Cortes v. City of New York, 1:14-cv-03014

Background

Plaintiff Gonzalo Cortes alleges police assaulted him in custody on July 1, 2013, injuring his shoulder.
Defendants moved for partial summary judgment (excluding excessive-force claim against Officer Christopher Musa). Their Rule 56.1 statement recited that an officer led Cortes to the bathroom, Cortes hesitated, and that officer shoved him into a wall.
Plaintiff’s 56.1 response identified the escorting officer as Musa but relied solely on a letter from plaintiff’s counsel — a document the court deemed inadmissible as evidence of identity.
Defendants’ summary-judgment brief adopted Plaintiff’s identification of Musa and omitted Musa from the excessive-force motion, leading the court to dismiss claims against all other named officers (Cappuccia, Ryan, Schulz, Smith) and leave only Musa as the alleged assailant.
At trial defense counsel then disavowed Musa’s involvement, prompting the court to declare a mistrial and to request supplemental briefing on whether defendants should be bound by their summary-judgment positions.
The court concluded defendants’ strategic 56.1 submissions misled the court; it vacated the prior summary-judgment dismissals as to Cappuccia, Ryan, Schulz, and Smith and reopened limited discovery to properly establish the identity of the escorting officer.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cortes’ identification of Musa in his 56.1 (backed only by counsel’s letter) was admissible evidence to resolve summary judgment	Cortes: the 56.1 identification shows Musa was the escorting assailant	Defs: the counsel letter/identification is immaterial and not properly supported; they reserved rights re: Musa	Court: the letter is inadmissible; a fact cannot be deemed admitted solely on an unsupported 56.1 assertion (Giannullo, Holtz)
Whether defendants’ 56.1 positions operate as binding judicial admissions at trial	Cortes: defendants’ adoption of his 56.1 should bind them	Defs: Rule 56.1 admissions are procedural for summary judgment and not binding at trial	Court: no clear basis to bind Musa at trial on that ground; Rule 56(g) not triggered because the motion was granted in full; but defendants’ hedging is suspect
Whether summary judgment dismissing other officers for excessive force was proper given lack of admissible ID evidence	Cortes: dismissal was improper because defendants relied on unsupported 56.1 to eliminate other defendants	Defs: relied on Cortes’ 56.1 identification of Musa to justify dismissal of other officers	Court: dismissal was error; vacated summary judgment as to Cappuccia, Ryan, Schulz, and Smith and reopened discovery
Appropriate remedy for the evidentiary gap and procedural gamesmanship	Cortes: reopen discovery to identify the escorting officer	Defs: contend there remains a factual dispute and Musa should not be bound	Court: reopen limited discovery (depositions/interrogatories) to identify the officer; parties to file joint certification within 30 days after completion

Key Cases Cited

Giannullo v. City of New York, 322 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2003) (district court may not treat Local Rule 56.1 assertions as admitted when unsupported by the record)
Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., 258 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2001) (Local Rule 56.1 statements are not a substitute for evidentiary record; unsupported assertions should be disregarded)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant may meet summary-judgment burden by pointing to absence of evidence for nonmovant)
Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1997) (general principle that a tort victim who cannot identify the tortfeasor cannot prevail)
Restivo v. Hessemann, 846 F.3d 547 (2d Cir. 2017) (Section 1983 policies include compensation and deterrence of official abuse)
City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247 (1981) (Section 1983 remedies serve deterrence and compensation purposes)