Scribd Logo
Încărcați

Bine ați venit la Scribd!

  • Jacob Bergman vs. Hamden

    Încărcat de

    mtuccitto
    178 vizualizări12 pagini
    Jacob Bergman vs. Hamden lawsuit

    Drepturi de autor

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formate disponibile

    PDF sau citiți online pe Scribd

    Vi se pare util acest document?

    Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

    Raportați acest document
    Jacob Bergman vs. Hamden lawsuit

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca PDF sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    178 vizualizări12 pagini

    Jacob Bergman vs. Hamden

    Încărcat de

    mtuccitto
    Jacob Bergman vs. Hamden lawsuit

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca PDF sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    din 12
    RETURN DATE: Sone QY dow SUPERIOR COURT JACOB BERGMAN J.D. OF NEW HAVEN v. AT NEW HAVEN TOWN OF HAMDEN MAY 29, 2014 OFFICER STEPHEN BARIS OFFICER NICHOLAS D/ANGELO SARGEANT JOHN TESTA CHIEF THOMAS WYDRA COMPLAINT FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS 41. The Plaintif, Jacob Bergman (the “Plaintiff” or at times" roman) isa resident of Ann Arbor, Michigan 2. The Defendant, Town of Hamden, is a municipal corporation, organized and existing pursuant to the laws of Connecticut, and located in the County of New Haven. and State of Connecticut 3, The Defendant, Ofcer Steophen Baris Defendant” or ‘Baris’, at all times relevant to this complaint was a police officer, appointed pursuant to relevant law, and regulations ofthe Defendant Town of Hamden and its Department of Police Services. At alltimes relevant o this complaint, Officer Bars was employed by the Defendant Town ‘of Hamden. At all imes relevant to this complaint, Officer Baris was acting in his official capacity a8 a police officer ofthe Town of Hamden. Upon information and belie, the Defendant, Officer Stephen Baris isa resident of Hamden, Connecticut, 4, The Defendant, Officer Nicholas D/Angelo, at all times relevant to this complaint was a police officer, appointed pursuant to the relevant law and regulations of the Defendant Town of Hamden, At all elevant times to this complaint, Officer Nicholas Angelo was employed by the Defendant Town of Hamden. Atal times relevant to this complaint Officer Nicholas D'Angelo was acting in his official capacity as a police officer ofthe Town of Hamden, Upon information and belie, the Defendant, Officer Nicholas D’Angeloisis and was @ resident ofthe County of New Haven. 5. The Defendant, Sergeant John Testa tal imes relevant to this Complaint ‘was a police officer, appointed pursuant tothe relevant laws and regulations of the Defendant Town of Hamden. At all mes relevant to this complaint, Sargeant Testa was employed by the Town of Hamden. At all imes relevant to this Complaint, Sergeant Testa was acting in is official capacity as a police officer ofthe Town of Hamden. Upon information and belie, the Defendant Sergeant Testa is and was a resident ofthe County of New Haven. 6. The Defendant, Thomas Wydra is and was at all imes relevant herein the Chief of Police of the Town of Hamden and was at all times mentioned herein, responsible for the training, supervision, management and central ofall Hamden Police Officers including Officers Baris, D'Angelo and Sergeant Testa. 7. The Plainti’s action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Article First, Sections 7, 8, and 20 of the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, as well as the ‘equal protection and due process clauses of the United States and Connecticut Constitution, and the Common Law of the State of Connecticut. This action claims Violations of the Plaintiffs civil rights, along with negligence, intentional infliction of ‘emotional distress, negligent, reckless infliction of emotional distress and battery. 8. A timely Notice pursuant to Conn. Gen, Stat. §7-465 was served upon the Town Clerk of the Town of Hamden and, accordingly, the Town of Hamden is, as a ‘matter of law, liable and responsible for the actions of its Defendant police officers. 9 On or about June 1, 2012, approximately 12:16 p.m, the Plaintif Jacob Bergman had returned to a rental property he owned at 91 School Street within the ‘aforementioned Town of Hamden( the “property’) to make repairs to its roof at 91 ‘School Street, 10. Upon Mr. Bergman retuming to the property at that time and at this place, the Defendant police officers of the Hamden Department of Police Service, duly ‘employed by the Defendant Town of Hamden, and acting under color of law and in their official capacities entered the 91 School Street property and intrfered with his tenants, ‘and threatened him physically, the Defendants demanded that Mr, Bergman leave the ‘00f ofthe property, Mr Bergman immediately began to comply with the Defendant police officers’ request and did not threaten the Defendant Officers. 11. Atthat time and at that place the Plant, as owner and landlord was lawfully engaged in making repairs to the property at 91 School Steet, subsequent to which a

    S-ar putea să vă placă și