Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

{ . · Case 3:03-cv-010016H Document 11 Filed 10/14/2003 Page 1 of 3 {
l
li? ll . lit-fi {
U I. ....-.• t I
Zililll lill;‘l lll l3> if l 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT _=
PETER PASZKO : i
Plaintiff, CIV. NO. 3:O3CV'IOD‘I (JCH)
VS.
J. MORALES, TIFFANY CUMINOTTO-RIOS
MICHAEL FIUMIDINISI :
Defendants OCTOBER 10, 2003
AMENDED ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
1-3. As to Paragraphs 1 through 3 inclusive, the Defendants have insufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief and therefore leave the Plaintiff
to his proof.
4. As to Paragraph 4, the Defendants ADNIIT they are police officers employed {
by the City of Bridgeport and, as to the remainder, they leave the Plaintiff to his
i
proof.
5. As to Paragraph 5, the Defendants DENY that there were acts and omissions
as described in the Complaint, but ADMIT they were acting as law enforcement
i
officers under color of law. ]
l
i
BMF03103 1 {
l
- . _ _--- V V
` i ` F " T ‘ or · ·*·* n — A
I _ D ` F ` ’ " if ·*-r n -

il I ` Case 3:03-cv-O100@H Document 11 Filed 10/14<»2BO3 Page 2 of 3 f
I
6. As to Paragraph 6, the Defendants DENY that in this incident there was a
violation of Plaintiffs rights to be free from unreasonable force and, therefore, that I
they had a duty in this case. I
7. As to Paragraph 7, the Defendants ADIVIIT that the Plaintiff was arrested on
November 14, 2003, and DENY the remainder thereof.
8. Paragraph 8 is DENIED.
9. Paragraph 9 is DENIED.
10. Paragraph 10 is DENIED.
11. Paragraph 11 is DENIED.
BY WAY OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
At all times mentioned herein, the Defendants were acting as objectively
reasonable police officers and have qualified immunity for their actions. E
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Plaintiff, Peter Paszko, violated Connecticut General Statutes §53a—23 by
using physical force to resist being arrested by the Defendants who were reasonably
identifiable as police ofhcers.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
At all times mentioned herein, the Defendants were authorized to use force to
effect an arrest, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §53a—22(b).
siviroc-has 2
I


I
. Case 3:03-cv-O100®CH Document 11 Filed 10/1 ¢?2%)O3 Page 3 of 3 I
I
THE DEFENDANTS
BY: /§_
Barbara Brazzel-I\/Iassaro L
Associate City Attorney
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
999 Broad Street
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Tel. No. 576-7647
Juris No. 06192 I
I
CERTIFICATION
I
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage I
prepaid, on this 10*** day of October, 2003, to:
Norman A. Pattis, Esq.
51 Elm Street, Suite 409
New Haven, CT 06510
Bar ara BrazzeI—I\/Iassaro I I
Commissioner of the Superior Court
I
Brv1i=0a10:s 3 I