Cluster 7321553

See Shabazz v. Kailer, 201 F. Supp. 3d 386, 393 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ("Where the question of whether an arresting officer had probable cause is predominantly factual in nature . . . the existence . . . of probable cause is to be decided by the jury") (citation omitted).

See Shabazz v. Kailer, 201 F. Supp. 3d 386, 392 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (“A [New York] police officer may initiate criminal proceedings by bringing charges and having the plaintiff arraigned, by filling out complaining and corroborating affidavits, and by signing felony complaints.”).

See Weyant v. Okst, 101 F.3d 845, 852 (2d Cir. 1996) (“The existence of probable cause to arrest constitutes justification and is a completed defense to an action for false arrest, whether that action is brought under state law or under § 1983.”) (cleaned up); Shabazz v. Kailer, 201 F. Supp. 3d 386, 392 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (“The existence of probable cause to commence a proceeding is a complete defense to a claim of malicious prosecution.”).

See Shabazz v. Kailer, 201 F. Supp. 3d 386, 393 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ("Where the question of whether an arresting officer had probable cause is predominantly factual in nature ... the existence ... of probable cause is to be decided by the jury") (citation omitted).

Id.; see also Shabazz v. Kailer, 201 F. Supp. 3d 386, 393 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (“Certain facts known to the police officer may be sufficient to rebut the presumption and therefore negate the existence of probable cause to prosecute.”).

Jackson v. Nassau Cnty., 552 F. Supp. 3d 350 , 372- 73 (E.D.N.Y. 2021) (internal quotations omitted); Shabazz v. Kailer, 201 F. Supp. 3d 386, 394 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).

Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123, 126 (2d Cir. 1997) (involving allegations that an officer invented a suspect’s written confession); Barnes v. City of New York, 68 F.4th 123, 129 (2d Cir. 2023) (involving officers lying to prosecutors in relaying that they witnessed the defendant sell drugs); Shabazz v. Kailer, 201 F. Supp. 3d 386, 391 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (involving officers who allegedly fabricated photographs linking suspect to a handgun). -34- In this case, Jimenez does not advan…

Id. at 394 (denying motion to dismiss malicious prosecution claim).

In determining that the Automobile Presumption applied, Judge Briccetti noted that the presumption may be rebutted by evidence that “sufficiently exculpates any given occupant of the vehicle from possession, such as a confession of possession or ownership by another occupant.” Lewis, 2022 WL 1448676 , at *3 (citing Shabazz v. Kailer, 201 F. Supp. 3d 386, 393 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)).

No. 70 at 25.) To state a claim for fabrication of evidence, a plaintiff must allege that “an (1) investigating official (2) fabricates evidence (3) that is likely to influence a jury’s decision, (4) forwards that information to prosecutors, and (5) the plaintiff suffers a deprivation of liberty as a result.” Shabazz v. Kailer, 201 F. Supp. 3d 386, 394-95 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (citing Jovanovic v. City of New York, 486 F. App’x 149, 152 (2d Cir. 2012)).

Apr. 27, 2021) (citing Shabazz v. Kailer, 201 F. Supp. 3d 386, 391 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (dismissing the plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim because he did not “secure a favorable termination of the criminal action.”); Aragon v. New York, 14-CV-9797, 2017 WL 2703562 , at *5 (S.D.N.Y.

Sharp v. Cnty. of Putnam, No. 18 Civ. 780, 2019 WL 2250412 , at *4 (S.D.N.Y May 24, 2019); Shabazz v. Kailer, 201 F. Supp. 3d 386, 394 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).

Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123, 131 (2d Cir. 1997) (“[L]ack of probable cause generally raises an inference of malice sufficient to withstand summary judgment.”). prosecutor may in itself serve as a proximate cause of the deprivation of a criminal defendant’s right to a fair trial and deprivation of liberty.” Shabazz v. Kailer, 201 F. Supp. 3d 386, 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).

Dec. 10, 2013)). “[A]n arresting officer may be held liable for malicious prosecution when a police officer creates false information likely to influence a jury’s decision and forwards that information to prosecutors, or when she withholds relevant and material information.” Shabazz v. Kailer, 201 F. Supp. 3d 386, 392 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (quoting Frederique v. County of Nassau, No. 11–CV–1746, 2016 WL 1057008, at *12 (E.D.N.Y.

Shabazz v. Kailer, 201 F. Supp. 3d 386, 397 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (in context of evidence fabrication claim, distinguishing Hoyos “because it was decided on a motion for summary judgment” and declining to conclude on motion to dismiss “that the allegedly fabricated evidence did not cause the prosecutor to initiate the prosecution against the plaintiffs when she otherwise would not have proceeded with the prosecution”).

Shabazz v. Kailer, 201 F.Supp.3d 386, 390 (S.D.N.Y. 2016); Taylor v. Vt.

See Shabazz v. Kailer, 201 F. Supp. 3d 386, 394 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).

See Shabazz v. Kailer, 201 F. Supp. 3d 386 , 392–93 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (finding that defendant officer’s “role in the criminal proceeding [was] more akin to a traditional complaining witness” where he “signed a false affidavit and falsified photographic evidence, which were forwarded to the prosecution”).

See Shabazz v. Kailer, 201 F. Supp. 3d 386, 393 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).

See, e.g., Shabazz v. Kailer, 201 F. Supp. 3d 386, 392 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (collecting cases).

Sheriff, 63 F.3d 110 , 116 (2d Cir. 1995); see also Shabazz v. Kailer, 201 F. Supp. 3d 386, 391 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (collecting cases).

Sheriff, 63 F.3d 110 , 116 (2d Cir. 1995); see also Shabazz v. Kailer, 201 F. Supp. 3d 386, 391 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (collecting cases).

See Jocks v. Tavernier , 316 F.3d 128 , 135-36 (2d Cir. 2003) ; see also Shabazz v. Kailer , 201 F.Supp.3d 386 , 393-94 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).

Compare Bailey v. City of New York , 79 F.Supp.3d 424 , 455 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (holding that the statute of limitations accrued on the date that the appellate court overturned the plaintiff's conviction) and Shabazz v. Kailer, 201 F.Supp.3d 386 , 395-96 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (holding that a claim related to fabrication of evidence does not accrue until the invalidation of the conviction); with McDonough , 2016 WL 5717263 , at *10-11 ("[A] fair trial claim premised on fabrication of e…