Case: Barry v. City of New York

1:11-cv-05533 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York

Filed Date: Nov. 14, 2011

Closed Date: 2013

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On November 14, 2011, two photographers asked by police for IDs after they took pictures in the subway filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, against the City of New York and the New York City Transit Authority, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs, represented by attorneys from the ACLU of New York State (NYCLU), sought declaratory and monetary relief, alleging false arrest, assault, and battery, in violation of their rights under the First, Fourth, …

On November 14, 2011, two photographers asked by police for IDs after they took pictures in the subway filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, against the City of New York and the New York City Transit Authority, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs, represented by attorneys from the ACLU of New York State (NYCLU), sought declaratory and monetary relief, alleging false arrest, assault, and battery, in violation of their rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the transit authority's ID rule was unconstitutional because it was vague and prone to arbitrary enforcement.

On March 19, 2012, the City (but not the Transit Authority) made an Offer of Judgment to the plaintiffs, offering them compensatory damages in sum of $7,502 plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The plaintiffs accepted the offer on April 2, 2012, thus releasing and discharging the City from the suit. The District Court (Judge Cheryl L. Pollak) consented to the Offer of Judgment and its acceptance.

One of the plaintiffs then withdrew participation in the lawsuit, but the other remained; the Transit Authority remained as a defendant. On March 23, 2013, the District Court (Judge Pollak) granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied the Transit Authority's motion to dismiss the case. The Court declared that the ID rule of New York City Transit Authority was unconstitutionally vague, both facially and as applied. Judge Pollak found that the ID rule, which had criminal applications, did not provide sufficient definiteness for ordinary people to understand what conduct is prohibited and that it failed to discourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. In addition, she ruled, the ID rule reached a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct. Barry v. City of New York, 2013 WL 1182083 (S.D. N.Y. 2013). The Transit Authority filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit.

On May 8, 2013, the plaintiff and the Transit Authority settled the remainder of the case. The New York City Transit agreed to pay attorneys' fees and litigation costs in sum of $14,500 to the plaintiff and to withdraw its appeal of the District Court's March 21, 2013 order. This ended the case.

Summary Authors

Emma Bao (5/28/2013)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4321314/parties/barry-v-city-of-new-york/


Judge(s)
Attorney for Plaintiff

Angelos, Claudia (New York)

Dunn, Christopher (New York)

Eisenberg, Arthur (New York)

Attorney for Defendant

Castro, Johana (New York)

Copertino, Carl Joseph (New York)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:11-cv-05533

Docket [PACER]

May 9, 2013

May 9, 2013

Docket
1

1:11-cv-05533

Complaint

Nov. 14, 2011

Nov. 14, 2011

Complaint

2011 WL 2011

25

1:11-cv-05533

Judgment Pursuant to Rule 68

May 15, 2012

May 15, 2012

Order/Opinion
50

1:11-cv-05533

Order

Aug. 6, 2012

Aug. 6, 2012

Order/Opinion
64

1:11-cv-05533

Memorandum and Order

March 21, 2013

March 21, 2013

Order/Opinion

933 F.Supp.2d 933

75

1:11-cv-05533

Stipulation and Order of Settlement

May 8, 2013

May 8, 2013

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4321314/barry-v-city-of-new-york/

Last updated April 26, 2024, 3 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

Complaint

1 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

Nov. 14, 2011

Nov. 14, 2011

PACER
1

Complaint

1 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

Nov. 14, 2011

Nov. 14, 2011

PACER
1

Complaint

1 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

Nov. 14, 2011

Nov. 14, 2011

PACER
2

Scheduling Order

Nov. 16, 2011

Nov. 16, 2011

PACER
2

Scheduling Order

Nov. 16, 2011

Nov. 16, 2011

PACER
2

Scheduling Order

Nov. 16, 2011

Nov. 16, 2011

PACER
3

Summons Returned Executed

Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

PACER
3

Summons Returned Executed

Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

PACER
4

Summons Returned Executed

Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

PACER
4

Summons Returned Executed

Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

PACER
5

Summons Returned Executed

Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

PACER
5

Summons Returned Executed

Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

PACER
6

Notice of Appearance

Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

PACER
6

Notice of Appearance

Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

PACER
3

Summons Returned Executed

Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

PACER
4

Summons Returned Executed

Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

PACER
5

Summons Returned Executed

Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

PACER
6

Notice of Appearance

Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

PACER
7

Notice of Appearance

Dec. 6, 2011

Dec. 6, 2011

PACER
7

Notice of Appearance

Dec. 6, 2011

Dec. 6, 2011

PACER
7

Notice of Appearance

Dec. 6, 2011

Dec. 6, 2011

PACER
8

Answer to Complaint

Dec. 7, 2011

Dec. 7, 2011

PACER
8

Answer to Complaint

Dec. 7, 2011

Dec. 7, 2011

PACER
8

Answer to Complaint

Dec. 7, 2011

Dec. 7, 2011

PACER
9

Answer to Complaint

Dec. 8, 2011

Dec. 8, 2011

PACER
9

Answer to Complaint

Dec. 8, 2011

Dec. 8, 2011

PACER
10

Answer to Complaint

Dec. 8, 2011

Dec. 8, 2011

PACER
10

Answer to Complaint

Dec. 8, 2011

Dec. 8, 2011

PACER
9

Answer to Complaint

Dec. 8, 2011

Dec. 8, 2011

PACER
10

Answer to Complaint

Dec. 8, 2011

Dec. 8, 2011

PACER
11

Letter

Dec. 12, 2011

Dec. 12, 2011

PACER
11

Letter

Dec. 12, 2011

Dec. 12, 2011

PACER
11

Letter

Dec. 12, 2011

Dec. 12, 2011

PACER
12

Case Management Statement

Dec. 20, 2011

Dec. 20, 2011

PACER
12

Case Management Statement

Dec. 20, 2011

Dec. 20, 2011

PACER
12

Case Management Statement

Dec. 20, 2011

Dec. 20, 2011

PACER
13

Letter

Jan. 12, 2012

Jan. 12, 2012

PACER
13

Letter

Jan. 12, 2012

Jan. 12, 2012

PACER
13

Letter

Jan. 12, 2012

Jan. 12, 2012

PACER
64

ORDER denying 40 Motion to Dismiss; granting 44 Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons stated herein, the Court holds that the ID Rule is unconstitutionally vague on its face and as applied. Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss is denied, summary judgment is granted in favor of plaintiff Barry, and the Court issues a Declaration that the ID Rule, as currently written, is unconstitutional. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak on 3/21/2013. (Klein, Jennifer)

March 22, 2013

March 22, 2013

RECAP
64

ORDER denying 40 Motion to Dismiss; granting 44 Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons stated herein, the Court holds that the ID Rule is unconstitutionally vague on its face and as applied. Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss is denied, summary judgment is granted in favor of plaintiff Barry, and the Court issues a Declaration that the ID Rule, as currently written, is unconstitutional. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak on 3/21/2013. (Klein, Jennifer)

March 22, 2013

March 22, 2013

RECAP
42

RECAP
42

RECAP
42

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: New York

Case Type(s):

Speech and Religious Freedom

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Nov. 14, 2011

Closing Date: 2013

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Two photographers asked for ID after they took pictures in the subway.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

NYU Clinical Law Center

ACLU Affiliates (any)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

City of New York (New York City), City

Defendant Type(s):

Transportation

Facility Type(s):

Government-run

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

State law

Constitutional Clause(s):

Freedom of speech/association

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Monetary Relief

Non-settlement Outcome

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Attorneys fees

Damages

Declaratory Judgment

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Voluntary Dismissal

Amount Defendant Pays: $22,002

Order Duration: 2013 - 2013

Issues

Policing:

False arrest