Notice of Claim Against Syracuse Police

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_________________
ANTHONY WEAH AS PARENT AND NOTICE OF CLAIM (GML 50-E)
GUARDIAN OF ANTHONY F, (MINOR),
CLAIM-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PLAINTIFFS,
vs. A. FEDERAL CLAIMS
CITY OF SYRACUSE, CITY OF 1. VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

SYRACUSE POLICE DEPARTMENT, EXCESSIVE FORCE (42 U.S.C. §
POLICE OFFICERS MATTHEW 1983)
BEHUNIAK, DAVID CICERELLO, AND 2. MONELL CLAIM AGAINST
DOES 1-100, CITY OF SYRACUSE 42 U.S.C. §
1983
DEFENDANTS. 3. ASSAULT and BATTERY 42
U.S.C. § 1983;
4. FALSE ARREST 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
5. FALSE IMPRISONMENT 42
U.S.C. § 1983;
6. CONSPIRACY 42 U.S.C. § 1985;
B. STATE CLAIMS
7. FALSE IMPRISONMENT;
8. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
9. NEGLIGENT TRAINING,
DISCIPLINE, RETENTION, AND
SUPERVISION;
10. PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST
“PERSONS” POLICE OFFICERS
MATTHEW BEHUNIAK, DAVID
CICERELLO, AND DOE
OFFICERS, IN THEIR
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY;
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR
LIABILITY OF CITY OF
SYRACUSE;
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

i
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This is a complaint for Civil Rights violations, including claims for excessive force,
assault, battery, false imprisonment and false arrest of PLAINTIFF MINOR ANTHONY F, on
two separate occasions on or about April 17, 2022 and July 6, 2022.
2. PLAINTIFFS, ANTHONY WEAH and MINOR ANTHONY F, by their attorneys,
JESSE P. RYDER, ESQ. and CHARLES A. BONNER ESQ., allege as their Complaint for
Damages and Civil Rights violations the following facts, and facts upon information and belief.
II. PARTIES
3. PLAINTIFFS, ANTHONY WEAH and MINOR ANTHONY F are citizens of the United
States and residents of the CITY OF SYRACUSE.
4. DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICERS MATTHEW BEHUNIAK and DAVID
CICERELLO are “Persons” officers employed by DEFENDANT CITY OF SYRACUSE as
police officers.
5. Defendant CITY OF SYRACUSE POLICE DEPARTMENT is a division of the CITY
OF SYRACUSE, a governmental organization of the State of New York.
6. Defendant CITY OF SYRACUSE is a governmental organization of the State of New
York.
III. DOE DEFENDANTS
7. PLAINTIFFS do not know the true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate,
associate, or otherwise of DEFENDANT Does 1 through 100 inclusive, and therefore sue these
DEFENDANTS by such fictitious names. PLAINTIFFS will amend their complaint to allege
their true names and capacities when this has been ascertained.
IV. RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR
ANTHONY WEAH AND MINOR ANTHONY F’S CLAIM-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

-2-
Respondeat Superior
8. MR. ANTHONY WEAH and MINOR ANTHONY F, claim that the CITY OF
SYRACUSE is liable under the theory of respondeat superior for Defendant Police Officers
MATTHEW BEHUNIAK and DAVID CICERELLO’S assault, battery, false imprisonment,
false arrest, violations of MINOR ANTHONY F’S state and federal Constitutional rights and
other violations of PLAINTIFF’s rights. Cities may be held vicariously liable for state law torts
committed by police officers under a theory of respondeat superior. See Williams v. VILLAGE of
White Plains, 718 F. Supp. 2d 374, 381 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Therefore, the respondeat superior
claim against the CITY OF SYRACUSE regarding Defendant Police Officers MATTHEW
BEHUNIAK and DAVID CICERELLO is a valid claim, establishing liability against the CITY
OF SYRACUSE.
V. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
Notice of Claim (GML 50-E)
9. PLAINTIFFS have complied with all conditions precedent, including filing of a Notice of
Claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e, which only applies to State Law Causes of Action;
these requirements are not applicable to PLAINTIFFS’ Federal Claims asserted pursuant to 42.
U.S.C. §1983 ["[A]; notice of claim is not a condition precedent to a cause of action, asserted
pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, which seeks to recover damages premised on violations of federal
civil or constitutional rights under color of state law"]1
VI. JURISDICTION
10. This Court has jurisdiction over this lawsuit because the suit arises under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 and asserts facts showing that DEFENDANTS, and each of them, acted willfully,
1 see Felder v Casey, 487 U.S. 131; Rowe v NYCPD, 85 AD3d 1001, 1002 [2d Dept 2011]

-3-
deliberately and pursuant to a policy, custom and practice, and with reckless disregard of
MINOR ANTHONY F’S established Federal and State Constitutional rights.
VII. VENUE
11. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S. C. § 1391 (b) (1) because DEFENDANTS
reside in this district and PLAINTIFFS reside at 225 Hier Ave., Syracuse, New York, 13203.
Venue is also proper in this district under 28 U.S.C§1391 (b) (2) because the events, acts and
omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in this district.
VIII. STATEMENT OF FACTS
12. On or about Sunday, April 17, 2022, DEFENDANTS MATTHEW BEHUNIAK and
DAVID CICERELLO responded to a call concerning the theft of a bag of Doritos by MINOR
ANTHONY F.
13. During their investigation, DEFENDANTS MATTHEW BEHUNIAK and DAVID
CICERELLO confronted MINOR ANTHONY F and proceeded to escalate their investigation
into the theft of the Doritos by yanking MINOR ANTHONY F from his bicycle by his neck and
hoodie, by yanking him around by his neck and hoodie without any regard for the child’s welfare
and safety, by dumping Doritos onto him, by forcing him into their patrol vehicle and by using
dehumanizing language towards MINOR ANTHONY F.2 During this encounter with the police
the months following this incident the Syracuse Police have made it a point to stalk and harass
MINOR ANTHONY F and again on or about July 6, 2022 the SYRACUSE POLICE
DEPARTMENT, while responding to a call at Schiller Park, confronted MINOR ANTHONY F
2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMwX0zztWzc

-4-
and handcuffed and detained him without any information that he was involved in any criminal
activity.3
IX. Excessive Force
14. On or about April 17, 2022 DEFENDANTS MATTHEW BEHUNIAK and DAVID
CICERELLO grabbed MINOR ANTHONY F from behind and violently yanked him by his
neck and hoodie, wrenched his arms and physically pushed and stuffed MINOR ANTHONY F
into their patrol car. DEFENDANTS MATTHEW BEHUNIAK and DAVID CICERELLO used
physical force against MINOR ANTHONY F including dehumanizing him by dumping Doritos
on his head. Again, on or about July 6, 2022 SYRACUSE POLICE OFFICERS, without any
probable cause or legal authority, detained and handcuffed MINOR ANTHONY F, violating his
constitutional rights to be free from false arrest and false imprisonment.
X. DAMAGES
15. MINOR ANTHONY F’S damages include, but are not limited to, the following: anxiety,
mental and emotional distress, humiliation, fear, and discomfort, loss of enjoyment of life,
inconvenience and suffering, physical and psychic injuries, headaches, nightmares, insomnia,
and misery. The injuries, illnesses and harms caused, and continue to cause, MINOR
ANTHONY F to seek and obtain medical treatment and ongoing medical care for his injuries,
illnesses and medical conditions, and to incur medical expenses, medical bills, all caused by the
DEFENDANTS, and each of them.
FEDERAL LAW CLAIMS
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation Of United States Civil Rights Laws
42 U.S.C. Sections 1983
Use of Excessive Force
3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJt_tV3yyU8

-5-
(Against Defendant Police Officers MATTHEW BEHUNIAK and DAVID CICERELLO
As to MINOR ANTHONY F
16. PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs,
as though fully set forth herein.
17. Federal Law 42. U.S.C. § 1983 provides in pertinent part: “Every person who, under
color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the
District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other
person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit
in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress”.
Fourth Amendment Claim Excessive Force
18. “The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from the government’s use of excessive
force while detaining or arresting individuals.”4 “When determining whether police officers have
employed excessive force in the arrest context, the Supreme Court has instructed that courts
should examine whether the use of force is objectively reasonable ‘in light of the facts and
circumstances confronting them, without regard to the officers’ underlying intent or motivation.”
19. Defendant Police Officers MATTHEW BEHUNIAK and DAVID CICERELLO’S use of
unreasonable, unnecessary and excessive force violated MINOR ANTHONY F’S clearly
established constitutional rights and was not objectively reasonable in light of the circumstances.
The Defendant Police Officers MATTHEW BEHUNIAK and DAVID CICERELLO acted
willfully, deliberately, maliciously and with reckless disregard for MINOR ANTHONY F’S
established constitutional rights. 5
4 Jones v. Parmley, 465 F.3d 46, 61 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing Thomas v. Roach, 165 F.3d 137, 143 (2d Cir. 1999)).
5 Smith v Wade, 461 U.S. 30,45-48 (1983)

-6-
20. As the True Facts above prove, Police Officers MATTHEW BEHUNIAK and DAVID
CICERELLO inflicted objectively excessive and unreasonable force upon MINOR ANTHONY
F, including yanking him by his neck and hoodie, wrenching his arms, forcing him into a police
car by force and dehumanizing him by dumping Doritos on his head. There was never any threat
of danger to either Officers MATTHEW BEHUNIAK and DAVID CICERELLO. Any force
against an American Citizen without probable cause is excessive and a constitutional violation.
Even though MINOR ANTHONY F is privileged to resist and defend himself against
unreasonable force, he did not at any time do so.
21. At all times MINOR ANTHONY F was a law-abiding citizen, and was encased and
enshrined in the protection of the United States Constitution. The Police Officers engaged in the
aforementioned, unreasonable, excessive and illegal force:
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Monell Claim
42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Against DEFENDANTS CITY OF SYRACUSE)
22. PLAINTIFFS hereby incorporate the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs,
Monell Claim: CITY OF SYRACUSE’S Liability for Excessive Force and False Arrest
23. At the time of MINOR ANTHONY F’S arrest, Officers MATTHEW BEHUNIAK and
DAVID CICERELLO and DOE OFFICERS were acting under color of all the laws and
regulations of the State of New York and the CITY OF SYRACUSE. The CITY OF
SYRACUSE has a policy, custom, practice and pattern of conduct in place that enables it agents
and employees police officers to act with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of

-7-
individuals. This policy, custom, practice and pattern of conduct, includes, but is not limited to,
tolerating misconduct by its police officers, encouraging misconduct by failing to adequately
supervise, discipline and train their police officers.
24. PLAINTIFFS assert that the CITY OF SYRACUSE are liable for any constitutional torts
committed by the individual Defendant Police Officers because the CITY OF SYRACUSE
maintains a custom, policy and pattern and practice of failing to exercise reasonable care in
training, supervising and hiring its officers. PLAINTIFFS further allege the CITY OF
SYRACUSE maintains a custom, policy, pattern and practice of inaction regarding disciplining
police officers for excess force; and a custom, policy, practice and pattern of failing to discipline
it Police Officers for violating the constitutional rights of its citizens. PLAINTIFFS also allege
that the CITY OF SYRACUSE has an inadequate Use of Force Policy, which does not clearly
draw a bright line defining constitutional violations for excessive force such as de-escalation,
use-of-force against children, and committing perjury. The CITY OF SYRACUSE'S policy,
custom, practice and pattern were a motivating factor causing a deprivation of MINOR
ANTHONY F’S constitutional rights.
25. The CITY OF SYRACUSE has an urgent need for a clear policy regarding excessive
force. PLAINTIFFS request a Declaratory Judgment that the CITY OF SYRACUSE’S policy on
excessive force is inadequate and presents clear and present danger of deprivation of the
constitutional rights of persons who have contact with the CITY OF SYRACUSE POLICE
DEPARTMENT.
26. Under Monell, local governments and their agencies can be sued as "persons" under §
1983 and may be liable where a government policy or custom gives rise to a constitutional
deprivation. A "custom" does not require official sanction; instead, a custom "may fairly subject

-8-
a municipality to liability on the theory that the relevant practice is so widespread as to have the
force of law." 6Thus, the elements of a Monell claim include: 1) an official policy or custom that,
2) causes the PLAINTIFF to be subjected to, 3) a deprivation of a constitutional right. 7
27. An “official policy or custom” can be shown in several ways: (1) a formal policy
officially endorsed by the municipality; (2) actions taken by government officials responsible for
establishing municipal policies related to the particular deprivation in question; (3) a practice so
consistent and widespread that it constitutes a custom or usage sufficient to impute constructive
knowledge of the practice to policymaking officials; and (4) a failure by policymakers to train or
supervise subordinates to such an extent that it amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of
those who come in contact with the municipal employees. 8
28. The record of this case, based on investigation, research, complaints to the CITY OF
SYRACUSE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Police Records, News Paper Reports of Claims of
excessive force and false arrests of citizens by the CITY OF SYRACUSE POLICE
DEPARTMENT shows a pattern, practice, custom and policy by in failing to respect, uphold and
enforce the constitutional rights of the citizens of the CITY OF SYRACUSE. Defendant’s failure
to discipline, train and supervise the police officers under their command has resulted in the
assault and battery, false arrest and civil rights violations of MINOR ANTHONY F and many,
many other law-abiding citizens of the CITY OF SYRACUSE. Defendant’s actions and
inactions as the government official responsible for establishing municipal policies related to
6 Board of County Comm'rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404, 117 S. Ct. 1382, 137 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1997) To make a
claim for municipal liability, it is not sufficient to allege merely conduct attributable to the municipality. Id. "A
PLAINTIFF must show that the municipal action was taken with the requisite degree of culpability and must
demonstrate a direct causal link between the municipal action and the deprivation of federal rights." Id.
7 Batista v. Rodriguez, 702 F.2d 393, 397 (2d Cir. 1987).
8 Dorsett-Felicelli v. C’nty of Clinton, 371 F. Supp. 2d 183, 194 (N.D.N.Y. 2005) (citing Monell, 436 U.S at 690,
Pembaur v. VILLAGE of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 483-84 (1986), and VILLAGE of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378,
388 (1989)).

-9-
discipline, training and supervising the CITY OF SYRACUSE POLICE DEPARTMENT and
have been the motivating factors in the deprivations of constitutional rights of MINOR
ANTHONY F and of many other victims of police brutality and misconduct in the CITY OF
SYRACUSE.
29. The CITY OF SYRACUSE’S inactions, resulting in a policy of inaction, a policy of lack
of supervision, and a policy of lack of training for their police officers in how to protect the
constitutional rights of citizens was a direct and proximate cause of the violation of MINOR
ANTHONY F’S constitutional rights as stated herein. The CITY OF SYRACUSE POLICE
DEPARTMENT’S policy, custom and practice of inaction, lack of discipline and lack of training
of their officers led DEFENDANTS MATTHEW BEHUNIAK and DAVID CICERELLO to
assault a child, whereby rendering him even further disabled. Evidence of a Policy and Custom
and Practice of the Use of Excessive Police Force.
30. The evidence the CITY OF SYRACUSE’S Policy and Custom and Practice of Use of
Excessive force and failure to discipline its officers will be presented after discovery in this
action
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

ASSAULT and BATTERY
42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Against Defendant Police Officers MATTHEW BEHUNIAK, DAVID CICERELLO and
DOE OFFICERS)
32. PLAINTIFF, MINOR ANTHONY F alleges that DEFENDANTS MATTHEW
BEHUNIAK, DAVID CICERELLO and DOE OFFICERS assaulted and battered him. “[T]he

- 10 -
test for whether a PLAINTIFF can maintain . . . a cause of action against law enforcement
officials [for assault and battery] is whether the force used was ‘reasonable,’ the exact same test
as the one used to analyze a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim.” 9 DEFENDANTS
MATTHEW BEHUNIAK, DAVID CICERELLO and DOE OFFICERS used unreasonable force
against MINOR ANTHONY F. The undisputed facts are that DEFENDANTS MATTHEW
BEHUNIAK, DAVID CICERELLO and DOE OFFICERS assaulted and battered MINOR
ANTHONY F, causing him permanent damages as hereinabove alleged. DEFENDANTS’
conduct was intentional, malicious, fraudulent, and shows a reckless disregard of the
constitutional rights, safety and health of MINOR ANTHONY F. DEFENDANTS’ conduct
warrants punitive damages to protect the public in an amount according to proof.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FALSE ARREST
42 U.S.C. § 1983
DOE OFFICERS)
34. MINOR ANTHONY F alleges that DEFENDANTS MATTHEW BEHUNIAK, DAVID
CICERELLO and DOE OFFICERS violated his Fourth Amendment rights by subjecting him to
“an unreasonable search and seizure of his person” and the “loss of his physical liberty.” The
elements of a Fourth Amendment false arrest claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are the same as those
for a false arrest claim under New York law. 10“To state a claim for false arrest under New York
9 Hogan v. Franco, 896 F. Supp. 1313, 1315 n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 1995).

10 Kraft v. VILLAGE of New York, 696 F. Supp. 2d 403, (S.D.N.Y. 2010).

- 11 -
law, a PLAINTIFF must show that (1) the defendant intended to confine the PLAINTIFF; (2) the
PLAINTIFF was conscious of the confinement; (3) the PLAINTIFF did not consent to the
confinement; and (4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged.” 11
35. The evidence proves by the requisite preponderance standard that DEFENDANTS
MATTHEW BEHUNIAK, DAVID CICERELLO and DOE OFFICERS made a false arrest of
MINOR ANTHONY F by confining him in a patrol car and in handcuffs at Schiller Park and at
all times until release. MINOR ANTHONY F was at all time conscious of his unprivileged and
humiliating confinement to which he did not consent. DEFENDANTS are liable for MINOR
ANTHONY F’S damages.
Qualified Immunity No Defense
36. DEFENDANTS might argue that even if the court finds that DEFENDANTS
MATTHEW BEHUNIAK, DAVID CICERELLO and DOE OFFICERS used excessive force,
they are entitled to qualified immunity. The qualified immunity inquiry generally involves two
issues: (1) "whether the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the PLAINTIFF, establish a
constitutional violation"; and (2) "whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his
conduct was unlawful in the situation confronted." 12
37. In determining the second issue (i.e., whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer
that his conduct was unlawful in the situation confronted), courts in the Second Circuit consider
three factors: (1) whether the right in question was defined with 'reasonable specificity; (2)
whether the decisional laws of the Supreme Court and the applicable circuit court support the
11 Savino v. VILLAGE of New York, 331 F.3d 63, 75 (2d Cir.2003) Where an officer has probable cause to arrest a
PLAINTIFF, the confinement is privileged. Id. at 76. The burden of showing that there was probable cause for the
arrest is on the officer. Id.
12 Sira v. Morton, 380 F.3d 57, 68-69 (2d Cir. 2004) accord, Higazy v. Templeton, 505 F.3d 161, 169, n.8 (2d Cir.
2007)

- 12 -
existence of the right in question; and (3) whether under preexisting law a reasonable defendant
official would have understood that his or her acts were unlawful. 13 In the excessive force
context “the question for the purposes of qualified immunity is whether a reasonable officer
could have believed that the use of force was objectively reasonable in light of the
circumstances.”14 In excessive force cases, then, the analysis “converge[s] on one question:
Whether in the particular circumstances faced by the officer, a reasonable officer would believe
that the force employed would be lawful.”15
38. In the particular circumstances faced by the officers as shown by the evidence, a
reasonable officer would believe that no force at all needed to be employed and that any force
against an innocent man, not a suspect in any crime would be unlawful. DEFENDANTS
MATTHEW BEHUNIAK, DAVID CICERELLO and DOE OFFICERS were not presented with
any facts, events or circumstances to lead them to reasonably believe that using physical force
against a child, and who was in custody, was a lawful use of force. As Sworn Police Officers to
uphold the laws of the United States of America, DEFENDANTS MATTHEW BEHUNIAK,
DAVID CICERELLO and DOE OFFICERS are presumed to know the limits of lawful force
under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. These officers willfully, knowingly and with a
conscious disregard of MINOR ANTHONY F’S health, safety, and rights violated MINOR
ANTHONY F’S Fourth Amendment Rights against unreasonable seizures. They committed a
false arrest upon MINOR ANTHONY F, and willfully filed false depositions to cover up their
illegal excessive force. PLAINTIFF’S constitutional excessive force claim, and assault and
battery claims are not subject to the defense of qualified immunity by DEFENDANTS
13 Jermosen v. Smith, 945 F.2d 547, 550 (2d Cir. 1991) cert. denied, 503 U.S. 962 (1992).
14 Lennon v. Miller, 66 F.3d 416, 425 (2d Cir. 1995).
15 Cowan v. Breen, 352 F.3d 756, 764 n.7 (2d Cir. 2003)

- 13 -
MATTHEW BEHUNIAK, DAVID CICERELLO and DOE OFFICERS. This DEFENDANTS
are not entitled to qualified immunity. 16 DEFENDANTS’ conduct was intentional, malicious,
fraudulent, and shows a reckless disregard of the constitutional rights, safety and health of
MINOR ANTHONY F. DEFENDANTS’ conduct warrants punitive damages to protect the
public in an amount according to proof.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FALSE IMPRISONMENT
42 U.S.C. § 1983
DOE OFFICERS)
40. MINOR ANTHONY F alleges that DEFENDANTS MATTHEW BEHUNIAK, DAVID
CICERELLO and DOE OFFICERS violated his Fourth Amendment rights by subjecting him to
“seizure of his person” and the “loss of his physical liberty,” under the color of law, by
physically assaulting him and handcuffing him without legal cause. MINOR ANTHONY F at all
times was at liberty to stand on the sidewalk and at Schiller Park, free from such an illegal use of
force from DEFENDANTS MATTHEW BEHUNIAK, DAVID CICERELLO and DOE
OFFICERS. He complied with DEFENDANTS MATTHEW BEHUNIAK,DAVID
CICERELLO and DOE OFFICER’S unlawful orders and was involuntarily thrown around,
stuffed into a patrol car, having chips dumped on him, handcuffed and taken into custody.
16 Jones, 465 F.3d at 63.

- 14 -
41. The elements of a Fourth Amendment false arrest claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are the
same as those for a false arrest claim under New York law.17 “To state a claim for false arrest
under New York law, a PLAINTIFF must show that (1) the defendant intended to confine the
PLAINTIFF; (2) the PLAINTIFF was conscious of the confinement; (3) the PLAINTIFF did not
consent to the confinement; and (4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged.” 18
MATTHEW BEHUNIAK, DAVID CICERELLO and DOE OFFICERS created a “loss of his
physical liberty” for MINOR ANTHONY F by confining him while being physically assaulted,
forced into a police cruiser and handcuffed. MINOR ANTHONY F was at all times conscious of
this unprivileged and humiliating confinement to which he did not consent. DEFENDANTS
MATTHEW BEHUNIAK, DAVID CICERELLO and DOE OFFICERS are liable for the
damages MINOR ANTHONY F suffered, including physical, mental and emotional distress,
humiliation and shock. DEFENDANTS conduct was intentional, malicious, fraudulent, and
shows a reckless disregard of the constitutional rights, safety and health of MINOR ANTHONY
F’S conduct warrants punitive damages to protect the public in an amount according to proof.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

CONSPIRACY
42 U.S.C. § 1985
DOE OFFICERS)
17 Kraft v. VILLAGE of New York, 696 F. Supp. 2d 403, (S.D.N.Y. 2010).

18 Savino v. VILLAGE of New York, 331 F.3d 63, 75 (2d Cir.2003) Where an officer has probable cause to arrest a
PLAINTIFF, the confinement is privileged. Id. at 76. The burden of showing that there was probable cause for the
arrest is on the officer. Id.

- 15 -
44. Federal Law 42. U.S.C. §1985 provides in pertinent part: “If two or more persons in any
State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from
accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from
discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to
leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or
to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his
office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest,
interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;
46. MINOR ANTHONY F alleges that individual DEFENDANTS conspired, agreed and
schemed with each other to fabricate evidence and sworn statements for the purpose of covering
up their unlawful use of excessive force, false arrest and false imprisonment against him,
whereby violating MINOR ANTHONY F’S’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
47. The evidence proves by the requisite preponderance standard that individual
DEFENDANTS, and each of them, set upon a conspiracy to cover up their unlawful use-of-
force, false arrest and false imprisonment against MINOR ANTHONY F by conspiring to
fabricate evidence and offer false and perjured affidavits in order to justify their unconstitutional
actions.
48. DEFENDANTS’ conduct violated 42 U.S.C. §1985 because DEFENDANTS acted under
the color of law in depriving MINOR ANTHONY F of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment
Rights of Seizure, Unlawful Use-of-Force, Liberty, Due Process, and Equal Protection under
law.

- 16 -
49. In spite of their knowledge, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in a joint enterprise,
scheme and conspiracy with each other, displayed a conscious disregard and a deliberate
indifference to MINOR ANTHONY F’S constitutional rights and to is health and safety.
50. DEFENDANTS’ conduct was the direct and proximate cause of MINOR ANTHONY
F’S injuries, damages and harms including his economic and non-economic damages. The
individual DEFENDANTS herein acted with deliberate indifference, malice, fraud and
oppression in their total disregard of MINOR ANTHONY F’S constitutional rights, health and
safety. DEFENDANTS’ intentional conduct resulting in the deprivation of MINOR ANTHONY
F’S constitutional rights entitle MINOR ANTHONY F to punitive damages against each of the
individual DEFENDANTS.
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.
NEW YORK STATE LAW CLAMS
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FALSE IMPRISONMENT
DOE OFFICERS)
52. PLAINTIFF, MINOR ANTHONY F alleges that DEFENDANTS MATTHEW
BEHUNIAK, DAVID CICERELLO and DOE OFFICERS falsely imprisoned him by subjecting
him to “an unreasonable search and seizure of his person” and the “loss of his physical liberty.”
MATTHEW BEHUNIAK, DAVID CICERELLO and DOE OFFICERS engaged in the False
Imprisonment of MINOR ANTHONY F by confining him in a police cruiser and in handcuffs at

- 17 -
Schiller Park, and at all times until release. MINOR ANTHONY F was at all times conscious of
his unprivileged and humiliating confinement to which he did not consent. DEFEDANTS are
liable for MINOR ANTHONY F’S damages. DEFENDANTS’ conduct was intentional,
malicious, fraudulent, and shows a reckless disregard of the constitutional rights, safety and
health of MINOR ANTHONY F’S conduct warrants punitive damages to protect the public in an
amount according to proof.
EIGHTHCAUSE OF ACTION
Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress
DOE OFFICERS)
55. Under New York law, "To prevail on a cause of action for intentional infliction of
emotional distress, a PLAINTIFF must prove four elements: (1) extreme and outrageous
conduct; (2) intent to cause, or disregard for the substantial probability of causing, severe
emotional distress; (3) a causal connection between the conduct and the injury; and (4) severe
emotional distress."19
56. DEFENDANTS MATTHEW BEHUNIAK, DAVID CICERELLO and DOE OFFICERS
inflicted objectively excessive and unreasonable force upon MINOR ANTHONY F, including
yanking him by his neck and hoodie, wrenching his arms behind his back, using physical force to
push and shove MINOR ANTHONY F into a patrol car and handcuffing him without legal
19 Marmelstein v. Kehillat New Hempstead, 45 A.D.3d 33, 841 N.Y.S.2d 493, 499 (2007).

- 18 -
cause. DEFENDANTS MATTHEW BEHUNIAK, DAVID CICERELLO and DOE OFFICERS
engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct that should not be tolerated in a civilized society and
is not tolerated in our society by police officers who are our public servants.
NINETH CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligent Training, Hiring, Retention, Discipline And Supervision
(Against DEFENDANTS CITY OF SYRACUSE)
58. DEFENDANTS CITY OF SYRACUSE maintain a custom, policy and pattern and
practice of negligently failing to exercise reasonable care in training, supervising and hiring its
officers.
59. DEFENDANTS CITY OF SYRACUSE have a duty to conduct training, hiring, retention,
and supervision of its police officers so these agents and employees will protect and serve, rather
than break the very laws, including the United States Constitution, they are sworn to uphold.
DEFENDANTS CITY OF SYRACUSE breached, and still breaches, this legally imposed duty
by allowing their police officers to engage in lawless behavior and conduct, including terrorizing
the citizens of the Syracuse.
60. PLAINTIFFS further allege that the and SAINT LAWRENCE COUNTY maintain a
custom, policy, pattern and practice of inaction regarding the disciplining of police officers for
excess force; and a custom, policy, practice and pattern of failing to discipline it Police Officers
for violating the constitutional rights of its citizens. PLAINTIFFS also allege that the
DEFENDANTS CITY OF SYRACUSE have an inadequate Use of Force Policy, which does not
clearly draw a bright line defining constitutional violations for excessive force such as assaulting,

- 19 -
handcuffing children, perjury, and excessive use of force. The DEFENDANTS CITY OF
SYRACUSE’S policy, custom, practice and pattern were a motivating factor in causing a
deprivation of MINOR ANTHONY F’S constitutional rights and causing all of his injuries,
damages and harms.
XI. PUNITIVE DAMAGES
62. MINOR ANTHONY F seeks punitive damages for the protection of the community
against DEFENDANT OFFICER MATTHEW BEHUNIAK.
against DEFENDANT DAVID CICERELLO.
against DOE OFFICERS.
XII. RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR
66. PLAINTIFFS, claims that the DEFENDANTS CITY OF SYRACUSE is liable under the
theory of respondeat superior for DEFENDANTS MATTHEW BEHUNIAK, DAVID
CICERELLO and DOE OFFICERS’ violations of MINOR ANTHONY F’S State and Federal
Constitutional Rights and other violations of PLAINTIFF’S rights. Cities may be held
vicariously liable for state law torts committed by police officers under a theory of respondeat
superior. See Williams v. Village of White Plains, 718 F. Supp. 2d 374, 381 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).

- 20 -
Therefore, the respondeat superior claim against the DEFENDANTS CITY OF SYRACUSE
regarding Defendant Police Officers is a valid claim, establishing liability against the
DEFENDANTS CITY OF SYRACUSE.
XIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. For special and economic damages, including future lost wages, for all Claims
2. For general and non-economic damages for all Causes of Action;
3. For $3,000,000.00 against , individually and severally for, pain, misery, suffering,
loss of enjoyment of life, for loss of ability to pursuit happiness, for severe mental
and emotional distress, anxiety, humiliation and other non-economic and
economic damages.
4. For punitive damages for $3,000,000.00 for all Claims only DEFENDANTS
MATTHEW BEHUNIAK, DAVID CICERELLO and DOE OFFICERS, in their
individual capacity for the protection of the public;
5. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the prevailing legal rate;
6. For costs of the suit including reasonable attorney’s fees;
7. An order declaring that DEFENDANTS MATTHEW BEHUNIAK, DAVID
CICERELLO and DOE OFFICERS filed false Police Reports, committing Class
A misdemeanors.
8. An order declaring that the DEFENDANTS CITY OF SYRACUSE’S Use of
Force Policy is inadequate to protect the constitutional rights of individuals and
citizens who come in contact with their police.
9. An order declaring that such assault against MINOR ANTHONY F was per se
excessive force.
10. For such other and further relief, including injunctive relief, as the Court may
deem proper.
Dated: July 20, 2022
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
RYDER LAW FIRM

/s/ Jesse P. Ryder
Jesse P. Ryder, Esq.
Attorney for MINOR ANTHONY F
LAW OFFICES OF BONNER & BONNER

/ s/Charles A. Bonner
Charles A. Bonner Attorney for
MINOR ANTHONY F

- 21 -
RYDER LAW FIRM
Jesse P. Ryder, Esq.
6739 Myers Road
East Syracuse, NY 13057
Tel: (315) 382-3617
Fax: (315) 295-2502
[email protected]
CHARLES A. BONNER, ESQ. SB# 85413

Pro Hac Vice
A. CABRAL BONNER, ESQ. SB# 247528
Pro Hac Vice
LAW OFFICES OF BONNER & BONNER
475 GATE FIVE RD, SUITE 212
SAUSALITO, CA 94965
TEL: (415) 331-3070
FAX: (415) 331-2738
[email protected]
[email protected]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

- 22 -

Notice of Claim Against Syracuse Police

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notice of Claim Against Syracuse Police

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notice of Claim Against Syracuse Police

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the nature of the legal claims being made in the document?

What is the nature of the legal claims being made in the document?

What parties are involved in the legal claims?

What parties are involved in the legal claims?

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CITY OF SYRACUSE, CITY OF 1. VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

2. PLAINTIFFS, ANTHONY WEAH and MINOR ANTHONY F, by their attorneys,

States and residents of the CITY OF SYRACUSE.

4. DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICERS MATTHEW BEHUNIAK and DAVID

CICERELLO are “Persons” officers employed by DEFENDANT CITY OF SYRACUSE as

5. Defendant CITY OF SYRACUSE POLICE DEPARTMENT is a division of the CITY

OF SYRACUSE, a governmental organization of the State of New York.

6. Defendant CITY OF SYRACUSE is a governmental organization of the State of New

III. DOE DEFENDANTS

IV. RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR

ANTHONY WEAH AND MINOR ANTHONY F’S CLAIM-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

MATTHEW BEHUNIAK and DAVID CICERELLO’S assault, battery, false imprisonment,

V. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

Notice of Claim (GML 50-E)

civil or constitutional rights under color of state law"]1

ANTHONY WEAH AND MINOR ANTHONY F’S CLAIM-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

MINOR ANTHONY F’S established Federal and State Constitutional rights.

omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in this district.

VIII. STATEMENT OF FACTS

13. During their investigation, DEFENDANTS MATTHEW BEHUNIAK and DAVID

CICERELLO confronted MINOR ANTHONY F and proceeded to escalate their investigation

DEPARTMENT, while responding to a call at Schiller Park, confronted MINOR ANTHONY F

ANTHONY WEAH AND MINOR ANTHONY F’S CLAIM-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

IX. Excessive Force

constitutional rights to be free from false arrest and false imprisonment.

DEFENDANTS, and each of them.

FEDERAL LAW CLAIMS

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

ANTHONY WEAH AND MINOR ANTHONY F’S CLAIM-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

as though fully set forth herein.

in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress”.

Fourth Amendment Claim Excessive Force

established constitutional rights. 5

ANTHONY WEAH AND MINOR ANTHONY F’S CLAIM-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

unreasonable force, he did not at any time do so.

aforementioned, unreasonable, excessive and illegal force:

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

as though fully set forth herein.

ANTHONY WEAH AND MINOR ANTHONY F’S CLAIM-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

tolerating misconduct by its police officers, encouraging misconduct by failing to adequately

supervise, discipline and train their police officers.

ANTHONY F’S constitutional rights.

ANTHONY WEAH AND MINOR ANTHONY F’S CLAIM-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

2) causes the PLAINTIFF to be subjected to, 3) a deprivation of a constitutional right. 7

those who come in contact with the municipal employees. 8

SYRACUSE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Police Records, News Paper Reports of Claims of

ANTHONY WEAH AND MINOR ANTHONY F’S CLAIM-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

of their officers led DEFENDANTS MATTHEW BEHUNIAK and DAVID CICERELLO to

and Practice of the Use of Excessive Police Force.

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth.