Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 09-15-2023

Case Style:

Kiyee Kye v. City of New York, et al.

Case Number: 21-CV-3660

Judge: P. Kevin Castel

Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: Mike Lumer and Jay Goldberg

Defendant's Attorney: Omar Javed Siddiqi

Description: New York City, New York civil rights lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendants claiming his civil rights were violated by the Defendants.

Plaintiff Kiyee Kye brings this action against defendants Jonathan Dones, Kachun Chueng, Michael Maloney, Maureen Carey, James Shouldis, Danielle Ambrecht, Michael Collarini, and Mayko Matos, all officers of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) (the “Individual Defendants”), and the City of New York. Kye principally claims he was deprived of rights protected by the Constitution when he was arrested for violating a curfew order.

In a Third Amended Complaint, Kye asserts four claims under section 1983 against the Individual Defendants. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that (i) he was subjected to false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment, (ii) the officers intentionally interfered with and prevented him from exercising his First Amendment right to observe the police action in progress, (iii) he was subjected to excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and (iv) he was subjected to differential treatment from similarly situated white individuals in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He also brings a section 1983 claim for municipal liability against the City of New York, alleging that the First Amendment violation was due to the City's failure to properly train and supervise them. Additionally, the Complaint contains parallel false arrest, excessive force, and free speech retaliation claims under state law, as well as a freestanding claim for “violation of executive order.” The defendants move to dismiss all but the excessive force claims.

Outcome: The motion to dismiss is denied as to the false arrest claims but is granted as to all other claims.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case