Wahhab v. City of New York
386 F.Supp.2d 277, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1926, 2005 WL 323716 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An off-duty police officer working as a private security guard acts 'under color of law' for the purposes of a § 1983 claim if they invoke the real or apparent power of the police department. Whether an officer did so is a question of fact for a jury when material facts, such as whether the officer identified themselves as police or purported to make an arrest, are in dispute.
Facts:
- Eliezer Wahhab and his family were at the Top Potato restaurant in The Gallery at Fulton Street, a shopping mall.
- Wahhab got into a dispute with the restaurant manager, Theodore Priftakis, over unsatisfactory food and was denied a refund.
- Upset, Wahhab knocked a container of straws off a counter and onto the floor.
- Samuel Rushing and David E. Martin, off-duty New York City police officers working as plainclothes security guards for the mall, responded to the scene.
- The guards escorted Wahhab toward a security office at the rear of the mall; Wahhab alleges he was pushed, while the guards claim he accompanied them voluntarily.
- A physical altercation ensued in or near the security office.
- Wahhab alleges that Rushing punched him, placed him in a headlock, and stated, 'Now you’re under arrest, asshole, you just assaulted a police officer.'
- Wahhab claims he was then severely beaten by multiple guards, resulting in a shattered jaw and other serious injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Eliezer Wahhab and Amehra Brown filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against multiple defendants, including the mall owner (Gallery), off-duty police officers (Rushing and Martin), their security employer (Cannady Security), and the City of New York.
- Defendants answered the complaint and asserted cross-claims.
- Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, adding another police officer as a defendant.
- Defendants Top Potato and Priftakis were dismissed from the case by stipulation.
- The remaining defendants—The City of New York; Gallery, Rushing, and Martin; and Cannady Security, Cannady, and Rouse—each filed separate motions for summary judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a genuine issue of material fact exist as to whether off-duty police officers, working as private security guards, acted 'under color of law' when they detained and allegedly assaulted a mall patron?
Opinions:
Majority - Motley, District Judge
Yes, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the off-duty officers acted under color of law. There is no bright-line test for distinguishing an officer's personal pursuits from actions taken under color of law; more is required than simply determining if the officer was on or off duty. Liability can attach if an off-duty officer invokes the real or apparent authority of the police department. Here, critical facts are in dispute: Wahhab claims an officer flashed a badge and later told him he was under arrest for assaulting a 'police officer,' which would constitute an invocation of official authority. The defendants deny this, claiming they only identified themselves as mall security. Because a reasonable jury could find, based on Wahhab's testimony, that the officers purported to act pursuant to their official duties, summary judgment is inappropriate.
Analysis:
This opinion reinforces that the 'under color of law' inquiry for off-duty officers is highly fact-specific and often unsuitable for summary judgment. It demonstrates that invoking police authority, even verbally, can transform an officer's conduct from that of a private citizen to state action. The decision highlights that a plaintiff's allegations of an officer flashing a badge or making an arrest are sufficient to create a triable issue of fact, precluding early dismissal of a § 1983 claim. This precedent makes it more difficult for municipalities and private employers of off-duty police to escape liability at the summary judgment stage when there are conflicting accounts of the officer's conduct.
