State Complaint Taylor

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX-------------------------------------------------------------------XROBERT TAYLOR,Plaintiff,-against-THE CITY OF NEW YORK, P.O. LAURENT MEDE,Shield No. 6673, Individually and in his Official Capacity,P.O. MARIO ALMONTE, Shield No. 3355, Individuallyand in his Official Capacity and P.O.’s “JOHN DOE” #1-10, Individually and in their Official Capacity (the nameJohn Doe being fictitious, as the true names are presentlyunknown),Defendants.-------------------------------------------------------------------X

COMPLAINTIndex No.BASIS FOR VENUE:Location of Incident

Plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR, by his attorneys, COHEN & FITCH LLP, complaining of the defendants, respectfully alleges as follows:

FACTS

1.

Plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR is an African-American male and at all relevanttimes a resident of the City and State of New York.2.

Defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, was and is a municipal corporation dulyorganized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.3.

Defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, maintains the New York City PoliceDepartment, a duly authorized public authority and/or police department, authorized to performall functions of a police department as per the applicable sections of the New York State

Criminal Procedure Law, acting under the direction and supervision of the aforementionedmunicipal corporation, The City of New York.4.

That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the individually named defendants P.O.LAURENT MEDE, P.O. MARIO ALMONTE, and P.O.s “JOHN DOE” #1-#10 were dulysworn police officers of said department and were acting under the supervision of saiddepartment and according to their official duties.5.

That at all times hereinafter mentioned the defendants, either personally or through their employees, were acting under color of state law and/or in compliance with theofficial rules, regulations, laws, statutes, customs, usages and/or practices of the State or City of New York.6.

Each and all of the acts of the defendants alleged herein were done by saiddefendants while acting within the scope of their employment by defendant THE CITY OF NEWYORK.7.

Each and all of the acts of the defendants alleged herein were done by saiddefendants while acting in furtherance of their employment by defendant THE CITY OF NEWYORK.8.

On February 12, 2009, at approximately 5:00 p.m., plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR was lawfully present on the southbound Freeman Street subway platform for the number 2 trainin the County of Bronx, in the City and State of New York.9.

At the aforesaid time and place, plaintiff was taking a photograph of an incomingtrain he was waiting to board.10.

As the train approached, plaintiff began walking toward the edge of the platformas he waited for the train to stop so that he could board.

11.

Before he could board the train, one of the defendant police officers approached plaintiff and stated to him in sum and substance “YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TAKEPHOTOGRAPHS IN THE TRAIN STATION.”12.

Plaintiff immediately explained to the police officer that he was a MetropolitanTransit Authority (“MTA”) station agent and he showed the police officer his employmentidentification.13.

Plaintiff then explained to the defendant police officer that he was very familiar with the MTA rules and that photography was not prohibited in the subway system.14.

Another defendant police officer approached plaintiff and told him he had todelete the photographs he had taken.15.

Plaintiff refused and explained to the defendant police officers that they weremaking a mistake.16.

One of the defendant police officers then stated in sum and substance: “THE TARULES ARE DIFFERENT FROM OUR RULES. CUFF HIM.”17.

Defendants then handcuffed plaintiffs’ arms tightly behind his back, took him back to the precinct, and searched him.18.

Defendants issued plaintiff three summonses charging him with two counts of Disorderly Conduct and one violation of Transit Authority Rules of Conduct (Section 1050.9(c)).19.

Notwithstanding that Section 1050.9(c) of the Transit Rules of Conduct explicitly permits photography on the subway system and that plaintiff was not acting in a disorderlymanner, defendants unlawfully arrested plaintiff anyway.20.

As a result of his unlawful arrest, plaintiff ROBERT TAYLOR spent severalhours in jail.