissed and sealed on June 17, 2015. Case Document 1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 6 of 17 PagelD 6 45. The plaintiff Jones was caused to be unlawfully imprisoned for 5 days . 46. That plaintiff Martin was caused to be unlawfully imprisoned for approximately 1 day. 47. The plaintiffs were wholly innocent of all charges. 48. The plaintiffs have never been convicted of a crime. 49. That the defendant Neville has a prior history of violence as alleged in prior civil rights actions. 50. As a result of the defendants? use of excessive force, unlawful imprisonment, and violations of plaintiffs? civil rights, the plaintiffs were caused to suffer irreparable harm, loss of liberty, physical injury, interference with education, humiliation injury and other injuries. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS JONES AND MARTIN CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION PURSUANT TO ?1983 51. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the prior paragraphs with the same force and effect as is more fully and at length set forth set forth herein. 52. The conduct and actions of Defendants Officers and other unidenti?ed police of?cers, under color of state law and acting without probable cause, justi?cation, or otherwise privileged, subjected plaintiffs to false charges, unlawful imprisonment against plaintiffs? will and plaintiffs were conscious of said con?nement, and said conduct and actions were done intentionally, maliciously with a deliberate indifference or with a reckless disregard for the natural and probable consequences of their acts, and subjected plaintiffs to conspiracy, acts, and omissions to act without due process of law and in violation of 42 U.S.C. ?i983 thereby depriving plaintiffs of their rights, privileges and immunities secured by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, including, without limitations, deprivation of the following constitutional rights, privileges and immunities: Plaintiffs were deprived of his First Amendment right to speak freely and to petition the government for redress of grievances; Case Document 1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 7 of 17 PagelD 7 Plaintiffs were deprived of his Fourth Amendment constitutional right to be free from unreasonable seizures of his person; (0) Plaintiffs were deprived of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from the use of excessive or unreasonable force; Plaintiffs were deprived of his Fourteenth Amendment right to liberty, without due process of law; Plaintiffs were deprived of his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of law; 53. As a result of the defendants? conduct, plaintiffs, were deprived of liberty, sustained emotional injury including mental suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, and plaintiff Jones was physically injured and plaintiffs were otherwise harmed, damaged and injured. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF JONES VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. ?1983 AND THE USE OF EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE FORCE 54. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the prior paragraphs with the same force and effect as is more fully and at length set forth herein. 55. That the plaintiff?s rights have been violated under the Fourth and Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution made applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ?l983, in that plaintiff was unlawfully subjected to excessive and unreasonable force by defendants, who either intentionally, recklessly or negligently assaulted and battered plaintiff. 56. That the said assault and battery of the plaintiff was effected by defendants without authority of law and without any reasonable necessity to use any force much less the excessive force that they employed and the force employed was used without legal justi?cation, without plaintiff?s consent, with malice and with an intent to inflict pain and suffering. 57. As a direct result of defendants? actions, plaintiff was deprived of rights, privileges and immunities under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution being more particularly Case Document 1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 8 of 17 PagelD 8 plaintiff?s rights to be free from the use of excessive and unreasonable force. 58. That all the defendants who witnessed the use of excessive force against the plaintiffs and who had a reasonable opportunity to intervene and prevent him being injured and who failed to do so are liable to the plaintiff via their failure to exercise their af?rmative duty to intervene. 59. That by reason of the unlawful use of excessive and unreasonable force, the plaintiff was harmed physically, requiring them to received medical attention and he subjected to physical pain, humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety, closed con?nement, loss of liberty, unnecessary and unwarranted medical care and expenses for medical care and that plaintiff was otherwise harmed. AS FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF BOTH PLAINTIFFS JONES AND MARTIN MALICIOUS ABUSE OF PROCESS UNDER 42 USC 1983 60. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the prior paragraphs with the same force and effect as is more fully and at length set forth set forth herein. 61. The Defendant of?cers issued legal process to place plaintiffs under arrest and charged the plaintiffs to cover up their wrongful battery of plaintiff Jones as well as to conceal their unlawful conduct towards the plaintiffs. 62. The Defendant of?cers? arrested plaintiffs in order to obtain a collateral objective outside the legitimate ends of the legal process. 63. The Defendant officers acted with intent to do harm to plaintiffs without excuse or justification. 64. The Defendant officers aforementioned actions were conscience shocking and placed plaintiffs in apprehension of emotional injuries. 65. As a result of defendants? conduct, plaintiffs have suffered physical and mental anguish, Case Document 1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 9' of 17 PagelD 9 together with shock, fright, apprehension, embarrassment, humiliation and was otherwise harmed damaged and injured. AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF BOTH PLANITIFFS LIABILITY OF DEFENDANT CITY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS MONELL (STATE FEDERAL) 66. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the prior paragraphs with the same force and effect as is more fully and at length set forth set forth herein. 67. At all times materials to this complaint, the defendant CITY OF NEW YORK, acting through its police department, the NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, had in effect de facto policies, practices, customs and usages that were a direct and proximate cause of the unconstitutional conduct of the defendant police of?cers. 68. The aforementioned customs policies, usages, practices, procedures and rules of the City of New York and the New York City Police Department included but not limited to arresting persons without probable cause, providing false information to prosecutors, falsifying police reports and testifying falsely under oath. 69. The defendant City of New York, failed to effectively screen, hire, train, supervise and discipline its police of?cers and employees, including the defendant police of?cers and employees herein, for their ability to conduct proper and truthful police work, for their ability to investigate properly and for their ability to determine probable cause. 70. The existence of such de facto policies and/or well-settled and widespread customs and practices has been known to supervisory and police-making officers and officials of the Police Department and the City of New York for a substantial period of time. 71. Despite knowledge of such illegal de facto policies and practices, the supervisory and Case Document 1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 10 of 17 PageID 10 police-making of?cers and of?cials of the Police Department and the City of New York have not taken adequate steps to terminate these policies and practices, have not disciplined individuals who engage in such practices, or otherwise preperly trained police of?cers with regard to the constitutional and statutory limits on the exercise of their authority, and have instead sanctioned and rati?ed these policies, customs and practices through their deliberate indifference to or negligent disregard of the effect of said policies, customs and practices upon the constitutional rights of persons in the City of New York. 72. Defendant NYC as well as unidenti?ed police of?cers who were supervisors and ?nal decision makers as a matter of policy and practice, have with deliberate indifference failed to preperly train, discipline, sanction and retrain police of?cers, despite their knowledge of the recurring problem of violations of the Constitutional rights of citizens by seizing persons without probable cause, assaulting and battery a person by the use of excessive and unlawful force, falsely arresting him and falsifying official records etc, and in so failing, the defendant NYC has caused, encouraged, condoned and allowed the defendants in this case to engage in the aforementioned unlawful conduct without fear of consequences for their illegal acts which did cause the plaintiff to be subjected to deprivations of his civil rights. The Defendant City was on notice of Defendant Neville?s prior assault, batteries as well as his abusive conduct. 73. That the defendant municipality, NYC, alerted to the existence of a signi?cant number of false arrests by its police of?cers, by repeated complaints, of false arrest, and the use of excessive and unlawful force, exhibited deliberate indifference thereto in that it was obvious to NYC that there was a need for more and/or improved supervision of police officers in order to protect against constitutional violations and in spite or repeated complaints of civil rights violations, there have been no meaningful attempts on the part of NYC to investigate or forestall further incidents. 74. That the defendant municipality, NYC, has also been alerted to the use of malicious prosecution brought by its employee officers to cover up the false arrests, the use of excessive and unlawful force and unlawful seizures by its police of?cers, and that the culture of bringing such false charges and malicious prosecuting victims of NYPD false arrests has been allowed to exist without repercussions to the Case Document 1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 11 Of 17 PagelD 11 of?cers who engage in such behavior. Failure and or deliberate indifference to investigate and or discipline said conduct has become the custom of the Defendant City and its police force to tolerate the imprOper beating, illegal arrests and other wrongful actions by its police of?cers . This behavior was permitted to continue in the case at bar. 75. Moreover, the action of the individual defendants resulted from and were taken pursuant to a de facto policy and/or well?settled and widespread custom and practice of the City of New York, which is implemented by police officers of said City. Where the use of unlawful and excessive force is concealed by false arrest and malicious prosecution upon innocent citizens. Where the upward mobility of the officers within ranks is accomplished. This conduct is open and notorious and frequently used by of?cers to conceal improper conduct by said of?cers. This is a well established practice and custom of the defendant NYC police department which has been the subject of a voluminous number of civil rights actions. 76. The existence of such de facto policies and/or well?settled and widespread custom and practices have been known to supervisory and police-making of?cers and of?cials of the Police Department of the City of New York for a substantial period. 77. Each and every year, thousands of civil rights actions alleging false arrest and unlawful imprisonment and the use of excessive and unlawful force by police of?cers are brought and ?settled? by the defendant New York City. Each year, the defendant, New York City spends millions of dollars to resolve said actions. Each year hundreds if not thousands of matters containing allegations of false arrest, unlawful and excessive force and unlawful imprisonment by the defendant New York City and its police officers are settled and/or brought to trial. A multitude of these matters could be cited if necessary. Of greatest concern, is the fact that the defendant NYC is in possession of all information concerning thousands of similar matters settled. Furthermore, these facts alone substantiate the fact that not only is the defendant New York City aware of said police practices and usages, but moreso, that defendant NYC has failed to stop said practices and has condoned said practices and usages. Case Document 1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1201? 17 PagelD 12 78. Upon information and belief, and without limiting the foregoing, the City of New York has Specifically failed to terminate said practices in the following manner: (C) (6) 0) Has failed to properly train, instruct, and discipline police of?cers with regard to the existence of probable cause; Has failed to properly train, instruct, and discipline police of?cers with regard to falsifying police reports and providing misleading information to prosecutors. Has failed to properly train, instruct, and discipline police of?cers with the use of excessive and unlawful force; Has failed to properly train, instruct, and discipline supervising of?cers with regard to their review of charges and reports of matters involving injury to persons and of use of force and excessive force thereon; Has failed to preperly instruct, and discipline police of?cers with regard to perjuries testimony and police reports; Has permitted police of?cers to maintain the ?blue wall of silence? and to conceal and fail to report the misconduct of other police of?cers; Has structured procedures and standards at the Civilian Complaint Review Board, the Of?ce of Chief of Department, and Internal Affairs in such a manner that an of?cer?s denial of the charges is ordinarily suf?cient to remove the threat of any discipline or restraint upon the of?cer?s conduct and to prevent any objective review of the of?cer?s conduct. Has failed to require police of?cers to accept independent and objective review of civilian complaints and imposition of discipline. Has failed to properly structure the police department to review and discipline the existence of unlawful conspiracy by defendant of?cers. 79. Defendant City of New York is directly liable and responsible for the acts of defendants because it has repeatedly and knowingly failed to properly supervise, train and discipline said of?cers and because it repeatedly and knowingly failed to enforce the rules and regulations of the New York City Police Department and the laws of the State of New York and the United States. 80. The knowing and repeated failure of the defendant City of New York to properly supervise, Case Document 1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 13 Of 17 PagelD 13 train and discipline said officers actually caused the injuries to plaintiffs alleged herein. 81. Upon information and belief, defendant City of New York knew or should have known that the acts alleged herein would deprive plaintiffs of their rights without due process of law, in violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article the Constitution of the State of New York, including, without limitation, such rights as plaintiffs? rights to freedom from loss of liberty, freedom of speech, rights to petition for redress of grievances, right to be free from unreasonable seizures and the use of excessive force, right to due process, and right to equal protection of the laws. 82. The defendant City of New York is also directly liable and responsible for the acts of defendants under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 83. As a result of the foregoing conscious policies, practices, customs and/or usages, defendant CITY OF NEW YORK has permitted and allowed the employment and retention of individuals as police officers and employees whose individual circumstances place the public or segments thereof at substantial risk of being the victims of unlawful and/or unreasonable behavior. Such polices, practices customs and/or usages are a direct and proximate cause of the conduct alleged herein and otherwise a direct and proximate cause of the injuries to the plaintiffs herein. 84. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiffs were deprived of liberty, sustained great emotional and physical injuries, was subject to great humiliation, and was otherwise harmed, damaged and injured. AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS NYS CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS 85. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the prior paragraphs with the same force and effect as is more fully and at length set forth set forth herein. 86. Defendants subjected plaintiffs to the foregoing conspiracies, acts, and omissions to act Case Document 1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1490f 17 PagelD 14 without due process of law, thereby depriving plaintiffs of rights, privileges and immunities secured by Article the New York State Constitution, including, without limitation, the following deprivations of his rights, privileges and immunities: Plaintiffs were deprived of their rights to speak freely and to petition the government for redress of grievances, in violation of 8 and 9 of the Constitution of the State of New York; Plaintiffs were deprived of their rights to be free unreasonable seizures of his person; in Violation of 12 of the Constitution of the State of New York; Plaintiffs were deprived of their rights to be free from the use of excessive or unreasonable force in the course of either a lawful or an unlawful seizure, in violation of 12 of the Constitution of the State of New York; Plaintiffs were deprived of their rights to liberty, without due process of law, in violation of ?6 of the Constitution of the State of New York; 87. As a result of the defendants? conduct, DAVID JONES and PROCTOR MARTIN were deprived of liberty, sustained great emotional injury including mental suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, and Jones was physically injured and was otherwise harmed, damaged and injured. AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS, FAILURE TO INTERVENE 88. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the prior paragraphs with the same force and effect as is more fully and at length set forth set forth herein. 89. Each and every individual defendant of?cer had an af?rmative duty to intervene on plaintiff?s behalf to prevent the violation of his constitutional rights. 90. The individual defendant officers failed to intervene on plaintiffs, DAVID JONES and PROCTOR behalf to prevent the violation of their constitutional rights despite having a Case Document 1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1501? 17 PagelD 15 realistic opportunity to do so. 91. As a result of the aforementioned conduct of the individual defendants, plaintiffs? constitutional rights were violated and they were subjected to use of excessive force and other violations of their constitutional rights. AS AND FOR A TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF BOTH PLAINTIFFS, VIOLATION OF RIGHTS PURSUANT TO 42 USC ?1983 AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT VIA MALICIOUS PROSECTUION 92. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the prior paragraphs with the same force and effect as is more fully and at length set forth set forth herein. 93. That the plaintiffs? rights have been violated under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution made applicable to the states Via the Fourteenth Amendment by the defendant. 94. That said malicious prosecution was initiated by the defendants, their agents, servants and employees, without any legal justification and without probable cause in that the defendants caused the commencement and continuation of criminal proceedings against the plaintiffs, and in that the action was commenced and continued intentionally and with malice and deliberate indifference to plaintiffs? rights. The malicious prosecution ceased when the matter was dismissed and sealed on June 17, 2015. 95. That defendant of?cers and other unidenti?ed officers swore falsely as to the alleged criminal actions attributed to plaintiffs and caused their malicious prosecution to be commenced and continued. 96. That the defendants and other unidenti?ed of?cers misrepresented and falsi?ed evidence before the District Attorney. 97. That the defendants did not make a complete and accurate statement of facts to the prosecutor. Case Document 1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 16 Of 17 PagelD 16 98. That defendants withheld exculpatory evidence from the District Attorney. 99. That the defendants lacked probable cause to initiate criminal proceedings against the plaintiffs. 100. That the defendants acted with malice to initiate criminal proceedings against the plaintiff. 101. That the defendants were directly and actively involved in the construction of the criminal proceeding against the plaintiffs. 102. That defendants acted with malice in their continuation of said false charges. 103. That defendants misrepresented and falsi?ed evidence throughout all phases of the criminal proceedings. 104. Notwithstanding the prejudice and fraudulent conduct of the defendant, the criminal proceeding were terminated in plaintiffs? favor and all charges against them were dismissed. 105. That the plaintiffs were wholly innocent of all charges. 106. That all the defendants who knew of the commencement and continuation of the malicious prosecution of the plaintiffs are liable to the plaintiffs via their failure to exercise their af?rmative duty to intervene. 107. That as a result of the above conduct, the defendants? malicious prosecution caused plaintiffs? education to be interfered with; their loss of liberty and other emotional injuries and that the plaintiffs were otherwise harmed and injured. AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION PUNITIVE DAMAGES ON BEHALF OF BOTH PLAINTIFFS 108. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the prior paragraphs with the same force and effect as is more fully and at length set forth set forth herein. Case Document 1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 17 of 17 PagelD #3 17 109. The acts of the individual defendants complained of herein were willful, wonton, malicious and oppressive. They acted with callous disregard, recklessness and deliberate indifference toward the rights of the Plaintiffs and without concern for the damage they would cause. Defendants? acts were motivated by a desire to harm plaintiffs without regard for plaintiffs? well?being and were based on a lack of concern and ill will toward plaintiffs. Such acts therefore deserve an award of Three Million Dollars as punitive damages for Plaintiff Jones and One Million Dollars for plaintiff Martin. WHEREFORE, in consideration of each and every claim the plaintiffs demands judgment A. Compensatory damages in the amount of TWO MILLION ($2,000,000) DOLLARS for Plaintiff Jones and ONE MILLION ($1,000,000) for Plaintiff Martin B. Punitive damages in the amount of THREE MILLION ($3,000,000) DOLLARS for Plaintiff Jones and ONE MILLION ($1,000,000) for Plaintiff Martin; C. The convening and empanelling of a jury to consider the merits of the claims herein; D. Costs and interest and attorney?s fees; E. Such other and further relief as this court may deem appropriate and equitable, including injunctive and declaratory relief as may be required in the interests of justice. Dated: Queens, New York Yours, etc., September 8, 2015 EDWARD ZAECSBA, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiffs 118-21 Queens Boulevard, Ste. 504 Forest Hills, New York 1 1375 (718) 261-3000