Tweet
The Jury awarded damages
06/17/2011 76 JURY VERDICT For Plaintiff Against Defendant in the Amount of $55,000.00 in compensatory damages. (Gothers, M.) (Entered: 06/22/2011)
06/22/2011 77 JUDGMENT entered in favor of Felipe Rodriguez against William Ciccosanti in the amount of $55,000.00 for compensatory damages, plus statutory interest from the date the Judgment is entered.
Reports also suggest that in addition to the compensatory damages and interest, the court will be awarding Attorneys Fees to the Plaintiff.
Read more:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
************************************************** *****
FELIPE RODRIGUEZ CIVIL NO. 3:08CV00089 (AWT)
V.
CITY OF WEST HAVEN, OFFICER WILLIAM CICCOSANTI AND OFFICER WILLIAM OAKLEY, in their individual capacities
MAY 13, 2008
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
1. This is an action for money damages to redress the deprivation by the defendant and co-defendants of rights secured to the plaintiff by the constitution and laws of the United States and the State of Connecticut. The defendant and codefendants, without probable cause, unlawfully detained, searched, harassed, accused, arrested, charged and falsely made statementsCOUNT TWO:
1-15. Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the First Count are hereby incorporated by reference and made Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the Second Count, as if fully set forth herein.
16. The defendant, through its agents, servants and/or employees, subjected the plaintiff's person to false arrest based upon blatantly false and baseless accusations, which, upon a thorough investigation, would have been decreed as such.
17. In addition, the aforementioned defendant, through the aforedescribed extreme and outrageous acts of its agents, servants and/or employees, along with the individual co-defendants, were responsible for causing the intentional infliction of emotional distress upon the plaintiff as they knew, or should have known, or should have reasonably anticipated that their actions, in wrongfully accusing, detaining, charging, arresting, incarcerating and subjecting the plaintiff to the criminal justice system as an accused criminal, would cause him to suffer severe emotional, psychological, as well as physical harm to his person.
COUNT THREE:
1-15. Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the First Count are hereby incorporated by reference and made Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the Third Count, as if fully set forth herein.
16. In addition, said aforementioned defendant through the aforedescribed acts of its agents, servants and/or employees, along with each of the individual codefendants, were responsible for causing the negligent infliction of emotional distress upon the plaintiff as they knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should well have known, that their actions in wrongfully and publicly accusing, detaining, assaulting, charging, arresting, incarcerating and subjecting the plaintiff to the criminal justice system as an accused criminal would and did cause him to suffer severe emotional, psychological, as well as physical harm to his person.
COUNT FOUR:
1-15. Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the First Count are hereby incorporated by reference and made Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the Fourth Count, as if fully set forth herein.
16. The charges were issued against the plaintiff by the State’s Attorney’s office because of the direct request of the individual co-defendants. 17. The multiple charges of criminal conduct which were brought against the plaintiff were done so without any probable cause whatsoever.
18. As there was no legal basis to establish probable cause for the arrest of the plaintiff with respect to the aforementioned charges, the individual codefendants’ actions were malicious in nature.
19. In light of the aforedescribed conduct, the actions of the individual co-defendants constituted the tort of malicious prosecution.
WHEREFORE, in light of all of the foregoing, the plaintiff claims judgment against the defendant and co-defendants jointly and severely as follows:
a. Compensatory damages in an amount this Court shall consider just and reasonable;
b. Punitive damages against the defendants and co-defendants in an amount this Court shall consider to be just and reasonable.
c. Attorney's fees and reimbursement of the costs related to the bringing of this action;
d. Such other relief as this Court shall consider to be fair and equitable.
PLAINTIFF, FELIPE RODRIGUEZ
06/17/2011 76 JURY VERDICT For Plaintiff Against Defendant in the Amount of $55,000.00 in compensatory damages. (Gothers, M.) (Entered: 06/22/2011)
06/22/2011 77 JUDGMENT entered in favor of Felipe Rodriguez against William Ciccosanti in the amount of $55,000.00 for compensatory damages, plus statutory interest from the date the Judgment is entered.
Reports also suggest that in addition to the compensatory damages and interest, the court will be awarding Attorneys Fees to the Plaintiff.
Read more:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
************************************************** *****
FELIPE RODRIGUEZ CIVIL NO. 3:08CV00089 (AWT)
V.
CITY OF WEST HAVEN, OFFICER WILLIAM CICCOSANTI AND OFFICER WILLIAM OAKLEY, in their individual capacities
MAY 13, 2008
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
1. This is an action for money damages to redress the deprivation by the defendant and co-defendants of rights secured to the plaintiff by the constitution and laws of the United States and the State of Connecticut. The defendant and codefendants, without probable cause, unlawfully detained, searched, harassed, accused, arrested, charged and falsely made statementsCOUNT TWO:
1-15. Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the First Count are hereby incorporated by reference and made Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the Second Count, as if fully set forth herein.
16. The defendant, through its agents, servants and/or employees, subjected the plaintiff's person to false arrest based upon blatantly false and baseless accusations, which, upon a thorough investigation, would have been decreed as such.
17. In addition, the aforementioned defendant, through the aforedescribed extreme and outrageous acts of its agents, servants and/or employees, along with the individual co-defendants, were responsible for causing the intentional infliction of emotional distress upon the plaintiff as they knew, or should have known, or should have reasonably anticipated that their actions, in wrongfully accusing, detaining, charging, arresting, incarcerating and subjecting the plaintiff to the criminal justice system as an accused criminal, would cause him to suffer severe emotional, psychological, as well as physical harm to his person.
COUNT THREE:
1-15. Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the First Count are hereby incorporated by reference and made Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the Third Count, as if fully set forth herein.
16. In addition, said aforementioned defendant through the aforedescribed acts of its agents, servants and/or employees, along with each of the individual codefendants, were responsible for causing the negligent infliction of emotional distress upon the plaintiff as they knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should well have known, that their actions in wrongfully and publicly accusing, detaining, assaulting, charging, arresting, incarcerating and subjecting the plaintiff to the criminal justice system as an accused criminal would and did cause him to suffer severe emotional, psychological, as well as physical harm to his person.
COUNT FOUR:
1-15. Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the First Count are hereby incorporated by reference and made Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the Fourth Count, as if fully set forth herein.
16. The charges were issued against the plaintiff by the State’s Attorney’s office because of the direct request of the individual co-defendants. 17. The multiple charges of criminal conduct which were brought against the plaintiff were done so without any probable cause whatsoever.
18. As there was no legal basis to establish probable cause for the arrest of the plaintiff with respect to the aforementioned charges, the individual codefendants’ actions were malicious in nature.
19. In light of the aforedescribed conduct, the actions of the individual co-defendants constituted the tort of malicious prosecution.
WHEREFORE, in light of all of the foregoing, the plaintiff claims judgment against the defendant and co-defendants jointly and severely as follows:
a. Compensatory damages in an amount this Court shall consider just and reasonable;
b. Punitive damages against the defendants and co-defendants in an amount this Court shall consider to be just and reasonable.
c. Attorney's fees and reimbursement of the costs related to the bringing of this action;
d. Such other relief as this Court shall consider to be fair and equitable.
PLAINTIFF, FELIPE RODRIGUEZ
Comment