Webster Wrongful Arrest Lawsuit 10.14.19

FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 10/11/2019 04:51 PM INDEX NO.
UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/11/2019
MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE THIS IS NOT A BILL. THIS IS YOUR RECEIPT.
Receipt #
Book Page
Return To: No. Pages: 23

ELLIOT DOLBY-SHIELDS
192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802 Instrument: EFILING INDEX NUMBER
New York, NY 10016
Control #: Unrecorded #7871671
Index #: Unassigned-1420449
Date:
Snowden, Joseph Time:
TOWN OF WEBSTER
Reed, Mark C.
Frate, Adam
O'Dea, Gretchen
Lass, Ashley
Total Fees Paid: $0.00
Employee:
State of New York
MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE

WARNING – THIS SHEET CONSTITUTES THE CLERKS
ENDORSEMENT, REQUIRED BY SECTION 317-a(5) &
SECTION 319 OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK. DO NOT DETACH OR REMOVE.
ADAM J BELLO
MONROE COUNTY CLERK
1 of 23
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 10/11/2019 04:51 PM INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF MONROE
JOSEPH SNOWDEN,
SUMMONS
Plaintiffs,
Index No .'•
-against-
The Basis of
THE TOWN OF WEBSTER, a municipal entity, Venue is:
MARK C. REED, ADAM FRATE, GRETCHEN Location of
0?DEA, ASHLEY LASS and POLICE OFFICERS Incident
"JOHN DOES 1-10" (names and number of whom
are unknown at present), and other unidentified
members of the Webster Police Department,
JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
Defendants.
To the above named Defendants:
You are hereby summoned to answer the complaint in this action, and to
serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to
serve a notice of appearance on the Plaintiffs attorneys within twenty days after
the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service, where service is made
by delivery upon you personally within the state, or, within 30 days after
completion of service where service is made in any other manner. In case of your
failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the
relief demanded in the complaint.
DATED: New York, New York
October 11, 2019
2 of 23
ELLIOT D. SHIELDS, ESQ.

ROTH & ROTH LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
New York, New York 10016
(212) 425-1020
TO: Town of Webster, 1000 Ridge Road, Webster, New York 14580
MARK C. REED, ADAM FRATE, GRETCHEN O'DEA, ASHLEY
LASS, Webster Police Department, 1000 Eidge Road, Webster, New
York 14580
3 of 23
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF MONROE
JOSEPH SNOWDEN,
Plaintiffs, Index No.:
-against- VERIFIED
COMPLAINT
THE TOWN OF WEBSTER, a municipal entity,
MARK C. REED, ADAM FRATE, GRETCHEN JURY TRIAL
O'DEA, ASHLEY LASS and POLICE OFFICERS DEMANDED
"JOHN DOES 1-10" (names and number of whom
are unknown at present), and- other unidentified
members of the Webster Police Department,
Defendants.
Plaintiff JOSEPH SNOWDEN, by his attorneys, ROTH & ROTH, LLP,
complaining of the Defendants, respectfully alleges, upon information and belief, as
follows-'
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. This is a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and state
law, seeking monetary damages for Plaintiff, JOSEPH SNOWDEN, due to his false
arrest and malicious prosecution for robbery, which was substantially caused by the
misconduct of Town of Webster Police Department ("WPD") employees MARK C.
REED, ADAM FRATE, and GRETCHEN 0)DEA ("collectively "the WPD
defendants").
2. Plaintiff was arrested on December 8, 2017 and prosecuted in 2018 for
a robbery that occurred on November 25, 2017. The prosecution terminated
favorable to Mr. Snowden on July 17, 2018, when the prosecutor presented the case
to the grand jury and it returned a no bill. But he should never have been arrested
4 of 23
or prosecuted for this crime. Surveillance videos from the victim s residence
conclusively ruled him out as the perpetrator. To justify his arrest and prosecution,
the WPD defendants fabricated evidence against him: oral statements that he never
made during a video recorded interrogation, the video of which they claim is
unavailable; and alleged "identifications after conducting unduly suggestive
"identification" interviews. Plaintiff would not have been arrested or prosecuted, or
fired from his job at Monroe Community College, but for defendants' misconduct.
3. While the Monroe County District Attorney's Office ultimately
obtained a no bill when Plaintiffs case was presented to the grand jury, this action
only came after Plaintiff had been maliciously prosecuted for over seven months,
fired from his job, and had his name and reputation in his community ruined. This
lawsuit seeks to hold not only the individual defendants liable for this devastating
injury to Plaintiff, but also the TOWN OF WEBSTER ("the TOWN"), under the
state-law principle of respondeat superior, because the WPD defendants were acting
within the scope of their employment when they caused the Plaintiffs injuries.
II. THE PARTIES
4. Plaintiff, JOSEPH SNOWDEN, is a resident of the County ofMom-oe,
State of New York.
5. Defendant TOWN OF WEBSTER ("the TOWN") was and is a
municipal entity created and authorized under the laws of the State of New York.
6. Defendant TOWN maintains the Webster Police Department ("WPD"),
a duly authorized public authority and/or police department, authorized to perform
5 of 23
all functions of a police department as per the applicable sections of the New York
State Criminal Procedure Law, acting under the direction and supervision of the
aforementioned municipal corporation, the TOWN.
7. At all times, Defendant MARK C. REED ("REED") was a duly sworn
police officer employed by the TOWN, by and through the WPD, acting within the
scope of his authority and under color of state law. He is named here in his
individual capacity.
8. At all times, Defendant ADAM FRATE ("FRATE") was a duly sworn
investigator employed by the TOWN, by and through the WPD, acting within the
scope of his authority and under color of state law. He is named here in his
9. At all times, Defendant GRETCHEN 0?DEA C(0?DEA") was a duly
sworn investigator employed by the TOWN, by and through the WPD, acting within
the scope of her authority and under color of state law. She is named here in her
10. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, REED, FRATE and O'DEA,
were duly sworn police officers of the WPD and were acting under the supervision of
said department and according to their official duties.
11. At all times relevant herein, the WPD defendants, either personally or
through their employees, were acting under color of state law and/or in compliance
with the official rules, regulations, laws, statutes, customs, usages and/or practices
of the State of New York and the TOWN.
6 of 23
12. Each and all of the acts of the WPD defendants alleged herein were
done by said defendants while acting within the course and scope of their duties and
functions as agents, servants, employees and officers of the TOWN.
13. Each and all oftlie acts of the WPD defendants alleged herein were
done by said defendants while acting in furtherance of their employment by the
TOWN.
III. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
14. Plaintiff, in furtherance of his cause of action brought pursuant to New
York State law, filed timely a Notice of Claim against the TOWN, in compliance
with the Municipal Law Section 50, and the TOWN held a 50~h hearing on
December 13, 2018.
15. More than thirty (30) days have elapsed since said Notice of Claim
was filed- and the TOWN has failed to pay or adjust the claim.
16. This action is being brought within a year and 90 days of the event
giving rise to Plaintiffs State cause of action.
17. This action falls within one or more of the exceptions as set forth in
CPLR Section 1602, involving intentional actions, as well as the defendant, and/or
defendants, having acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others, as well as
having performed intentional acts.
18. Plaintiff sustained damages in an amount in excess of the
jurisdictional limits of all the lower Courts of the State of New York.
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS
7 of 23
19. At approximately 5:00 a.m. on November 25, 2017, a man entered 254
Lasalle Drive and burglarized the home.
20. The home at 254 Lasalle Drive was owned by Michelle Ashby and her
estranged husband, Matthew Coleman.
21. Coleman had moved out of the home in September 2018 because he
and Ashby were having significant marital difficulties.
22. The burglar took numerous items, including two draws of Ms. Ashby s
underwear and three of her vibrators. The burglar did not take anything of
significant value.
23. Ms. Ashby was out of town when the burglary occurred on November
25, 2017, but received an automatic text message alert from her home security
system and observed the man on the security system s video cameras.
24. Ms. Ashby was unable to identify the burglar from the security camera
videos.
25. The burglar was a white man, wearing a hooded sweatshirt and jeans,
who did not wear eyeglasses, that had an apparent deformity in his left arm.
26. On November 25, 2017, upon information and belief, numerous people
knew the garage door code by which they could access Ms. Ashby s home at 254
Lasalle Drive, including her estranged husband, her babysitter, her real estate
broker, and several people from the cleaning service.
8 of 23
27. Ms. Ashby informed the WPD defendants that between September
2018 and November 25, 2018, Coleman had unlawfully entered the residence at 254
Lasalle Drive on one or more occasions.
28. Ms. Ashby informed the WPD defendants that shortly before the
incident, Coleman and Ms. Ashby's former employee, "BM", attempted to access her
iCloud storage to access confidential information" to ruin her reputation.
29. Ms. Ashby provided the WPD defendants a security camera video from
September 12, 2017 showing BM and a house cleaner walking around her house,
"scoping things out," and looking through Ms. Ashby's personal belongings. BM did
not have permission to be in Ms. Ashby's home. Ms. Ashby told the WPD defendants
that she was suspicious that Coleman may have been involved in the burglary
because he knew both BM and the cleaner that were depicted in the September 12,
2017 video.
30. On the night of the incident, Ms. Ashby told REED that the man
depicted on the video resembled a repair man who had done work on her house
earlier that week.
31. Immediately after the incident, the WPD defendants provided local
news outlets with security camera videos still shot from the videos depicting the
suspect and asked anyone who recognized the man to contact them. They also
posted this information on the WPD s Facebook page and other social media.
9 of 23
32. The WPD defendants received numerous tips in response to the news
stories and social media posts. None of the tipsters claimed that Plaintiff was the
burglar.
33. One tipster identified the man as "JT", who he described as a homeless
heroin addict; REED acknowledged that JT resembled the suspect but chose not to
investigate the lead.
34. Other tipsters identified the burglar as "JL" and "KG", and REED
acknowledged that both resembled the burglar. Inexplicably, however, REED chose
not to follow up on these leads.
35. Several days after the incident, Ms. Ashby told REED that all her
friends had contacted her to see if she was okay, other than Plaintiffs wife. She
thought that was suspicious.
36. The WPD defendants accessed pictures of Plaintiff from his wife s
Facebook page, which showed that he did not resemble the burglar. In all the
photographs Plaintiff wore seeing glasses, while the burglar was not wearing
glasses. His hair was also styled differently, and he had a different hairline than
the burglar.
37. Mr. Snowden always wears eyeglasses, as he has a stigmatism that
prevents him from wearing contacts and he cannot see without his glasses.
However, the individual in the video is not wearing glasses.
38. It should have been immediately obvious to Ms. Ashby and the WPD
defendants that Plaintiff could not have been the burglar, because the burglar did
10 of 23
not resemble the Plaintiff, was not wearing glasses, had a different hairstyle and
hairline than Plaintiff, and had a significant deformity in his left arm.
39. Nevertheless, the WPD defendants immediately stopped pursuing all
evidence of more likely suspects and focused on manufacturing probable cause to
arrest and charge Plaintiff with the burglary.
40. Ms. Ashby informed the WPD defendants that Plaintiff and his wife
were "frequent complainers" in the Webster School District and the YMCA s affcer-
school program.
41. FRATE immediately contacted the Webster School District and the
YMCA to identify individuals who might support the claim that Plaintiff was the
suspect depicted in the photographs and videos of the incident, which by that time
had been constantly played on the news and circulated on social media for days.
42. FRATE employed improper, unduly suggestive identification
procedures with the Webster School District and YMCA personnel.
43. Upon information and belief, each person FRATE interviewed had
previously seen the pictures and/or videos of the suspected burglar on the news or
on the WPD s social media.
44. None of the people FRATE interviewed had previously responded to
the WPD's requests for tips if they recognized the suspected burglar depicted in the
videos and pictures shown on the news and posted on the WPD s social media.
11 of 23
45. Upon information and belief, all the school and YM.CA employees
interviewed by the WPD defendants knew the WPD defendants wanted them to
identify Plaintiff as the burglar.
46. Several school and YMCA personnel stated that they could not identify
the man in the video, but, as a result of the unduly suggestive techniques employed
by the WPD defendants, several others stated the man resembled Plaintiff.
47. The WPD defendants showed the pictures and videos to several people
not affiliated with the school or the YMCA, and none of them claimed that Plaintiff
resembled the man in the video and photographs.
48. The WPD defendants obtained copies of Mr. Snowden's cell phone
records, which did not provide any evidence connecting him to the burglary.
49. Nevertheless, despite knowing they lacked reasonable or probable
cause to arrest Plaintiff, the WPD defendants decided to arrest Plaintiff and charge
him with the burglary.
50. On December 8, 2017, the WPD defendants coordinated with security
personnel at Mom'oe Community College, where Plaintiff worked, to arrange to
come to his workplace and arrest him.
51. On December 8, 2017, Plaintiff was arrested, escorted off campus and
placed into the back of a police car by several police officers in front of numerous
coworkers, students, and other MCC employees.
12 of 23
52. Based on the false allegations by the WPD defendants, Monroe
Community College terminated Plaintiffs employment on the day he was arrested,
December 8, 2017.
53. After his arrest, Mr. Snowden was transported to the Webster Police
Department for interrogation and arrest processing.
54. While Plaintiff was at the Webster Police Department, the WPD
defendants obtained consent to search Mr. Snow den's home. Upon conducting a
thorough search of the entire residence, they did not locate any of the items that
were reported missing from 254 Lasalle Drive; they did- not locate the clothing the
burglar was wearing on the night of the incident; and they did not locate any
evidence whatsoever that could have potentially connected him to the crime.
55. The WPD defendants knew that Plaintiff did not have possession of
any of the items that were burglarized from 254 Lasalle Drive.
56. The WPD defendants knew that Plaintiff did not have possession of the
clothing worn by the burglar on the night of the incident.
57. Mr. Snowden consented to having his interrogation video recorded.
58. In the interrogation, Plaintiff denied any involvement in the burglary
and denied that he resembled the burglar because the burglar was not wearing
glasses.
59. FRATE falsely claimed that after he and REED showed Plaintiff the
video of the incident, and photographs of the burglar they created by taking
13 of 23
screenshots of the video, Plaintiff claimed that the individual in the video looked
"exactly" like him.
60. Plaintiff never made any statements of the kind to FRATE, REED, or
anyone else.
61. The video recording of the statement Plaintiff gave to the WPD
defendants proved that he did not make any such statement to FRATE, REED or
anyone else.
62. FRATE similarly claimed that after he showed Plaintiff the video and
screen shots that he stated the person depicted in the pictures and video looked
exactly like him.
63. Plaintiff never made this statement to FRATE, REED or anyone elsei
in fact, Plaintiff told FRATE and REED that he was not the person depicted in the
video and photographs.
64. The video recording of the statement Plaintiff gave to the WPD
defendants proved that he did not make any such statement to FRATE, REED or
anyone else; and that he instead told the WPD defendants that he was not the
person depicted in the video and photographs.
65. The WPD defendants knew—and in fact intended—that the prosecutor
would rely on these false statements in deciding to proceed with the prosecution of
Plaintiff.
66. The statement Plaintiff gave to the WPD defendants was completely
exculpatory.
14 of 23
67. During Mr. Snowden's criminal prosecution, the WPD defendants
claimed that the recording of Mr. Snowden's statement was no longer available due
to a "technical error .
68. Upon information and belief, the WPD defendants intentionally
destroyed the recording of Mr. Snowdens voluntary statement because it was
completely exculpatory.
69. On the night of his arrest, the WPD defendants spoke with Plaintiffs
wife, who confirmed that he was at home the entire night on the night of the
incident.
70. Nevertheless, FRATE signed a Felony Complaint that falsely accused
Plaintiff of committing the burglary, which was filed in Webster Town Court and
formed the basis for Plaintiffs prosecution for alleged violations of Penal Law
Sections 140.25(2) and 155.35(1).
71. While Plaintiff was at the Webster Police Department, the WPD
defendants prepared paperwork that falsely stated he committed the crimes of
Burglary in the Second Degree, PL 140.25, and Grand Larceny in the Third Degree,
and forwarded that paperwork to prosecutors, thereby initiating Ms malicious
prosecution.
72. After being detained at the Webster Police Department for
approximately five hours, Plaintiff was transported to Webster Town Court, where
he was arraigned and released on his own recognizance.
15 of 23
73. As a result of the WPD defendants' unlawful actions, Plaintiff was
prosecuted for approximately seven months, during which time he was forced to
appear in criminal court on numerous occasions.
74. On July 17, 2018, the criminal prosecution terminated favorably to
Plaintiff when the Monroe County District Attorney's Office presented the case to
the grand jury and it returned a no bill.
75. The false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution of
Plaintiff by the WPD defendants caused Plaintiff to sustain psychological and
emotional trauma, loss of liberty, economic and other damages.
Plaintiff by the WPD defendants caused Plaintiff to be fired from his job at M_onroe
Community College.
Plaintiff by the WPD defendants caused Plaintiff to be unemployed for
approximately one year.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

DEPRIVATION OF FEDERAL CWIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
78. Plaintiff re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the above
paragraphs with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
79. All of the aforementioned acts of the TOWN and the WPD defendants
and their agents, servants and employees ("Defendants"), were carried out under
the color of state law.
16 of 23
80. All of the foregoing acts by Defendants deprived Plaintiff of federally
protected rights, including, but not limited to, the right:
a. Not to be deprived of liberty without due process oflaw.

b. To be free from seizure and arrest not based upon probable cause;
c. To freedom from being subjected to false criminal charges by the police;
d. To be free from malicious prosecution;
e. To the right to a fair trial.
81. The aforementioned acts deprived Plaintiff of the rights, privileges and
immunities guaranteed to citizens of the United States by the First, Fourth, Sixth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America
and42lLS.C. § 1983.
82. The acts complained of were carried out by the aforementioned
WPD defendants in their capacities as police officers with all of the actual and/or
apparent authority attendant thereto.
83. The acts complained of were carried out by the aforementioned
WPD defendants in their capacities as police officers, pursuant to the customs,
usages, practices, procedures, and the rules of the TOWN and the WPD, all under
the supervision of ranking officers of said department.
84. As a result of the above constitutionally impermissible conduct,
Plaintiff was caused to suffer economic injuries, violation of his civil rights,
emotional distress, anguish, anxiety, fear, humiliation, loss of freedom, legal
expenses and damages to his reputation and standing within his community.
17 of 23
85. Accordingly, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in a
sum of money which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all courts of lesser
jurisdiction.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

FALSE ARREST UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
paragraphs with tlie same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
87. One or more of the WPD defendants handcuffed and arrested plaintiff.
88. This arrest was made in the absence of a warrant for the arrest.
89. This arrest was made in the absence of probable cause for this arrest.
90. The WPD defendants arrested plaintiff without having exigent
circumstances for doing so.
91. There was no other authority for the arrest of plaintiff.
92. The plaintiff was conscious of this arrest.
93. The plaintiff did not consent to this arrest.
emotional distress, anguish, anxiety, fear, humiliation, loss of freedom, economic
damages, legal expenses and damages to his reputation and standing within his
community.
jurisdiction.
18 of 23
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
97. The Defendant POLICE OFFICERS, acting mdividuaUy and m concert,
initiated the prosecution of Plaintiff, despite knowing that probable cause did not exist to
arrest and prosecute Mr. Snowden for any crime.
98. False and fabricated evidence was given by the WPD defendants to the
District Attorney s Office.
99. The WPD defendants knew or were deliberately and recklessly
indifferent to the truth that probable cause did not exist to arrest and prosecute Mr.
Snowden.
100. There was actual malice and an absence of probable cause for the
criminal proceeding against Mi\ Snowden and for each of the charges for which he
was prosecuted.
101. On July 17, 2018, the prosecution terminated in Plaintiffs favor.
102. As a direct and proximate result of the WPD defendants actions,
Plaintiff was wrongly prosecuted for approximately seven months and suffered the
other grievous and continuing injuries and damages as set forth above.
103. Accordingly, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in a sum
of money which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all courts of lesser jurisdiction.
19 of 23
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION UNDER NEW YORK STATE LAW
105. By the actions described above, each and all of the Defendants, jointly
and severally, acting in concert with each other and with additional persons for
whose acts they are liable, initiated, continued and/or caused the initiation or
continuation of, criminal proceedings against Plaintiff.
106. By the actions described above, each and all of the WPD defendants
violated good and accepted police practices.
107. On July 17, 2018, the prosecution terminated in Mr. Snowden s favor.
108. There was no probable cause for the commencement or the
continuation of the criminal proceedings.
109. The WPD defendants acted with actual malice.
110. The TOWN and WPD employed the WPD defendants, who were at all
times agents, servants, and employees acting within the scope of their employment
witli the TOWN and the WPD, which are therefore responsible for their conduct.
111. The TOWN, as the employer of the individual WPD defendants, is
responsible for their wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
112. As a result of Defendants' impermissible conduct, Plaintiff was injured
and harmed.
20 of 23
jurisdiction.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
115. By deliberately manufacturing false evidence against Plaintiff,
including police reports and other arrest paperwork containing the defendants own
fabricated accounts that Plaintiff was engaged in criminal activity and falsely
claiming that Plaintiff made inculpatory statements during his interrogation, and
forwarding that fabricated evidence to prosecutors, the WPD defendants caused
plaintiff to be arrested, detained, charged, and prosecuted, in violation of her rights
pursuant to the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution, to due process of law and to a fair trial, and are liable to plaintiff
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for compensatory and punitive damages.
emotional distress, anguish, anxiety, fear, humiliation, loss of freedom, economic
damages, legal expenses and damages to his reputation and standing within his
community.
117. Accordingly, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in a sum
of money that exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all courts of lesser jurisdiction.
21 of 23
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all the Defendants on
each cause of action set forth above in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional
limitations of all lower courts that would otherwise have jurisdiction over this
action, together with the interest, costs and disbursements of this action, and
attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
Dated: New York, New York Respectfully Submitted,

October 11, 2019
RO^fi ^ ROTH, LLP
^s
Elliot Dolby SHields, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
New York, New York 10024
(212) 425-1020
e shields@rothandrothlaw. corn
22 of 23
ATTORNEY'S VERIFICATION
ELLIOT DOLBY SHIELDS, an attorney duly admitted to practice before the
Courts of the State of New York, affirms the following to be true under the penalties
of perjury:
I am associated with Roth & Roth, LLP, attorneys for the Plaintiff, I have read
the annexed VERIFIED COMPLAINT and know the contents thereof, and the same
are true to my knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged
upon information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. My
belief, as to those matters therein not stated upon knowledge, is based upon facts,
records, and other pertinent information contained in my files.
DATED: New York, New York

October 11, 2019
ELLIOT DO]r.BY SHIELDS
23 of 23

Webster Wrongful Arrest Lawsuit 10.14.19

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Webster Wrongful Arrest Lawsuit 10.14.19

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

Webster Wrongful Arrest Lawsuit 10.14.19

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 10/11/2019 04:51 PM INDEX NO.

Return To: No. Pages: 23

Snowden, Joseph Time:

Total Fees Paid: $0.00

State of New York

MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE

MONROE COUNTY CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

To the above named Defendants:

relief demanded in the complaint.

DATED: New York, New York

October 11, 2019

ELLIOT D. SHIELDS, ESQ.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Plaintiffs, Index No.:

Plaintiff JOSEPH SNOWDEN, by his attorneys, ROTH & ROTH, LLP,

complaining of the Defendants, respectfully alleges, upon information and belief, as

misconduct of Town of Webster Police Department ("WPD") employees MARK C.

REED, ADAM FRATE, and GRETCHEN 0)DEA ("collectively "the WPD

2. Plaintiff was arrested on December 8, 2017 and prosecuted in 2018 for

a robbery that occurred on November 25, 2017. The prosecution terminated

unavailable; and alleged "identifications after conducting unduly suggestive

"identification" interviews. Plaintiff would not have been arrested or prosecuted, or

3. While the Monroe County District Attorney's Office ultimately

II. THE PARTIES

4. Plaintiff, JOSEPH SNOWDEN, is a resident of the County ofMom-oe,

State of New York.

5. Defendant TOWN OF WEBSTER ("the TOWN") was and is a

6. Defendant TOWN maintains the Webster Police Department ("WPD"),

a duly authorized public authority and/or police department, authorized to perform

aforementioned municipal corporation, the TOWN.

7. At all times, Defendant MARK C. REED ("REED") was a duly sworn

8. At all times, Defendant ADAM FRATE ("FRATE") was a duly sworn

9. At all times, Defendant GRETCHEN 0?DEA C(0?DEA") was a duly

said department and according to their official duties.

of the State of New York and the TOWN.

functions as agents, servants, employees and officers of the TOWN.

done by said defendants while acting in furtherance of their employment by the

III. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

14. Plaintiff, in furtherance of his cause of action brought pursuant to New

December 13, 2018.

giving rise to Plaintiffs State cause of action.

having performed intentional acts.

18. Plaintiff sustained damages in an amount in excess of the

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Lasalle Drive and burglarized the home.

estranged husband, Matthew Coleman.

and Ashby were having significant marital difficulties.

broker, and several people from the cleaning service.

Lasalle Drive on one or more occasions.

iCloud storage to access confidential information" to ruin her reputation.

earlier that week.

investigate the lead.

not to follow up on these leads.

thought that was suspicious.

37. Mr. Snowden always wears eyeglasses, as he has a stigmatism that

However, the individual in the video is not wearing glasses.