Abascal v. Fleckenstein
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7760
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Isidro Abascal, an Attica inmate (Nov 2003–Mar 2005), alleged officers denied him meals and that Officer Fleckenstein assaulted him in retaliation for filing grievances.\
- Correctional Association of New York (private nonprofit) visited Attica in March 2005 and issued a September 2005 monitoring Report describing pervasive fear, intimidation, and staff retaliation at Attica.\
- The Report summarized anonymous inmate questionnaires, interviews, and observations but did not identify authors or provide underlying raw data or methodology.\
- At trial under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a jury awarded $1 nominal damages and $150,000 punitive damages (split between two officers) for deprivation of nutritionally adequate food; no excessive-force liability for Fleckenstein.\
- The district court admitted the Association Report into evidence (initially under public-records exception, ultimately under the business-records exception); defendants appealed that evidentiary ruling.\
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility: whether the Association Report was admissible despite hearsay rules | Report is reliable and admissible as a business or public record | Report is hearsay and not admissible under business-records or public-records exceptions | Report is hearsay and does not meet the business-records or public-records exceptions; admission was abuse of discretion |
| Timeliness/Personal knowledge for business-records exception | Report was created reasonably soon after the site visit and reflects contemporaneous info | Six-month lag and unknown authorship defeat contemporaneity and personal-knowledge requirements | Six-month delay and lack of identified authors/sources mean it fails the contemporaneity and personal-knowledge criteria |
| Regularly conducted activity requirement | Report arises from routine monitoring activity and summaries of interviews | Report involved selection, interpretation, and summary, not routine recording | Creation required interpretation and selection; not the type of routine record contemplated by the exception |
| Harmless-error analysis | Admission was harmless given other evidence | Admission was prejudicial and likely influenced punitive-damages award | Admission was not harmless: Report bore on credibility, was corroborative, used in summation, and case hinged on credibility contests |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ford, 435 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2006) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)\
- Schering Corp. v. Pfizer Inc., 189 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 1999) (abuse of discretion can include legal or clear factual error)\
- Cameron v. City of New York, 598 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2010) (harmless-error test for evidentiary rulings and relevant factors)\
- United States v. Strother, 49 F.3d 869 (2d Cir. 1995) (importance of contemporaneity for business records)\
- Potamkin Cadillac Corp. v. B.R.I. Coverage Corp., 38 F.3d 627 (2d Cir. 1994) (documents requiring significant selection/interpretation not business records)\
- United States v. Reyes, 157 F.3d 949 (2d Cir. 1998) (duty to report supports reliability for business-records exception)\
- Tesser v. Bd. of Educ. of City Sch. Dist. of City of New York, 370 F.3d 314 (2d Cir. 2004) (burden on appellant to show error was not harmless)