Case 1:10-cv-05392-JSR Document 7

Filed 08/24/10 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------------- x ISAAC PETER, Plaintiff, -againstTHE CITY OF NEW YORK, et. al., Defendants. 10-CV-5392 (JSR) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- x JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants City of New York, Gregory Siudzak and Kevin ODonnell, by their attorney, Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, for their answer to plaintiffs complaint, respectfully allege, upon information and belief, as follows: 1. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 1 of the complaint, except ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS THE CITY OF NEW YORK, GREGORY SIUDZAK AND KEVIN ODONNELL TO COMPLAINT

admit that plaintiff purports to proceed in this action as stated therein. 2. 3. Deny the allegations in paragraph 2 of the complaint. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 3 of the complaint, except

admit that plaintiff purports to proceed in this action as stated therein. 4. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 4 of the complaint, except

admit that plaintiff purports to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court as stated therein. 5. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 5 of the complaint, except

admit that plaintiff purports to invoke venue in this District as stated therein. 6. 7. Deny the allegations in paragraph 6 of the complaint. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations set forth in paragraph 7 of the complaint.

Case 1:10-cv-05392-JSR Document 7

Filed 08/24/10 Page 2 of 7

8.

Admit that the City of New York is a municipality and maintains a police

department and state that the remainder of the allegations set forth in paragraph 8 of the complaint are legal conclusions to which no responses are required. 9. Admit that Gregory Siudzak and Kevin ODonnell are police officers of

the NYPD and state that the remainder of the allegations of paragraph 9 of the complaint are legal conclusions to which no responses are required. 10. The allegations of paragraph 10 of the complaint are legal conclusions to

which no responses are required. 11. 12. 13. Deny the allegations in paragraph 11 of the complaint. Deny the allegations in paragraph 12 of the complaint. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations set forth in paragraph 13 of the complaint. 14. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations set forth in paragraph 14 of the complaint. 15. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations set forth in paragraph 15 of the complaint. 16. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations set forth in paragraph 16 of the complaint. 17. Admit that P.O. Siudzak arrived at the scene of the incident but deny the

remainder of the allegations in paragraph 17 of the complaint. 18. Admit that Sgt. ODonnell arrived at the scene of the incident but deny the

remainder of the allegations in paragraph 18 of the complaint.

2750504_1.DOC

-2-

08/24/10 2:58 PM

Case 1:10-cv-05392-JSR Document 7

Filed 08/24/10 Page 3 of 7

19.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations set forth in paragraph 19 of the complaint. 20. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations set forth in paragraph 20 of the complaint. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Deny the allegations in paragraph 21 of the complaint. Deny the allegations in paragraph 22 of the complaint. Deny the allegations in paragraph 23 of the complaint. Deny the allegations in paragraph 24 of the complaint. Admit that plaintiff was arrested but deny the remainder of the allegations

in paragraph 25 of the Complaint. 26. Admit that plaintiff was processed upon his arrest but deny knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remainder of the allegations set forth in paragraph 26 of the complaint. 27. 28. Deny the allegations in paragraph 27 of the complaint. In response to paragraph 28 of the Complaint, defendants refer plaintiff to

the Criminal Court Complaint, which speaks for itself. 29. In response to paragraph 29 of the Complaint, defendants refer plaintiff to

the Criminal Court Complaint, which speaks for itself. 30. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations set forth in paragraph 30 of the complaint. 31. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations set forth in paragraph 31 of the complaint.

2750504_1.DOC

-3-

08/24/10 2:58 PM

Case 1:10-cv-05392-JSR Document 7

Filed 08/24/10 Page 4 of 7

32.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations set forth in paragraph 32 of the complaint. 33. In response to the allegations set forth in paragraph 33 of the complaint,

defendants repeat and reallege each response set forth in the preceding paragraphs of their answer, as if fully set forth herein. 34. 35. 36. Deny the allegations in paragraph 34 of the complaint. Deny the allegations in paragraph 35 of the complaint. In response to the allegations set forth in paragraph 36 of the complaint,

defendants repeat and reallege each response set forth in the preceding paragraphs of their answer, as if fully set forth herein. 37. 38. 39. Deny the allegations in paragraph 37 of the complaint. Deny the allegations in paragraph 38 of the complaint. In response to the allegations set forth in paragraph 39 of the complaint,

defendants repeat and reallege each response set forth in the preceding paragraphs of their answer, as if fully set forth herein. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. Deny the allegations in paragraph 40 of the complaint. Deny the allegations in paragraph 41 of the complaint. Deny the allegations in paragraph 42 of the complaint. Deny the allegations in paragraph 43 of the complaint. In response to the allegations set forth in paragraph 44 of the complaint,

defendants repeat and reallege each response set forth in the preceding paragraphs of their answer, as if fully set forth herein. 45. Deny the allegations in paragraph 45 of the complaint.

2750504_1.DOC

-4-

08/24/10 2:58 PM

Case 1:10-cv-05392-JSR Document 7

Filed 08/24/10 Page 5 of 7

46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64.

Deny the allegations in paragraph 46 of the complaint. Deny the allegations in paragraph 47 of the complaint. Deny the allegations in paragraph 48 of the complaint. Deny the allegations in paragraph 49 of the complaint. Deny the allegations in paragraph 50 of the complaint. Deny the allegations in paragraph 51 of the complaint. Deny the allegations in paragraph 52 of the complaint. Deny the allegations in paragraph 53 of the complaint. Deny the allegations in paragraph 54 of the complaint. Deny the allegations in paragraph 55 of the complaint. Deny the allegations in paragraph 56 of the complaint. Deny the allegations in paragraph 57 of the complaint. Deny the allegations in paragraph 58 of the complaint. Deny the allegations in paragraph 59 of the complaint. Deny the allegations in paragraph 60 of the complaint. Deny the allegations in paragraph 61 of the complaint. Deny the allegations in paragraph 62 of the complaint. Deny the allegations in paragraph 63 of the complaint. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 64 of the complaint, except

admit that plaintiff purports to demand a trial by jury. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 65. can be granted. The complaint fails, in whole or in part, to state a claim upon which relief

2750504_1.DOC

-5-

08/24/10 2:58 PM

Case 1:10-cv-05392-JSR Document 7

Filed 08/24/10 Page 6 of 7

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 66. Defendants have not violated any rights, privileges or immunities under

the Constitution or laws of the United States or the State of New York or any political subdivision, nor have defendants violated any act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 67. Defendants Gregory Siudzak and Kevin ODonnell are protected by the

doctrine of qualified immunity. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 68. There was probable cause for plaintiffs arrest and detention. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 69. Any injury alleged to be sustained resulted from plaintiffs own culpable

or negligent conduct and was not the proximate result of any act of defendants. WHEREFORE, defendants City of New York, Gregory Siudzak and Kevin ODonnell respectfully request judgment dismissing the complaint in its entirety, together with the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: New York, New York August 24, 2010 MICHAEL A. CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of the City of New York Attorney for Defendants City, Siudzak and ODonnell 100 Church Street New York, New York 10007 (212) 442-8248

2750504_1.DOC

-6-

08/24/10 2:58 PM

Case 1:10-cv-05392-JSR Document 7

Filed 08/24/10 Page 7 of 7

By:

/s/ MARK D. ZUCKERMAN

2750504_1.DOC

-7-

08/24/10 2:58 PM