Syaed Ali’s Lawsuit
by Geoff Kelly - posted 9:06 am, July 2, 2009
For the collectors and scandal enthusiasts out there, here’s a copy of Syaed Ali’s lawsuit against the City of Buffalo, New York State AG investigator Michael McCarthy, and BPD detective Anna Mydlarz:
STATE OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT : COUNTY OF ERIE
SYAED A. ALI,
MICHAEL G. McCARTNEY,
Index No. ______________
CITY OF BUFFALO,
Plaintiff, by his attorney, DAVID GERALD JAY, as and for his Complaint against the Defendants herein, alleges:
PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff was at all times pertinent to the Complaint a resident of the County of Erie and State of New York.
2. Upon information and belief, the individual defendants were at all times hereinafter mentioned residents of the County of Erie and State of New York.
3. Defendant CITY OF BUFFALO is a municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under and pursuant to the laws of the State of New York, with offices for the conduct of its business located in the City of Buffalo, County of Erie and State of New York.
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
4. Plaintiff asserts the claims based upon theories of false arrest and unlawful imprisonment pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in order to vindicate his constitutional rights as provided in the United States Constitution, amends. iv, v and xiv.
5. Plaintiff asserts the claim based upon the theory of the wrongful withholding of personal property under state law concepts of conversion, replevin and/or wrongful detention.
6. This Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to the provisions of New York Const., art 6, § 7 and the teachings of Maine v. Thiboutot, 404 U.S. 1 (1980).
7. Prior to the commencement of this action, and on or about the 12th day of December, 2008, a Notice of plaintiff’s claim based upon state law and the times and places where the damages alleged herein were incurred and sustained was filed by plaintiff with the City of Buffalo, pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e, within ninety days after accrual of that cause of action.
8. Plaintiff submitted to an examination conducted by representatives of the City of Buffalo in accordance with General Municipal Law § 50-h on April 2, 2009, at which examination he was interrogated as to the nature of his claims.
9. This action has been commenced within one year and ninety days after the cause of action based upon state law herein accrued and thirty days after the filing of the Notice of Claim, without any offers of settlement of the claims by the defendant CITY OF BUFFALO.
10. On or about Friday, November 7, 2008 at approximately 7:00 A.M., plaintiff was at his home, 578 Breckenridge Avenue, located in the City of Buffalo, County of Erie and State of New York.
11. At that time and place, the individual defendants and others unknown to plaintiff, entered said home, allegedly pursuant to the directions contained in a Search Warrant, searched the premises and seized various items of personal property owned by the plaintiff and members of his family who also reside at that location.
12. The individual defendants placed plaintiff under arrest, transported him to the office of the New York State Attorney General in Buffalo, New York, caused him to be questioned for approximately seven hours, then turned him over to a special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for further interrogation which lasted approximately another fifteen minutes, whereupon plaintiff was released.
13. At all times and places pertinent to the claims herein alleged, the defendant McCartney was an investigator employed by the office of the Attorney General of the State of New York, and was acting under color of law, pursuant to his duties as a police or peace officer of the State of New York.
14. At all times and places pertinent to the claims herein alleged, the defendant Mydlarz was an employee of the Department of Police of the City of Buffalo, and was acting under color of law, pursuant to her duties as a police officer of the State of New York.
15. At all times and places pertinent to the claims herein alleged, the individual defendants were acting within the course of their employment as police or peace officers
16. At all times and places pertinent to the claims herein alleged, the individual defendants were acting within the scope of their authority as police or peace officers.
FIRST CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS
MYDLARZ AND CITY OF BUFFALO
17. Plaintiff has demanded of defendants numerous times since the seizure of his property that it be returned to him.
18. Defendants have neglected and refused to restore said property to plaintiff.
19. The retention of said property by defendants has impeded plaintiff’s ability to use said property, all to his damage.
SECOND CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS
MYDLARZ AND McCARTNEY
20. The arrest and detention of plaintiff were without reasonable suspicion that he had committed any offense, without probable cause that he has committed any offense, without any basis whatsoever and was in violation of his constitutional rights as aforesaid.
21. That the actions of the individual defendants in arresting and detaining plaintiff were willful, wanton, oppressive and illegal.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment as follows:
1. Plaintiff demands judgment for general compensatory damages against the defendants in such sum as a jury may allow as damages, which sum exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction over this action;
2. Plaintiff also demands judgment for exemplary or punitive damages against the individual defendants only in such sum as a jury may allow as damages, which sum exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction over this action
3. Plaintiff demands that the property taken from his residence be returned to him and that he be compensated for its loss for the period he has been deprived of its use, or, in the alternative, should defendants not return said property, plaintiff demands that he be compensated for the permanent loss of said property in such sum as a jury may award as damages, which sum exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction over this action.
4 Plaintiff demands the costs and disbursements of this action.
5. Plaintiff requests oral argument of any motion which may be made during the course of this action.
6. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury
7. Plaintiff demands his attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, should he be successful on his claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
DATED: Buffalo, New York
June 29, 2009
DAVID GERALD JAY
David Gerald Jay
Attorney for Plaintiff
69 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1103
Buffalo, NY 14202