University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Barry v. City of New York FA-NY-0006
Docket / Court 1:11-cv-05533-CLP ( E.D.N.Y. )
State/Territory New York
Case Type(s) Speech and Religious Freedom
Attorney Organization ACLU Chapters (any)
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, ... read more >
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.

Emma Bao - 05/28/2013


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Freedom of speech/association
Defendant-type
Transportation
General
False arrest
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action State law
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) City of New York
Plaintiff Description Two photographers asked for ID after they took pictures in the subway.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU Chapters (any)
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Attorneys fees
Declaratory Judgment
Damages
Source of Relief Litigation
Settlement
Form of Settlement Voluntary Dismissal
Order Duration 2013 - 2013
Case Closing Year 2013
Case Ongoing No
Docket(s)
1:11-cv-05533-CLP (E.D.N.Y.) 05/09/2013
FA-NY-0006-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 11/14/2011 (2011 WL 5829578)
FA-NY-0006-0001.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judgment Pursuant to Rule 68 05/15/2012 (E.D.N.Y.)
FA-NY-0006-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 08/06/2012 (E.D.N.Y.)
FA-NY-0006-0004.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum and Order 03/21/2013 (933 F.Supp.2d 416) (E.D.N.Y.)
FA-NY-0006-0005.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation and Order of Settlement 05/08/2013 (E.D.N.Y.)
FA-NY-0006-0006.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Pollak, Cheryl L. (E.D.N.Y.) [Magistrate]
FA-NY-0006-0002 | FA-NY-0006-0004 | FA-NY-0006-0005 | FA-NY-0006-0006 | FA-NY-0006-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Angelos, Claudia (New York)
FA-NY-0006-9000
Dunn, Christopher (New York)
FA-NY-0006-0001 | FA-NY-0006-0006 | FA-NY-0006-9000
Eisenberg, Arthur (New York)
FA-NY-0006-0001 | FA-NY-0006-9000
Hirose, Mariko (New York)
FA-NY-0006-0006 | FA-NY-0006-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Castro, Johana (New York)
FA-NY-0006-9000
Copertino, Carl Joseph (New York)
FA-NY-0006-9000
Evans, Paige Ann (New York)
FA-NY-0006-0006 | FA-NY-0006-9000
Graves, Paige (New York)
FA-NY-0006-0006
Schoolman, Richard (New York)
FA-NY-0006-0006 | FA-NY-0006-9000
Sohn, Liza J. (New York)
FA-NY-0006-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -