A lawsuit filed against the city of Jamestown and Chautauqua County over alleging misconduct during a 2023 traffic stop has been dismissed in state Supreme Court.

Charles Washington and Mariah Fleming of Jamestown were asking state Supreme Court Justice Grace Hanlon to allow them to file a late claim against the city and county despite it being too late to file under state General Municipal Law Section 50-e as well as asking the city to turn over all records Washington and Fleming had requested through the Freedom of Information Law.

Hanlon made her ruling after reviewing documents filed by lawyers as well as oral argument in June.

“The petitioners argue they have a reasonable excuse for the delay since they were without their cell phones for a period of time, they had difficulty retaining an attorney and were not aware of the notice of claim requirements,” Hanlon wrote in her decision. “The petitioners did not provide any evidence demonstrating that a lack of a cell phone was directly attributable to the delay, on the contrary, it appears there was access to a cell phone through multiple avenues. In addition, the petitioner’s assertion ‘that they were unaware of the notice of claim requirement did not establish a reasonable excuse for their delay.'”

Washington and Fleming alleged in their court filing they were pulled over on Feb. 1, 2023, late in the evening by officers from the Jamestown Police Department, Chautauqua County Sheriff’s Office and other law enforcement agencies. After the stop, they allege they were illegally detained and their vehicle improperly searched without probable cause and without a search warrant. Washington and Fleming say the search didn’t yield any evidence of illegal activity, but the vehicle was towed and impounded while their cell phones were also seized. The phones, according to the court filing, were returned early in 2024.

Elliot Raimondo, city corporation counsel, said in a court filing the city wasn’t notified of any possible legal proceeding until May 13, 2024, long past the May 2, 2023, deadline a notice of claim would have to be filed to meet the requirements laid out in the state General Municipal Law.

While Washington and Fleming say they told a city police officer they would sue the city, Raimondo said in an affidavit filed in state Supreme Court that the threat doesn’t satisfy the state’s legal notice requirement. While Fleming and Washington claimed in their filing that their vehicle was searched illegally, Raimondo said the search warrant and the results of the search show no actionable wrong has been committed by the city. A search of the vehicle, according to documents filed by Raimondo, turned up almost 30 grams of fentanyl and other drug paraphernalia, the vehicle was allegedly determined to be traveling 77 miles an hour in a 65 mile an hour zone on Interstate 86 and Fleming was allegedly driving on a suspended driver’s license.

Washington and Fleming filed a FOIL request on March 21 that was denied by the city on April 8 on the grounds that the documents were part of an ongoing criminal investigation. An appeal was filed April 9 and the city responded April 17 saying the investigation had been closed and the information could be released.

“The petitioners did not submit any written or oral objection to this statement by the city,” Hanlon wrote in her ruling. “The petitioners also requested attorney’s fees and litigation costs under Public Officers Law; this request is denied. The city had an initial reasonable basis for denying the request since it was an ongoing criminal investigation.”

Hanlon also found that the city would have been prejudiced by the late notice of claim. The initial filing argued the city had timely notice because its police officers conducted the traffic stop and filing of charges as well as Washington’s call to the Jamestown Police Department seeking the return of his cell phone. During that call Washington said he would sue the city.

“The petitioners do not raise any argument about how the county received actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of the incident,” Hanlon wrote. “The petitioners’ arguments are unpersuasive. … The allegations by petitioner are inadequate to support that the defendants had actual, timely notice of the essential facts of the claim and the damages or injuries claimed.”