191 F. Supp. 3d 262
W.D.N.Y.2016Background
- On Oct. 22, 2007, plaintiff Matteo Anello spoke during a Niagara Falls City Council "good of the community" segment, reading prepared remarks criticizing Council Chairman Robert Anderson for alleged anti-Italian remarks and citing terms "guineas" and "greaseballs." Video of the incident was admitted at trial.
- Anderson declared Anello out of order, Officer Tallarico was summoned, Robins banged the gavel, and Tallarico arrested Anello for resisting arrest and disorderly conduct; Anello never finished his remarks.
- Anello claimed emotional distress and reputational harm (embarrassment, withdrawal from civic activities); son corroborated behavioral effects.
- At trial a jury found Anderson and Robins violated Anello’s First Amendment rights and awarded $30,000 compensatory and $75,000 punitive damages; Fruscione was alleged to have turned off a recording microphone.
- Post-trial, court granted Defs’ Rule 50 motion in part (dismissed Fruscione), denied it as to Anderson and Robins, reduced punitive damages by remittitur, awarded plaintiff attorneys’ fees and reduced taxable costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Fruscione violate First Amendment by turning off recording microphone? | Fruscione’s action formed part of a scheme to silence Anello. | Turning off recording mic did not affect in-chamber amplification or prevent speech. | No — Fruscione’s act did not restrict speech; judgment as a matter of law for Fruscione. |
| Did Robins and Anderson violate First Amendment by silencing speaker? | Their actions (gavel banging, declaring out of order, summoning officer) were motivated by disagreement with viewpoint and thus unconstitutional. | Actions were reasonable maintenance of order; gavel use was within discretion and not aimed at viewpoint suppression. | Yes — sufficient evidence for jury that Anderson and Robins silenced Anello due to viewpoint; verdict upheld. |
| Are defendants entitled to qualified immunity? | N/A (plaintiff argues law clearly established). | Defs claim objectively reasonable belief their conduct was lawful. | Robins and Anderson not entitled to qualified immunity; Fruscione would be entitled but dismissed on merits. |
| Are damages (compensatory and punitive) excessive? | Compensatory and punitive awards reflect emotional harm and need to deter. | Awards excessive; punitive unwarranted/too large. | Compensatory ($20,000 total after Fruscione dismissal) upheld as not shocking; punitive remitted to $20,000 total ($10,000 each) — plaintiff may accept remittitur or face new punitive-damages trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Galdieri-Ambrosini v. Nat’l Realty & Dev. Corp., 136 F.3d 276 (2d Cir.) (standard for Rule 50 JMOL review)
- Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (U.S. 1995) (government may not restrict speech based on viewpoint)
- Hotel Emps. & Rest. Emps. Union v. City of N.Y. Dep’t of Parks & Recreation, 311 F.3d 534 (2d Cir.) (forum analysis for government property; limited public forum principles)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (prevailing plaintiff ordinarily recovers attorney’s fees)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2003) (factors for reprehensibility and punitive damages proportionality)
- BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (U.S. 1996) (guideposts for punitive-damages review)
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (U.S. 2010) (standards for reasonable attorney’s fees)
- Nadel v. Isaksson, 321 F.3d 266 (2d Cir.) (JMOL standard parallels summary judgment)
- Cruz v. Local Union No. 3 of the Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 34 F.3d 1148 (2d Cir.) (jury-verdict sufficiency standard)