NOTICE OF CLAIM PURSUANT TO § 50-e, N.Y. GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW

213. The public interest exception applies in the circumstances of this case to waive or except
the ordinary requirement of the filing of a Notice of Claim under N.Y. General Municipal
Law, § 50-e. See Pustilnik v. Hynes, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8718, at *21 (E.D.N.Y. June 27,
2000); Mills v. County of Monroe, 59 N.Y.2d 307, 311 (1983). 

214. Under the circumstances of this large scale mass protest arrest, the municipality possesses
actual knowledge and notice of the underlying events and likely claims for false arrest
regardless of filing or non-filing of a notice of claim.

215. Nevertheless, on October 28, 2011 a Notice of Claim was filed “in the matter of the
claims of Karina Garcia, Marcel Cartier, Yari Osorio, Benjamin Becker, [and] Cassandra
Regan [a]s class representatives, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
including [a]ll persons who were arrested on or at the Brooklyn Bridge in the mass arrest
conducted on October 1, 2011.”

216. At least 30 days have elapsed since the service of such notice and the adjustment or
payment thereof has been neglected or refused.

CLAIMS 

COUNT I
False Arrests On or At the Brooklyn Bridge
(First Amendment; Fourth Amendment; Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution; Due Process Clause; 42 U.S.C. §1983)

217. Paragraphs 1 through 216 are incorporated by reference as if set forth herein.

218. The defendants’ actions (including the CITY OF NEW YORK, KELLY, BLOOMBERG
and the JANE and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS) in participating in, executing, causing to be
executed, failing to intervene to cause the cessation of, approving or ratifying the arrest of the
plaintiff class on October 1, 2011 on or at the Brooklyn Bridge violated the rights of
plaintiffs pursuant to the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to, and the Due Process
Clause of, the U.S. Constitution. See also 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

219. Defendants CITY OF NEW YORK, KELLY and BLOOMBERG have adopted
municipal policies, practices and customs that have caused the violations complained of
herein; and in the alternate have actual or constructive notice of a pattern of constitutional
violations described herein and have failed to take action, thereby allowing the continuation
of such a policy or custom, and causing the harms complained of herein.

220. The acts and omissions of the CITY OF NEW YORK, KELLY, BLOOMBERG, and
DOE defendants constitute deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of the plaintiff
class.

221. Defendants CITY OF NEW YORK, KELLY and BLOOMBERG have tolerated and
failed to discipline and/or train officers regarding unlawful conduct towards protesters,
including specifically false arrest, thereby causing the violations complained of herein.

222. Defendants CITY OF NEW YORK, KELLY and BLOOMBERG and supervisory
officers identified as DOES have been grossly negligent in the supervision of subordinates,
thereby causing the violations complained of herein.

223. As a direct and proximate result of said acts or omissions, the plaintiff class and
individual members of the plaintiff class have suffered and will continue to suffer ongoing
adverse effects and injury, including the real and immediate risk future false arrest of class
members who have the intention of engaging in or being in proximity to free speech and
protest activities in New York City.
 

COUNT II
False Arrests On or At the Brooklyn Bridge
(New York State and Common Law Claims; False Arrest; Negligence and Gross
Negligence; Negligent Supervision)

224. Paragraphs 1 through 216 are incorporated by reference as if set forth herein.

225. The defendants’ actions (including the CITY OF NEW YORK, KELLY, BLOOMBERG
and the JANE and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS) in participating in, executing, causing to be
executed, failing to intervene to cause the cessation of, approving or ratifying the arrest of the
plaintiff class on October 1, 2011 on or at the Brooklyn Bridge violated the rights of
plaintiffs pursuant to the provisions of the New York State Constitution corresponding to the
violations of the U.S. Constitution in Count I.

226. The defendants’ actions (including the CITY OF NEW YORK, KELLY, BLOOMBERG
and the JANE and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS) in participating in, executing, causing to be
executed, failing to intervene to cause the cessation of, approving or ratifying the arrest of the
plaintiff class on October 1, 2011 on or at the Brooklyn Bridge constitute false arrest under
New York State law and common law.

227. Defendants CITY OF NEW YORK, KELLY and BLOOMBERG and officers identified
as DOES have been negligent and grossly negligent, thereby causing the violations
complained of herein.
228. As a direct and proximate result of said acts or omissions, the plaintiff class and
individual members of the plaintiff class have suffered and will continue to suffer ongoing
adverse effects and injury, including the real and immediate risk future false arrest of class
members who have the intention of engaging in or being in proximity to free speech and
protest activities in New York City.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

229. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant the
following relief:

a. Entry of a declaratory judgment that the disruption and preventive arrest tactics of the
defendants constitute violations of the First and Fourth Amendments;
b. Entry of a permanent injunction to enjoin and prohibit the CITY OF NEW YORK
from executing the unconstitutional disruption and false arrest tactics complained of
herein, including but not limited to the trap-and-arrest tactic whereby without fair
notice the NYPD engages in the mass false arrest of persons engaged in lawful free
speech activity and peaceable assembly;
c. Entry of a permanent injunction to enjoin and prohibit the CITY OF NEW YORK
from using orange netting to indiscriminately trap and arrest persons in the absence of
the existence of particularized probable cause exists to seize and arrest each and every
individual to be trapped and arrested by the netting;
d. Entry of a declaratory judgment that N.Y. City Adm. Code § 10-110(c) parading
without a permit code provision is unconstitutional, facially or as applied to the extent
it is applied as a strict liability offense, and entry of a permanent injunction
prohibiting enforcement as a strict liability offense (i.e., enforcement in the absence
of fair notice or warnings/orders to those subject to potential arrest);
e. Entry of a permanent injunction requiring defendants to seal and destroy the records
derived from this arrest, including all photographs, fingerprints and other
identification or descriptive information;
f. Entry of an order that disclosure be made in writing to plaintiffs and the Court as to
all entities and agencies to which such material, and other intelligence information
derived from or relating to the underlying events, has been disseminated and by
whom gathered; and that all records gathered and disseminated be collected and
sealed, including all copies of such disseminated records that may have been subject
to further dissemination by others;
g. Entry of an order declaring the arrests to be null and void, and authorizing each
individual class member to deny that such arrest ever occurred in response to any
inquiry, such as employment or educational or any other nature of inquiry;
h. Compensatory damages against the defendants for violations of federal rights
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in an amount appropriate to the proof adduced at trial;
i. Compensatory damages against the defendants under New York and common law,
including against the CITY OF NEW YORK under respondeat superior, in an
amount appropriate to the proof adduced at trial;
j. Punitive damages against MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG, and as against other
defendants sued in their individual capacities, for causing, approving and/or ratifying
the arrest of the plaintiff class and for the consequential loss of freedom of expression
and constitutionally protected rights of peaceable assembly;
k. An award of plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and expenses pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §1988 and any other applicable statute or rule of law; and
l. Such other and further relief, including all appropriate equitable relief, as to the Court
may seem just and proper.

PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY OF ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE