Wrongful conviction
While a conviction stands, a damages claim that says it was wrong cannot be brought. The day the conviction is reversed, vacated or otherwise invalidated, that bar lifts, the claims against the officers who built the case open, and their clock starts. This page goes through the Heck bar and what lifts it, the claims that follow a vacatur, when they accrue, and what it takes to reach the City rather than only the officers.
A wrongful conviction case is a malicious prosecution or fabricated-evidence case with one more step in front of it: the conviction has to fall first. Until it does, the civil claim is not late; it does not exist yet. Once it does, the claim exists, the clock runs, and the years between the arrest and the vacatur become the measure of the injury. The work in these cases is the criminal record: the trial transcript, the evidence that was withheld or invented, the post-conviction motion, and the order that ended it.
The Heck bar, and what lifts it
Under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), a Section 1983 damages claim that would imply the invalidity of a conviction is barred unless the conviction has been reversed, expunged, invalidated, or called into question by a writ of habeas corpus. A claim that the officers fabricated the evidence you were convicted on, or that the prosecution was brought without probable cause, says the conviction was wrong. So it is barred while the conviction stands, whatever the evidence, and however long the conviction has stood.
The bar lifts by one of the routes Heck names: a reversal on appeal, an expungement, an invalidation by a court with the power to grant it, or a federal habeas ruling that calls the conviction into question. The route is the criminal case's, not the civil case's, and it is where a wrongful conviction case begins. The criminal case and civil case page goes through the bar in the other direction, for a person whose case is still open.
Prospective relief is different: Olivier
On March 20, 2026, in Olivier v. City of Brandon, No. 24-993, 607 U.S. ___ (2026), a unanimous Supreme Court held that Heck does not bar a Section 1983 suit seeking purely prospective relief, despite a prior conviction under the same ordinance. A person convicted under a law who wants a court to stop its future enforcement against them is not asking to undo the conviction, and the bar does not reach the request. That does not open the damages claim; it means the two kinds of relief are treated differently, and a suit can ask for one without the other.
What this page does not cover
This page is about the Section 1983 claims against the officers and the municipality whose conduct produced the conviction. Whether a separate claim exists against the State of New York for the conviction and the imprisonment themselves, and on what terms, is a different body of law that is not in our verified ledger, and it is not published here. Ask us; we will answer from the statute, not from this page.
The claims that open when the conviction falls
The claims are the same ones that follow any prosecution that ended without a conviction; the difference is the length of the deprivation and the depth of the record.
Malicious prosecution
A Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim requires that the prosecution "ended without a conviction," and nothing more by way of favorable termination (Thompson v. Clark, 596 U.S. 36 (2022)). A vacated conviction followed by a dismissal is a case that ended without a conviction. Probable cause is then judged charge by charge; probable cause for one charge does not defeat the claim as to a separate, baseless charge (Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, 602 U.S. 556 (2024)). The malicious prosecution page goes through the claim.
Fabricated evidence
In the Second Circuit there is a constitutional right not to be deprived of liberty on the basis of evidence fabricated by an officer acting in an investigative capacity (Zahrey v. Coffey, 221 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2000)), and the claim lies even where probable cause existed (Garnett v. Undercover Officer C0039, 838 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2016)). A conviction built on an invented identification, a rewritten statement or a planted item is the case this claim was made for. The fabricated evidence page goes through it.
Detention on fabricated evidence
The Fourth Amendment governs a claim of unlawful pretrial detention even after legal process begins, where the detention rests on fabricated evidence (Manuel v. City of Joliet, 580 U.S. 357 (2017)). The pretrial detention that preceded the conviction is its own injury and its own claim.
When the clock starts
A fabricated-evidence claim accrues on the favorable termination of the criminal case, not when the fabrication is discovered (McDonough v. Smith, 588 U.S. 109 (2019)). A malicious prosecution claim likewise requires that the case ended without a conviction (Thompson). In New York the federal claims then have three years (Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (1989); N.Y. CPLR 214(5)) and need no notice of claim (Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (1988)). The state-law malicious prosecution claim against the City of New York or another municipality needs a notice of claim within 90 days after the claim arises, which is the favorable termination (N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 50-e(1)(a)), and suit within one year and 90 days (§ 50-i(1)). Which date is the favorable termination, the vacatur or the dismissal that followed it, is the first question we answer from the court file, and the deadline tool cannot answer it for you.
| Claim | What it says | Clock starts | Authority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Malicious prosecution | The charge lacked probable cause and the case ended without a conviction | Favorable termination | Thompson v. Clark, 596 U.S. 36 (2022); Chiaverini, 602 U.S. 556 (2024) |
| Fabricated evidence | An officer invented evidence and it cost you your liberty | Favorable termination | McDonough v. Smith, 588 U.S. 109 (2019); Zahrey, 221 F.3d 342; Garnett, 838 F.3d 265 |
| Unlawful pretrial detention | You were held after legal process on fabricated evidence | Favorable termination | Manuel v. City of Joliet, 580 U.S. 357 (2017); McDonough |
| State-law malicious prosecution (notice of claim) | The same, against the municipality under state law | Notice within 90 days of favorable termination | N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law §§ 50-e(1)(a), 50-i(1) |
Reaching the City
The officers are sued for what they did. The City is not liable under Section 1983 because it employed them. Under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), a municipality is a "person" that can be sued, but there is no respondeat superior; liability lies only where an official policy or custom caused the violation. In the Second Circuit the complaint has to plead an official policy or custom that caused the plaintiff to be subjected to a denial of a constitutional right (Lucente v. County of Suffolk, 980 F.3d 284, 297 (2d Cir. 2020)), and isolated acts by non-policymaking employees are generally not enough to show a custom (Jones v. Town of East Haven, 691 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2012)).
Wrongful conviction cases are where the failure-to-train route is most often argued, and where its limits bite hardest. A failure to train is actionable only where it "amounts to deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of persons with whom the police come into contact" (City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989)). In Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011), the Supreme Court held that a single violation cannot ordinarily support failure-to-train liability; "a pattern of similar constitutional violations by untrained employees is ordinarily necessary." One invented case, however grave, does not by itself make the City liable. A pattern does, and finding the pattern is discovery work: the officers' disciplinary histories, which have been reachable under FOIL since the repeal of Civil Rights Law 50-a in 2020, and the department's own records. The Monell page and the disciplinary records page go through each.
Under state law the City is reached directly, by the notice of claim, and that is the simpler route to the municipality's own liability. Punitive damages are available against the individual officers and never against the City (City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, 453 U.S. 247 (1981)).
Damages, fees and the defenses
The claims carry compensatory damages for the loss of liberty and its consequences, nominal damages where a violation is proved but no loss is (Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 592 U.S. 279 (2021)), punitive damages against the individual officers, and attorney's fees to a prevailing party (42 U.S.C. § 1988(b)). The officers will raise qualified immunity, which shields them unless the conduct violated a clearly established right "of which a reasonable person would have known" (Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)); the qualified immunity page goes through it. This site does not estimate what a case is worth; the what a case is worth page explains why, and the by the numbers page carries the public payout statistics for New York City police misconduct cases, labeled as other people's cases with the Legal Aid Society as the source.
If the criminal case is not over, because a retrial is possible or a charge remains open after the vacatur, talk to your defense lawyer before describing the case or the officers to anyone, in writing or otherwise. The criminal case and civil case page explains why.
New Jersey and Florida
Heck, McDonough, Thompson, Manuel, Monell and Connick apply in every state. The Second Circuit's fabricated-evidence decisions bind the federal courts in New York; New Jersey is in the Third Circuit and Florida in the Eleventh (28 U.S.C. § 41), and this page does not publish their versions. In New Jersey the federal claim and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act claim have two years (N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2; 10:6-2), and a state tort claim against a public entity needs a Tort Claims Act notice within 90 days of accrual, a six-month wait, and suit within two years (N.J.S.A. 59:8-8); the notice does not apply to the Civil Rights Act claim (Owens v. Feigin, 194 N.J. 607 (2008)). In Florida the federal claim has four years (Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)), and a state claim against the agency needs written notice within three years with a six-month wait before suit (Fla. Stat. § 768.28(6)), with damages against the government capped at $200,000 per person and $300,000 per incident, the excess payable only by a legislative claim bill (§ 768.28(5)(a)). The New Jersey and Florida pages go through each.
The charge itself
Favorable termination after Thompson, charge by charge after Chiaverini, and the notice that runs from the dismissal.
Malicious prosecution →Evidence an officer made up
The fair-trial claim in the Second Circuit, why probable cause is not a defense to it, and when it accrues.
Fabricated evidence →Suing the City
Policy, custom and failure to train, and why a single case is ordinarily not enough.
Monell →Common questions
My conviction was vacated. When does the clock start?
On the favorable termination of the criminal case. Under McDonough v. Smith a fabricated-evidence claim accrues when the criminal case ends in your favor, not when the fabrication was discovered, and a malicious prosecution claim requires that the case ended without a conviction. In New York the federal claims then have three years. If the charges were dismissed after the vacatur, the date of the dismissal is the date to count from, and it is a date to have a lawyer confirm from the court file.
Can I sue while I am still appealing?
For damages, not on a theory that the conviction was wrong. Heck v. Humphrey bars a Section 1983 damages claim that would imply the invalidity of a conviction until the conviction is reversed, expunged, invalidated or called into question by a writ of habeas corpus. The appeal or the post-conviction motion is the route to lifting the bar. A suit for purely prospective relief is different: Olivier v. City of Brandon held in March 2026 that Heck does not bar it.
Can the City be sued, or only the officers?
Both, but on different showings. The officers are sued for what they did. The City is liable under Section 1983 only where an official policy or custom caused the violation; it is not liable just because it employed the officer. A failure to train is actionable only where it amounts to deliberate indifference, and a single violation is ordinarily not enough to show that; a pattern of similar violations ordinarily is. Under state law the City is reached by a notice of claim served within 90 days of the favorable termination.
Does this site publish what wrongful conviction cases have settled for?
No figure about this firm's cases, ever. Public statistics about what the City of New York has paid in police misconduct cases, from the Legal Aid Society's analysis of Law Department data, appear on the by the numbers page, labeled as other people's cases. They are not broken out by kind of claim there, and this page does not estimate what any case is worth.
Tell us what happened.
One conversation with an attorney, in your language. We tell you which claims the facts support, which deadline runs first for the agency involved, what evidence to preserve this week, and whether a pending criminal case changes the timing. If it is not a case we can take, we say so and tell you where to go.
(718) 484-7510If a criminal charge is still open, talk to your defense lawyer before you describe the arrest to anyone, including us. English, Russian and Spanish in-house; an interpreter for any other language. Contingency fee, confirmed in writing before we begin.