IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ______________________________ PAUL STUTZ, PLAINTIFF

vs THE CITY OF NEW YORK, a municipal entity, NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER, NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER VINCENT KONG, Shield # O1661, NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICERS JOHN DOES, all of the identified and non identified persons in their individual and in their official capacities, DEFENDANTS ________________________________ I. INTRODUCTION 09 Civ 01759/VM/DF COMPLAINT [JURY TRIAL]

1. This litigation arises out of the custodial arrest of the Plaintiff on the late evening of Thursday, July 17, 2008 and the early morning of Friday, July 18, 2008 at the location known as 344 West 38th Street, New York City, New York and the preferral of criminal charges and the prosecution of the Plaintiff associated therewith. 2. The Plaintiff was detained in custody for approximately twenty six hours until at or about 1:30 A.M. in the morning of Saturday, July 19, 2008 when the Plaintiff appeared at an arraignment in the Criminal Court of the City of New York, County of New York, and State of New York and was then released without bail and directed to return to Court for further proceedings on September 25, 2008. 3. The Plaintiffs Court appearance was thereafter advanced and the Plaintiff returned to the Criminal Court of the City of New York, County of New York, and the State of New York on August 12, 2008 where and when, on the motion of the New York County District Attorneys Office,

the Criminal Court charge against the Plaintiff was dismissed. 4. This is an action in which the Plaintiff seeks relief for the violation of his rights as guaranteed under the laws and Constitution of the United States. 5. The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and such other relief, including injunctive relief and declaratory relief [if appropriate], as may be in the interest of justice and as may be required to assure that the Plaintiff secures full and complete relief and justice for the violation of his rights. II. JURISDICTION 6. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to and under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1343 in conjunction with the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the laws and Constitution of the State of New York. 7. The Plaintiff also invokes the jurisdiction of this Court in conjunction with the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201, et seq., this being an action in which the Plaintiff seeks, in addition to monetary damages, whatever other relief is needed to provide full and complete justice including, if appropriate, declaratory and injunctive relief. 8. This is an action in which the Plaintiff seeks relief for the violation of his rights as guaranteed under the laws and Constitution of the United States. III. THE PARTIES 9. The Plaintiff is an American citizen and resident of the State of New York, the City of New York, and the County of Queens. 10. The Defendant City of New York is a municipal entity which was created under the authority of the laws and Constitution of the State of New York and which is authorized with, among other powers, the power to maintain a police department for the purpose of protecting the welfare of those who reside in the City of New York.

11. Defendants Vincent Kong, Shield # 01661 and John Does are New York City Police Officers and agents and employees of the City of New York. Although their actions and conduct herein described were unlawful and wrongful and otherwise violative of the Plaintiffs rights as guaranteed under the laws and Constitution of the United States, they were taken in and during the course of their duties and functions as New York City Police Officers and as agents and employees of the City of New York and incidental to the otherwise lawful performance of their duties and functions as New York City Police Officers and agents and employees of the City of New York. IV. ALLEGATIONS 12. This litigation arises out of the Plaintiffs custodial arrest of the Plaintiff on Thursday night, July 17, 2008 and on Friday morning July 18, 2008 at 344 West 38th Street, New York, New York where the Plaintiff was employed in a part time basis and had been employed thereat only since around or about July 8, 2008. 13. The Plaintiff was released from custody without bail at an arraignment at or about 1:30 A.M. on July 19, 2008 and he was directed to return to the Court on September 25, 2008 for further proceedings. 14. Thereafter, the date of the Plaintiffs return to the Court was advanced to August 12, 2008. The Plaintiff returned to Court on August 12, 2008 when, on the motion of the New York County District Attorneys Office, the charges, which had been preferred against the Plaintiff, were dismissed. 15. The Plaintiff, who is an American citizen and resident of the City of New York, County of Queens, State of New York, is sixty three [63] years of age. 16. The Plaintiffs birth date is January 27, 1945.

17. The Plaintiff is legally. The Plaintiff was previously married and divorced. The Plaintiff has three children. His childrens respective ages are thirty eight [38], thirty six [36], and twenty [20].

18. The Plaintiff resides at 31-75 29th Street, Apt. # C-8, Astoria, Queens, New York 11106. 19. At the time of the arrest the Plaintiff was employed full time, as a tax preparer and income tax advisor, by a New York City tax preparation firm. 20. The Plaintiff has been employed full time at the firm for approximately three years. The Plaintiff has otherwise been doing income tax preparation, part time, for approximately thirty [30] years since about 1976. 21. On the date of his arrest, the Plaintiff was also employed, part time, at Hot Lap Dance Club which is located at344 West 38th Street, New York City, New York. 22. The Plaintiff had been employed in his part time position for only approximately nine days and, on the date of the Plaintiffs arrest, the Plaintiff was working for only the fifth time. 23. The Plaintiff is college educated. He received his Bachelor of Science, in mathematics, from Drexel University in Philadelphia in 1967. The Plaintiff has two masters including a Masters in Computer Science from George Washington University, which the Plaintiff received in 1972, and a Masters in Secondary Education which he received from Hofstra University in 2003. 24. On the date of the Plaintiffs arrest, the Plaintiff was working in his part time position at the afore-described location. 25. The Plaintiff was working as a part time employee at the Club location because the Plaintiff was in need of more income to supplement the salary which he was receiving as a tax preparer and tax preparation adviser. 26. The Plaintiffs duties included creating the nightly staff roster during the period of time that the Plaintiff was working at the Club location and otherwise assuring that the Club location was operating smoothly and in a safe manner and fashion. 27. At or about 11:30 P.M., while working, a police arrest operation was commenced at the Club when many New

York City Police Officers, most if not all of whom were in plain clothes, burst into the Club location. 28. Some of the Officers carried shields and some brandished batons. 29. The Plaintiff was then performing his duties as described on the floor at the Club location. 30. As the arrest operation commenced and took place, customers were rounded up and located in one area of the Club location while the employees of the Club, including dancers employed by the Club, were gathered together by the police in another area within the Club location. 31. The Plaintiff was placed by the police in the area with the customers, the police, apparently, believing that the Plaintiff was a customer. 32. All of the customers, including the Plaintiff, were asked to turn over their license. At some point, the customers, including the Plaintiff, were informed that they could leave. 33. During the period, police officers would go to the area where the employees of the Club had been situated and would, then, from a list of the employees, take that employee to the office at the Club location and arrest that individual. 34. At that time the Plaintiff was informed he could leave after his license had been checked, the Plaintiff indicated to the police that he wanted to go to the office in order to retrieve his brief case. 35. When asked by a police officer why his brief case was in the office, the Plaintiff informed the officer that he was a part time employee at the Club and had only just started working, in his part time capacity, recently. 36. The Plaintiff was, then, placed under arrest and escorted to the office where he retrieved his brief case which was then seized by the police. 37. When the Plaintiff was informed that he was under arrest, the Plaintiff indicated that he had done nothing

improper, that he was a part time employee, and he had only just started to work at the Club location recently. 38. Along with other individuals who were arrested at the time and at the location, the Plaintiff was transported to the 7th Precinct where he was processed. 39. It is believed that the police who were engaged in the police operation had a list of employees whom they were authorized to arrest and which the police utilized in the course of the police operation. 40. It is believed that the Plaintiffs name was not on the list and, if it was on the list, it should not have been on the list since the Plaintiff was only recently employed at the Club location in a [part time capacity and engaged in no illegal conduct or activities on the five occasions, including the night of July 17, 2008, when he worked at the Club location and otherwise was unaware of any unlawful conduct, if any, on-going at and in the Club location. 41. Again, it is believed that the Plaintiff was not on that list and that, accordingly, the City of New York and its agents knew or should have known that the arrest of the Plaintiff was improper and inappropriate and unlawful. 42. The Plaintiff had no information or idea whatsoever what the basis was for his arrest as he had only been working in the Club location for the last week or thereabouts and was only on his fifth shift. 43. When the Plaintiff protested his arrest, he was directed by a police officer to keep quiet. 44. The Plaintiff had no idea about any unlawful or illegal conduct, if any, which is alleged, as part of the police operation, was on-going, if any, at the Club location. 45. The Plaintiff tried to tell the police that he had only just been employed at the Club and that he was unaware of any alleged unlawful activity but the police simply told the Plaintiff to keep quiet.

46. After several hours at the 7th Precinct, the Plaintiff was transported to Manhattan Central Booking in the morning hours of July 18, 2008. 47. At or about 1:30 A.M. on Saturday, morning, July 19, 2008, the Plaintiff was presented at an arraignment in the Criminal Court of the City of New York, County of New York, and the State of New York. 48. The Plaintiff was charged with promoting prostitution. 49. The Plaintiff never promoted prostitution or other unlawful conduct, ever, in the Club location or otherwise; and he was unaware of any unlawful conduct whatsoever in the Club location. 50. The Plaintiff has no criminal record and, prior to the challenged arrest herein, the Plaintiff has never, ever been arrested. 51. His arrest on the night in question, in front of employees and otherwise, was humiliating ands embarrassing and stress and anxiety inducing. 52. The Plaintiff was released without bail and on his own recognizance and directed to return to Court on September 25, 2008. 53. Thereafter, the Plaintiff retained a criminal defense attorney. 54. The Plaintiffs court return date was advanced from September 25, 2008 to August 12, 2008. 55. On August 12, 2008, the Plaintiff returned to the Criminal Court of the City of New York, the County of New York, and the State of New York. 56. At the August 12, 2008 Court proceeding and on the motion of the New York County District Attorneys Office, the charge against the Plaintiff was dismissed. 57. The pendency of the Criminal Court proceeding, until it was dismissed, was stress and anxiety inducing, emotionally distressful, and otherwise humiliating and embarrassing.

58. The Plaintiff committed no criminal offense or other offense whatsoever and no reasonable police officer could have reasonably and objectively believed that the Plaintiff committed any criminal offense or any other offense under and of the law to justify custodial arrest, further detention, the preferral of any charge, including but not limited to promotion of prostitution, against him, and his criminal prosecution associated with the preferral of criminal charges including but not limited to the promotion of prostitution charge. 59. There was no basis for the custodial arrest of the Plaintiff by the New York City Police Officers, each of whom is an agent and employee of the City of New York. There was no justification to handcuff the Plaintiff, frisk search the Plaintiff, strip search the Plaintiff [with squat], or to detain the Plaintiff in custody for the period of time he was held in custody until he appeared at his arraignment when and where he was released without bail and required to return to Court shortly thereafter when and where upon the motion of the New York County District Attorneys Office the charge preferred against the Plaintiff was dismissed. 60. While the actions and conduct of the New York City Police Officers were unlawful they were taken in the course of their duties and functions and incidental to the otherwise lawful performance of those duties and functions as New York City Police Officers and as agents and employees of the City of New York. Among others involved in the challenged actions and conduct herein were New York City Police Officers John Does and Police Officer Kong, Shield # 1661. 61. There was no probable cause for the arrest of the Plaintiff or for the preferral of charges against the Plaintiff or for the criminal prosecution of the Plaintiff. 62. The Plaintiff was subjected to a Fourth Amendment offensive probable cause lacking false arrest and unlawful custodial detention and imprisonment, and he was subjected to excessive, unreasonable and unnecessary force in the form of his handcuffing. Moreover, he was subjected to an unlawful frisk search subsequent and to a malicious abuse of criminal prosecution.

63. The actions and conduct herein described were propelled by the crime offense enforcement initiatives of the City of New York which are grounded in the philosophy of the ends justifies the means and which propel New York City Police Officers to make unlawful and otherwise unjustified arrests. 64. Such crime offense enforcement initiative propels officers to make custodial arrests where there is no probable cause for the arrest and, by such, to generate arrest statistics and to otherwise make examples of individuals in the hope that such would depress crime offenses. 65. The Plaintiff was falsely arrested and subjected to and excessive and unreasonable and unnecessary force [in the form of handcuffing] and excessive detention and an unlawful frisk search and a malicious abuse of criminal process and a malicious prosecution. 66. The actions, conduct, policies and practices and customs herein described violated the Plaintiffs rights as guaranteed under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. 67. The Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages including loss of liberty, fear, anxiety, mental distress, emotional anguish, and psychological trauma and physical pain and suffering. 68. The Plaintiff has not yet placed a monetary value on the damages which he incurred although he believes them to be substantial and to include compensatory and punitive damages. 69. The Plaintiff has no other adequate remedy of law other than for the institution of this litigation. V. A. CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

70. The Plaintiff reiterates Paragraph #s 1 through 69 and incorporates such by reference herein.

71. The Plaintiff was unlawful and falsely arrested and falsely and excessively imprisoned and detained in violation of his rights as guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. 72. The Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages. B. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

73. The Plaintiff reiterates Paragraph #s 1 through 72 and incorporates such by reference herein. 74. The Plaintiff was subjected to malicious prosecution in violation of his rights as guaranteed under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. 75. The Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages. C. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

76. The Plaintiff reiterates Paragraph #s 1 through 75 and incorporates such by reference herein. 77. The Plaintiff was arrested for collateral objectives other than legitimate law enforcement functions including, as a collateral justification, that it was simply easier to arrest someone and sort it out later than it was to utilize the power of arrest in its proper, probable cause grounded form and fashion based on an objective and reasonable belief of the arresting law enforcement officer at the time of the arrest that the individual was engaged in unlawful conduct. 78. Simply being present at a location and being employed by the entity which does business at the location is not a sufficient basis to justify the formation of that required objective and reasonable belief thereby propelling a belief that some other non legitimate, ancillary purpose was the basis on which the arrest of the individual was grounded. 79. The Plaintiff was subjected to malicious abuse of criminal process in violation of his rights as guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

10

Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. 80. The Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages. D. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

81. The Plaintiff reiterates Paragraph #s 1 through 80 and incorporates such by reference herein. 82. The policies, practices and customs herein described propelled the actions and conduct herein. Those policies, practices, and customs violated the Plaintiffs rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. 83. The Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages. E. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

84. The Plaintiff reiterates Paragraph #s 1 through 83 and incorporates such by reference herein. 85. The Defendant City of New York, if the City represents its Officers, uniformly and as a matter of policy and practice indemnifies its Officers for any award of both punitive damages and compensatory damages. 86. The named and unnamed individual Defendants are employees and agents of the City of New York and their conduct, as described, was taken in the course of their duties and functions as New York City Police Officers and, in their capacities as such, as agents and employees of the City of New York. 87. Their actions and conduct, while unlawful and unconstitutional, nonetheless were actions and conduct taken to the otherwise lawful performance of their duties and functions as agents and employees of the City of New York. 88. The Plaintiff is entitled to recover against the City of New York for the conduct of its named and unnamed Officers under the federal claim jurisdiction pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior.

11

89.

The Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages.

WHEREFORE and in light of the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that the Court assume jurisdiction and: [a] Invoke pendent party and pendent claim jurisdiction. [b] Award appropriate compensatory and punitive damages. [c] Award appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief. [d] Empanel a jury. [e] Award attorneys fees and costs. [f] Award such other and further relief as the Court deems to be in the interest of justice. DATED: New York, New York February 24, 2009 Respectfully submitted, /s/ James I. Meyerson______ JAMES I. MEYERSON [JM 4304] 64 Fulton Street @ Suite # 502 New York, New York 10013 [212] 226-3310 [212] 513-1006/FAX jimeyerson@yahoo.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF BY:_______________________

12