2020 monroe county clerk’s office this is not a bill. … · 2020. 9. 24. · monroe county...

MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE THIS IS NOT A BILL. THIS IS YOUR RECEIPT.

Receipt # 2475023

Book Page CIVIL

Return To:CHARLES FRANCIS BURKWIT

No. Pages: 22

Instrument: EFILING INDEX NUMBER

Control #: 202008280167Index #: E2020006581

Date: 08/28/2020

WATFORD, DASHONDA D. MITCHELL, JUSMEIR NOBLE, JESSE M. IV

Time: 9:30:18 AM

EDWARDS, CONNOR STERLING, DEREK PEDICONE, ANTHONY MENDEZ, GIOVANNI DOES, JOHN

State Fee Index Number $165.00 County Fee Index Number $26.00 State Fee Cultural Education $14.25 State Fee RecordsManagement

$4.75

Total Fees Paid: $210.00

Employee: MJ

State of New York

MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICEWARNING – THIS SHEET CONSTITUTES THE CLERKSENDORSEMENT, REQUIRED BY SECTION 317-a(5) &SECTION 319 OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW OF THESTATE OF NEW YORK. DO NOT DETACH OR REMOVE.

JAMIE ROMEO

MONROE COUNTY CLERK

FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 08/27/2020 02:12 PM INDEX NO. E2020006581NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/27/2020

1 of 22

STATE OF NEW YORK

SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF MONROE

DASHONDA D. WATFORD, Individually andAs Parent and Natural Guardian of dusmeir

Mitchell, An Infant

62 Marlborough RoadRochester, New York 14619; and

SUMMONS

Index No.

JESSE Μ.ΝΟΒΙΕ, IV62 Marlborough RoadRochester, New York 14619

Plaintiffs

vs.

CONNOR EDWARDS

185 Exchange BoulevardRochester, New York 14614

DEREK STERIING


ANTHONY PEDICONE

185 Exchange BoulevardRocliester, New York 14614

GIOVANNI MENDEZ


JOHN DOES 1-5

185 Exchange BoulevardRochester, new York 14614; and

CITY OF ROCHESTER

30 Church Street, Room 400ΑRochester, New York 14614,

Defendants.

202008280167 08/28/2020 09:30:18 AM CIVIL202008280167FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 08/27/2020 02:12 PM INDEX NO. E2020006581NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/27/2020

2 of 22

٢٠ THE AB.VE NAMED DEFENDANTS:

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and requl٢ed 0؛ serve upon p!alnt!ffs'attorneys an answer to the C0mp!a!nt In this action within twenty (20) days after theservice of this summons, exclusive of the day of service, or within thirty (30) days afterservice is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the state ofNew York. In case of your failure to answer, judgment will be taken against you 'bydefault for the relief demanded in the complaint.

The basis of the venue designated is the residence of the Plaintiffs

which is:

62 Marlborough Road, City of Rochester,County of Monroe and state of New York.

Roctiester, New YorkAugust 24, 2026

DATED:Yours, etc.

BURKWIT LAW FIRM, PLLC

By;Charles F. Burkwit, Esq.Attorneys for Plaintiffs16 East Main street. Suite 450Rochester, New York 14614(585) 546-1588

TO: CONNOR EDWARDS


DEREK STERLING


ANTHONY PEDICONE


GIOVANNI MENDEZ


2


3 of 22

JOHN DOES 1-5

185 Exchange B٥u!e٧a٢dRochester newYo٢k 14614

0!ΤΥ OF ROCHESTER

36 Church Street, Room 4٥0ΑRochester, New York 14614

3


4 of 22

STATE OF NEW YORK

SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF MONROE

DASHONDA D. WATFORD, Individually and AsParent and Natural Guardian of Jusmeir MitchellAn Infant, and JESSE M. NOBIE, IV,

COMPLAINTPlaintiffs,

vs.

Index No.

CONNOR EDWARDS, DEREK STERIING,ANTHONY PEDICONE, GIOVANNI MENDEZ,JOHN DOES 1-5 and CITY OF ROCHESTER,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs DASHONDA D. WATFORD, Individually and As Parent and Natural

Guardian of Jusmeir Mitchell, an Infant, and JESSE M. NOBLE, IV (hereinafter

“Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys, Burkwit law Firm, PllC, as and for their

Complaint against Defendants CONNOR EDWARDS, DEREK STERIING, ANTHONY

PEDICONE, GIOVANNI MENDEZ, JOHN DOES 1-5 (hereinafter “The Defendant

Officers”) and CITY OF ROCHESTER (hereinafter and collectively "Defendants”),

allege as follows:INTROD-

1 this is an action for monetary damages for violations of plaintiff's

constitutional rights brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988 and related New York

State law claims. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants, while acting in their official


5 of 22

capacl؛!es and under co!٥r of state law falsely arrested, illegally searched and seized

and used unlawful and excessive force against Plaintiffs in violation of the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

PARTIES

2. At all times relevant herein. Plaintiff DASHONDA D. WATFORD, Individually

and As Parent and Natural Guardian of Jusmeir Mitchell, an Infant (hereinafter "Plaintiff

Watford”), was and still is a resident of the City of Rochester, County of Monroe and

State of New York.

3. At all times relevant herein. Plaintiff Watford was and still is the parent and

natural guardian of Jusmeir Mitchell, an infant (hereinafter "The Infant Plaintiff').

4. At all times relevant herein. Plaintiff UESSE M. NOBIE, IV (hereinafter

"Plaintiff Noble”), was and still is a resident of the City of Rochester, County of Monroe

and State of New York.

5. At all times relevant herein. Defendant CONNOR EDWARDS (hereinafter

"Defendant Edwards”) was and still is a resident of the County of Monroe and state of

New York and was employed by Defendant CITY OF ROCHESTER as a police officer.

6. At all times relevant herein. Defendant Edwards was acting under color of law

and is sued in his individual and official capacities as a police officer for the Defendant

CITY OF ROCHESTER.

7. At all times relevant herein. Defendant DEREK STERLING (hereinafter

"Defendant sterling”) was and still is a resident of the County of Monroe and state of


8. At all times relevant herein. Defendant sterling was acting under color of law


CITY OF ROCHESTER.

2


6 of 22

9. At all times ٢elevant herein. Defendant ANTHONY PEDICONE (hereinafter

“Defendant Pedicone") was and still is a resident of the County of Monroe and state of


lo.At all times relevant herein. Defendant Pedicone was acting under color of law


CITY OF ROCHESTER.

11 .At all times relevant herein. Defendant GIOVANNI MENDEZ (hereinafter

“Defendant Mendez") was and still is a resident of the County of Monroe and state of


12. At all times relevant herein. Defendant Mendez was acting under color of law


CITY OF ROCHESTER.

13. Defendants JOHN DOES 1-5 (hereinafter “The Doe Defendants"), individuals

whose names are currently unknown to Plaintiffs, are citizens of New York state who

were employed by and served as police officers for Defendant CITY OF ROCHESTER.

14. The Doe Defendants are unknown police officers who were involved in the

September 19, 2019 arrest and/or use of force against Plaintiffs.

15. At all times relevant to this Complaint, The Doe Defendants were acting under

color of law and are sued in their individual capacities and official capacities as police

officers for the Defendant CITY OF ROCHESTER.

16.At all times material to ttie allegations in this Complaint, The Defendant

Officers were acting under color of state law as police officers for Defendant CITY OF

ROCHESTER.

17. Defendant CITY OF ROCHESTER is and at all times relevant herein, was and

still Is a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under ttie laws of the state of

New York with its principal place of business in the County of Monroe, state of NewYork.

3


7 of 22

18. Defendant CITY OF ROCHESTER is a political subdivision of the state of

New York for which at all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants were employed

by and served as police officers.

19. On or about December 5, 2019, Defendant CITY OF ROCHESTER was

served with a Verified Notice of Claim detailing its culpability and Plaintiffs' damages.

20. Defendant CITY OF ROCHESTER has failed and refused to make payment to

Plaintiffs in accordance with said Verified Notice of Claim.

21.At least thirty (30) days have elapsed since the service of the Verified

Notice of Claim upon Defendant CITY OF ROCHESTER and adjustment of payment

thereof has been neglected or refused by Defendant CITY OF ROCHESTER.

FACTS

22.0η September 19, 2019, The Infant Plaintiff was an 8؛h grade student at

leadership Academy For Young Men in Rochester, New York where he had been an

honor student, played football and basketball.

23.0η September 19, 2019 at approximately 7:00 p.m.. The Infant Plaintiff was a

passenger on a Rochester City School District school bus traveling southbound on lake

Avenue in the City of Rochester, New York.

24.0η said date and time. The Infant Plaintiff was heading home from football

practice and was en route to the RTS Transit Center where students would be given

bus passes to take a public bus home.

25. As The Infant Plaintiff was seated in the middle of the school bus, ttiere were

students in the back of the school bus wtio got into an altercation or argument so the

bus driver. Digna DeJesus, called dispatch and was instructed to pull over and wait for

assistance.

4


8 of 22

26.The !nfant Plaintiff was not one of the students who we٢e involved in the

altercation or argument in the back of the school bus.

27. After the call to dispatch was made, the school bus pulled over and stopped on

lake Avenue in front of Wendy's restaurant in the vicinity of 683 lake Avenue in ttie

City of Rochester, New York.

28. When the school bus pulled over and stopped in front of Wendy's restaurant.

٦he Infant Plaintiff called his mottier. Plaintiff WATFORD, who was at School Number

34 with Plaintiff NOBLE for an open house for two of their children.

29. When The Infant Plaintiff called Plaintiff Watford, he Informed her that the

school bus had pulled over and asked her if she could come get him.

30.The school bus driver. Digna Dedesus, had informed The Infant Plaintiff that it

would be ok if his mother came to get him and The Infant Plaintiff relayed this

information to Plaintiff Watford.

31 .After The Infant Plaintiff called and spoke with his mother, she (Plaintiff

Watford) and Plaintiff Noble left the open tiouse at School Number 34 with their four

children and drove to the location where the school bus was parked in ttie vicinity of 683

lake Avenue, Rochester, New York 14613.

32.When Plaintiffs Watford and Noble arrived in ttieir vehicle at 683 lake Avenue

wliere the school bus was parked. Plaintiff Watford parked in front of the school bus

along the curb on lake Avenue.

33.After parking tier vehicle. Plaintiff Watford got out of her vehicle and walked

towards the school bus door to pick up her son. The Infant Plaintiff.

34. Within fifteen (15) seconds after Plaintiff Watford parked her veliicle, got out of

5


9 of 22

؛ا and started wa!klng towards the schoo! bus to get her son, city of Rochester police

officers arrived on scene, wearing black gloves and shaking cans of mace as they

aggressively approached the parked school bus which was transporting sixth to eighth

grade students, including the Infant Plaintiff.

35. Concerned about Plaintiff Watford's and ttie Infant Plaintiff's safety. Plaintiff

Noble got out of the parked vehicle and walked towards the school bus door.

36. When Plaintiff Watford arrived at the sctiool bus door, the school bus driver؛

Digna Dedesus, opened the school bus door to let the Infant Plaintiff off of the school

bus and stie told the police that the Infant Plaintiff was not involved in the altercation or

argument at the back of the bus.

37. When the SCİ100İ bus driver. Digna DeJesus, opened the school bus door to let

the Infant Plaintiff off of the school bus. Plaintiff Watford was physically pushed aside

by Defendant Edwards who grabbed the Infant Plaintiff as Ms. DeJesus yelled “No.

this is the wrong child, those are his parents".

38. the police then told the school bus driver. Digna DeJesus, to close the school

bus door and she did so.

39. After the school bus door was closed. Defendant Edwards maced the Infant

Plaintiff and put him in a choke hold as he violently forced him down to the ground and

handcuffed him.

49. When the Infant Plaintiff was grabbed, maced, placed in a choke hold and

violently forced down to the ground. Plaintiff Noble yelled to the City of Rochester Police

officers “You have the wrong person".

41 .After the Infant Plaintiff was maced, placed in a choke hold and violently

6


10 of 22

forced down to the ground. Defendants ste٢!!ng and Edwards aggress!ve!y pursued,

restrained and arrested Plaintiff Noble, slamming him down on the ground by a tree,

driving a knee into his neck and causing tils head to hit the ground.

42. Upon information and belief. Defendant Pedicone maced Plaintiff Noble and

the City of Rochester Police officers forced him down to the ground and placed him in

handcuffs.

43. After the aforedescribed incident. The Infant Plaintiff was placed in the back of

a City of Rochester Police car wtiere he remained under arrest while restrained in

handcuffs.

44. During the aforedescribed incident. Defendant Mendez physically grabbed

Plaintiff Watford’s hand trying to take her cell phone from her since she was recording

the incident and he forcefully pushed her back.

45. During the aforedescrlbed incident. Defendant Edwards forcefully pushed

Plaintiff Watford more than four (4) times.

46. Plaintiff Watford was two (2) months pregnant at the time of the aforedescribed

incident.

47.The Defendant Officers falsely accused, arrested and maliciously charged and

prosecuted Plaintiff Noble with Obstruction of Governmental Administration in the 2ท٥

degree in violation of Penal Law §195.65, Harassment in the Second Degree in violation

of Penal law §246.26(1) and Resisting Arrest in violation of Penal law §265.36.

48. Following the aforedescribed incident. Plaintiff Noble was transported to

Monroe County Jail where he was strip searched and detained overnight pending his

arraignment.

7


11 of 22

49. On September 2٥, 2019, p!a!nt!ff N٥b!e was arraigned in front of dudge

Melissa Barrett in Rochester City Court on the charges identified in paragraph 47 above

and was released on his own recognizance.

SO.The Defendant Officers falsely accused, arrested and maliciously prosecuted

Plaintiff Noble for crimes and/or violations which he did not commit.

51. As a conseguence of the foregoing incident. The Infant Plaintiff suffered

physical and emotional injuries including burning to his eyes and face from the mace, a

concussion from hitting his head, neck, back, bilateral arm and joint pain, bilateral

shoulder pain due to handcuffing, nightmares, post-traumatic stress disorder, mental

anguish and other injuries and/or damages.

52. As a consequence of the foregoing incident. Plaintiff Noble suffered burning to

his eyes and face from the mace, bilateral shoulder pain, arm and wrist pain, emotional

injuries and other injuries and/or damages.

53.As a consequence of the foregoing incident. Plaintiffs have suffered physical

and/or psychological injuries which required them to undergo medical treatment and/or

mental health counseling.

54. Plaintiffs took no actions to justify their arrests, search and seizure and/or use

of force upon their persons.

55. Upon information and belief. The Defendant Officers were never reprimanded

suspended or terminated from their employment with Defendant City of Rochester

following the false arrests and/or use of unlawful force used against Plaintiffs and upon

information and belief, said officers remain on full time active duty patrol as City of

Rochester Police officers.

56. As a direct and proximate result of the alleged actions of the Defendants

8


12 of 22

P!3İn؛!ffs have suffered physica! and menta! injuries, pain and suffering and other

damages in an amount that will be established at trial.

AS AND FDR A F!RSĨ CAUSE DF ACTIDN DN BEHAIF OF

PLA!NT!FFS DASHONDA D. WATFORD, AS PARENT ANDNATURAL GUARDIAN OF dUSMEIR MITCHELL, AN INFANT,

AND JESSE M. NOBLE, IV FOR VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §1983BY DEFENDANTS CONNOR EDWARDS, DEREK STERLING,

ANTHONY PEDICONE, GIOVANNI MENDEZ ANDJOHN DOES 1-5 FOR FALSE ARREST

57. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations in paragraphs 1 tlirough

56 above and incorporate them by reference as if set forth in their entirety herein.

58.The Defendant Officers herein illegally detained, handcuffed and arrested The

Infant Plaintiff and Plaintiff Noble and illegally searched and seized their persons without

probable cause or reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or was being committed

in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution.

59.The Infant Plaintiffs arrest and Plaintiff Noble's arrest were made in the

absence of a warrant for their arrests.

60.The Defendant Officers arrested The Infant Plaintiff and Plaintiff Noble without

having exigent circumstances for doing so.

61.The Infant Plaintiff and Plaintiff Noble were conscious and did not consent to

their arrests.

62. By the actions described herein. The Defendant Officers, without a warrant or

without probable cause and while acting under color of law, arrested The Infant Plaintiff

and Plaintiff Noble and deprived them of certain constitutionally protected rights to be

free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right not to be deprived of liberty

wittiout due process of law and the right to be free from false arrest, all in violation of 42

9


13 of 22

U.S.C. Section 1983 and her Fourtti and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed

by the United States Constitution.

63.The Defendant Officers were acting under color of state law when they,

without probable cause or reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or was being

committed, exercised their auttiority as police officers and falsely arrested, searched

and seized fhe Infant Plaintiff and Plaintiff Noble who were at all times acting in a lawful

manner.

64. As a direct and proximate cause of the false arrest, illegal search and seizure

of The Infant Plaintiff and Plaintiff Noble by The Defendant Officers, The Infant Plaintiff

and Plaintiff Noble suffered physical and mental injuries and other damages in an

amount that will be established at trial.

65.As a direct and proximate cause of the false arrest, illegal search and seizure

of The Infant Plaintiff and Plaintiff Noble by The Defendant Officers, The Infant Plaintiff

and Plaintiff Noble suffered physical and mental injuries and other damages in an

amount ttiat exceeds the monetary Jurisdictional limits of all lower New York Courts but

does not exceed the monetary jurisdictional limits of the New York state Supreme

Court.

66.As a direct and proximate result of The Defendant Officers' violations of

The Infant Plaintiff's and Plaintiff Noble's constitutional rigtits. The Infant Plaintiff and

Plaintiff Noble have suffered general and special damages to be proved at trial and are

entitled to relief under 42 u.s.c. Section 1983.

67.As a direct and proximate result ofThe Defendant Officers' conduct. The Infant

Plaintiff and Plaintiff Noble tiave been compelled to retain the services of counsel to

protect and enforce their riglits and therefore. Plaintiffs have incurred and continue to

incur attorney's fees, expert fees and costs for which Plaintiffs are entitled to

reimbursement in an amount to be established at the time of trial pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

Section 1988.

10


14 of 22

68.The Defendant Officers' conduct was willful, malicious, oppressive and/or

reckless and was of sucti a nature that the Infant Plaintiff and Plaintiff Noble claim

punitive damages against each of them in an amount commensurate with the wrongful

acts alleged herein.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF

PLAINTIFFS DASHONDA D. WATFORD) INDIVIDUALLY AND AS

PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF dUSMElR MITCHELL,

AN INFANT, AND dESSE M. NOBLE, IV FOR VIOLATION OF

42 U.S.C. §1983 BY DEFENDANTS CONNOR EDWARDS,DEREK STERLING, ANTHONY PEDICONE, GIOVANNI MENDEZ

AND JOHN DOES 1-5 FOR EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE

69.The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 68

above and incorporate them by reference as if set forth in their entirety herein.

70. Based upon the aforedescribed conduct. The Defendant Officers herein

illegally used excessive force under the circumstances against Plaintiffs in violation of

their Fourtti Amendment right to be secure in their persons from unreasonable seizures.

71.The Defendant Officers' aforedescribed conduct under the circumstances was

an excessive use of force on Plaintiffs which a reasonable officer in their position would

not have used under the circumstances.

72. The Defendant Officers' actions and use of force against Plaintiffs were

objectively unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them and

violated the Fourth Amendment rights of Plaintiffs.

73.As a direct and proximate cause ofttie excessive use of force by The

Defendant Officers against Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs suffered physical and mental injuries and

other damages in an amount that will be established at trial.

74. As a direct and proximate cause of the excessive use of force by The

Defendant Officers against Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages in an

11


15 of 22

amoun؛ wh!ch exceeds the monetary jurlsd!ct!ona! !!mlts of all lower New York Courts

but does not exceed the monetary jurisdictional limits of the New York state Supreme

Court.

75.AS a direct and proximate result of The Defendant Officers' violations of

Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Plaintiffs have suffered general and special damages to

be proved at trial and are entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

76.As a direct and proximate result ofThe Defendant Officers' conduct. Plaintiffs

have been compelled to retain the services of counsel to protect and enforce their rights

and therefore. Plaintiffs have incurred and continue to incur attorney's fees, expert fees

and costs for which Plaintiffs are entitled to reimbursement in an amount to be

established at the time of trial pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988.

77.The Defendant Officers' conduct was willful, malicious, oppressive and/or

reckless and was of such a nature ttiat Plaintiffs claim punitive damages against each of

them in an amount commensurate with the wrongful acts alleged herein.

AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION ON BEHAIF OFPLAINTIFFS DASHONDA D. WATFORD) INDIVIDUALLY AND ASPARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF dUSMEIR MITCHELL)

AN INFANT, AND dESSE M. NOBLE) IV AND AGAINSTALL DEFENDANTS FOR BATTERY

78. The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraplis 1

through 77 above and incorporate them by reference as if set forth in their entirety

herein.

79.The aforesdescribed actions of Defendants herein constitute intentional

batteries upon Plaintiffs’ persons.

89. Defendants herein committed a battery upon Plaintiffs' persons by directing

and using force against Plaintiffs persons without their consent.

81. Defendant Edwards committed a battery against The Infant Plaintiffs person

12


16 of 22

by grabbing him when the bus door opened, by macing him, putting him in a choke hold

and violently forcing him down to the ground and handcuffing him, by causing his head

to hit the curb, by driving his knee into his back, by arresting and forcing him into the

back of a police car where he remained restrained in handcuffs and using other physical

force against him.

82. As a conseguence of the physical force used by Defendant Edwards, The

Infant Plaintiff suffered burning to his eyes and face due to the mace, neck pain from

being forced down to ttie ground in a chokehold, a concussion from hitting his head on

the curb and/or ground, back pain from Defendant Edwards' knee being driven into his

back as he was handcufffed, bilateral arm and Joint pain, bilateral shoulder pain.

nightmares, post-traumatic stress disorder and mental anguish.

83. Defendants sterling and Edwards committed a battery against Plaintiff Noble

by grabbing and slamming him onto the ground by a tree, by driving a knee into his

neck, by causing his head to hit the ground, by restraining and arresting him, placing

him in handcuffs and using other physical force against him.

84. Defendant Pedicone commit a battery against Plaintiff Noble by macing him in

his eyes and face.

85. Defendant Mendez committed a battery against Plaintiff Watford by grabbing

her hand as he attempted to grab her cell phone and by forcefully pushing her back.

86. Defendant Edwards committed a battery against Plaintiff Watford by pushing

her aside when the school bus door opened and when he aggressively pushed her

more than four (4) times at the scene of the incident and using other physical force

against her.

13


17 of 22

87. Defendants Edwards, sted!ng, Pedlcone and John Does 1-5 committed a

battery against the Infant Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff Noble by macing them, by physically

taking them to the ground, restraining and arresting them, using physical force against

them, by searctiing their persons incident to their arrests and by physically taking them

into police custody.

88.The batteries committed by Defendants upon Plaintiffs were without

provocation by Plaintiffs and without their consent.

89. As a direct and proximate result of the batteries committed upon Plaintiffs

by The Defendant Officers, Plaintiffs suffered physical and mental injuries and damages

in an amount to be determined at trial.

90. As a direct and proximate cause of the batteries committed by The

Defendant Officers against Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages in an

amount which exceeds the monetary jurisdictional limits of all lower New York Courts


Court.

91. Defendant City of Rochester is liable under the doctrine of Respondeat

Superior for the acts and omissions of its employees and/or agents. The Defendant

Officers herein, who were purporting to act or were acting in the course and scope of

their employment as police officers with Defendant City of Rochester when the alleged

batteries were committed upon Plaintiffs' persons.

92.The Defendants' actions were malicious, oppressive, reckless, wanton

and in willful disregard of Plaintiffs' rights that Plaintiffs claims punitive damages against

The Defendant Officers herein in an amount to be determined at trial commensurate

with the wrongful acts alleged herein.

14


18 of 22

AS AND FDR A FDURTH CAUSE ٥F ACT!٠N ON BEHALF OFPLA١NT!FFS DASHONDA D. WATFORD, ١ND!٧!DUALLY AND ASPARENT AND NATURAL GUARD!AN OF لUSMEIR M!TCHELL,

AN ؛NFANT, AND JESSE M. NOBLE, IV AND AGAINSTALL DEFENDANTS FOR ASSAULT

93.The Plaintiffs ٢epeat and ٢eallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1

through 92 above and incorporate them by reference as if set forth in their entirety

herein.

94.The aforedescribed actions of Defendants herein constitute Intentional

assaults upon Plaintiffs' persons.

95.The Defendant Officers intentionally placed Plaintiffs in fear of imminent.

harmful or offensive contact by their aforedescribed conduct when force was used againstPlaintiffs.

96. Defendant Edwards committed an assault against The Infant Plaintiff when he

grabbed him when the bus door opened, maced him, put him in a choke hold, violently

forced him down to the ground and hadcuffed him, caused his head to hit the curb.

drove his knee into Ills back, used other force against him, arrested him and forced him

into the back of a police car where he remained restrained in handcuffs.

97. Defendants sterling and Edwards committed an assault against Plaintiff Noble

when they aggressively pursued him, grabbed and slammed him onto the ground by a

tree, by driving a knee into his neck, by causing his head to hit the ground, by

restraining and arresting him, placing him in handcuffs and using other physical force

against him.

98. Defendant Pedicone committed an assault against Plaintiff Noble by pursuing

and macing him in his eyes and face.

15


19 of 22

99. Defendant Mendez committed an assault against Plaintiff Watford by grabbing

her hand as he attempted to grab her cell phone, by forcefully pushing her back and as

Plaintiff Watford watched her son (The Infant Plaintiff) and Plaintiff Noble get maced,

tackled, restrained, physically harmed and arrested by The Defendant Officers.

Defendant Edwards committed an assault against Plaintiff Watford by1٥0.

aggressively pushing her more than four (4) times at the incident scene.

Defendants Edwards, sterling, Pedicone and dohn Does 1-5 committed an

assault against The Infant Plaintiff and Plaintiff Noble by macing tfiem, by physically

taking them to the ground, physically harming them, restraining and arresting them, by

searching their persons incident to their arrest and/or by physically taking them into

police custody.

191.

By and tlirough the aforedescribed conduct. The Defendant Officers102.

intentionally placed Plaintiffs in fear of imminent, harmful or offensive contact and made

intentional attempts, displayed by violence or threatening gesture, to do injury to or

commit a battery upon Plaintiffs' persons.

The assaults committed upon Plaintiffs by The Defendant Officers herein103.

was without provocation by Plaintiffs.

Defendant City of Rochester is liable under the doctrine of Respondeat104.

Superior for the acts and omissions of Its employees and/or agents including The

Defendant Officers herein who were purporting to act or were acting in the course and

scope of their employment as police officers with Defendant City of Rochester when the

alleged assaults were committed upon Plaintiffs' persons.

16


20 of 22

As a direct and proximate result of the assaults committed upon their

persons. Plaintiffs suffered physical and mental injuries and damages in an amount to be

105.

determined at trial.

As a direct and proximate cause of the assaults committed by the

Defendant officers against Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages in an

amount which exceeds the monetary jurisdictional limits of all lower New York Courts


Court.

106.

The Defendants’ actions were malicious, reckless, wanton and in willful107.

disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights that Plaintiffs claims punitive damages against The

Defendant Officers in an amount to be determined at trial commensurate with the wrongful

acts alleged herein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs DaShonda D. Watford, Individually and As Parent and

Natural Guardian of Jusmeir Mitchell, an Infant, and Jesse M. Noble, IV, pray for

judgment against Defendants Connor Edwards, Derek sterling, Anthony Pedicone,

Giovanni Mendez, John Does 1-5 and City of Rochester, jointly and severally, as

follows:

1. On the First, Second, Third and Fourth Causes of Action, compensatorydamages in an amount which exceeds the monetary jurisdictional limits of alllower New York state Courts but does not exceed the monetary jurisdictionallimits of the New York state Supreme Court:

2. Punitive damages against all individual Defendants in an amount to bedetermined at trial:

3. Declaratory judgment declaring that Plaintiffs' constitutional rights to be freefrom unlawful arrest, search, seizure and excessive force under the Fourth

and Fourteenth Amendments were violated by The Defendant Officers;

17


21 of 22

4. Reasonab!© costs of this suit incu٢٢©d herein;

5. An award of reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988;and

6. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem Just and proper.

Dated:August 24, 2920

Yours, etc.

BURKWIT LAW FIRM, PLLC

Charles F. Burkwit, Esq.Attorneys for Plaintiffs16 East Main street. Suite 456Rochester, New York 14614

(585) 546-1588

18


22 of 22

2020 monroe county clerk’s office this is not a bill. … · 2020. 9. 24. · monroe county...

Documents